IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI 2017-088-1600 [2018] NZHC 2046

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL CAMERON

Hearing:	9 October 2018	

Appearances:	
J P R Scott for Crown
D J Blaikie for Defendant	

Judgment:	
9 October 2018	

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Solicitors & Counsel
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei
D Blaikie, Barrister, Kaikohe

R v CAMERON [2018] NZHC 2046 [9 October 2018]

[1]       Daniel Cameron, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated robbery and five charges of kidnapping for your part in a robbery of The Warehouse, Dargaville in May 2017. The maximum penalty for each of these charges is 14 years imprisonment.1   This is your second-strike offence.  This means that you must serve the full term of the sentence I impose on you without parole.2

[2]       You have also pleaded guilty to one charge each of driving while disqualified,3 driving under the influence of drugs,4 possession of cannabis,5 and breach of prison release conditions, charges on which you are also to be sentenced today.

The facts of the offending

[3]       The summary of facts to which you have pleaded is the factual basis for your sentence. I need to make clear that, to the extent that my sentencing remarks may refer to co-defendants yet to be tried, I make no findings about the guilt or innocence of those co-defendants.

[4]       On 28 May 2017 at around 11.00pm, you and a co-offender, Mr Anderson – who has already been sentenced for his role in this offending – went to the rear of the Warehouse store in Dargaville.   You were wearing black clothing, homemade balaclavas and latex gloves. You removed two wooden fence palings which led to an area where workers can sit outside and smoke.  From there you entered the building’s administration area through a ranchslider door which had been left insecure.

[5]       You were armed with a cut down .22 calibre rifle. Mr Anderson armed himself with a screw driver and a pair of scissors from the office.  You watched the workers via the CCTV system from the manager’s office until the supervisor called over the store’s intercom system that it was time for “smoko”.  By that time, you had both put on red Warehouse vests taken from workers’ lockers.

1	Crimes Act 1961, ss 235(c) and s 209.
2	Sentencing Act 2000, s 86C(4).
3	Land Transport Act 1988 ss 32(1)(c) and 32(3); maximum penalty three months imprisonment or
$4,500 fine, and mandatory disqualification of at least six months.
4	Land Transport Act, ss 58(1)(a) and 58(2); maximum penalty three months imprisonment or
$4,500 fine, and mandatory disqualification of at least six months.
5	Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, maximum penalty three months imprisonment or $500 fine.

[6]       There were five staff working in the main store area that night. As the first two employees entered the administration area, you confronted them and told them that if they did anything stupid they would be shot. You directed the two victims at gunpoint into the toilet area, holding the 68-year old male victim by the collar and threatening to “blow [his] head off”. The two victims were told to face to the wall and their hands were bound with an electrical extension cord and then the two victims were tied together.

[7]       You and Mr Anderson confronted the three other victims, all females aged between 40 and 63, as they entered the administration area and directed them into the toilets.   After identifying the supervisor, you bound the other  two victims with electrical cord.

[8]       Mr Anderson watched over the four bound victims. You told the supervisor to take you to the money.  While still holding the gun, she took you to the store’s safe room which you told her to open. Once it was opened, you required the supervisor to place all the cash and jewellery in the safe into a black sports bag.

[9]       You then bound the supervisor’s arms and hands with sticky tape and, using electrical cord, bound her back to back with two victims in the toilet area.  All five victims were made to sit on the toilet floor.  You then rifled through the employee’s personal property, including the supervisor’s handbag.

[10]     You asked the supervisor if she wanted you to phone someone to inform them of the robbery so that she and the other hostages could be released. When she said she simply wanted you both to leave, you did so, taking her handbag with you. The victims then managed to free themselves and contact the police.  They did not sustain any physical injuries, aside from one victim who had some minor lacerations on her arms from the bindings.

[11]     A few days later, shortly before 2.00pm on 1 June 2017, you were stopped by police while driving a vehicle.  Police noticed drug utensils and searched the vehicle, finding two grams of cannabis.  You were arrested for driving during your six-month disqualification period imposed on 26 April 2017.  At the police station, you failed a

compulsory impairment test and blood analysis determined the presence of methamphetamine in your system.

[12]     The total cash and cheques stolen from the Warehouse was $27,612. The total retail value of the approximately 400 items of jewellery stolen was $242,805.  As
Mr Scott said the cost price of the jewellery was in the order of $38,541, which would bring the total haul to $66,153.  In any event, the goods of a substantial value were taken.  To date, only one ring has been recovered, and no cash has been located. The stolen handbag contained items valued at $800.

Impact on the victims

[13]     I have now read the victim impact statements handed up this morning and they confirm as I expected, that this episode had a traumatising impact on your victims, even, though as Mr Blaikie pointed out, some of them seem to be recovering reasonably well.

[14]     While you say you have been willing to participate in a restorative justice process, it is not surprising that all of the victims have declined to do so for various reasons.

The offender’s personal circumstances

[15]     You are 25 now, and were 24 at the time of the offending. You were born and raised in Dargaville and whakapapa to Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua and Te Raewa.  Your father died in a car accident when you were three years old.  You say you and your brother were also in the accident.  You were raised by your mother and say that you were always looked after.

[16]     As Mr Blaikie has said, for a person of your age you have a long history of previous convictions for property and driving related offences and for breaches of sentences, for many of which you have received sentences of imprisonment. You have been in custody for over six of the last nine years of your life.  Over that period, the longest time you had out of prison was nine months in 2010.  That is very sad for a young man.

[17]     In 2012, you were convicted of an aggravated robbery that you committed in

2011.  Upon conviction, you received your first strike warning and were sentenced to four years and two months imprisonment. The fact that you have committed a second aggravated robbery has important consequences for your sentence to which I will return.

[18]     You have stated that crime is all you knew how to do and that you are aware that is sad.  You say that you want to change so that you can show your little cousins there is an alternative to becoming a criminal.  You also acknowledge the harm that your offending is causing your mother and that one day you would like to make her proud. You also credit your recently deceased Nan for helping you take responsibility for your actions, something which I hope you will continue to build upon to reform your life.  I also note what you said about these matters in the letter that you handed up to me this morning.

[19]     You say that at the time of the offending you were high and had been awake for days due to consuming methamphetamine.  You had been smoking meth for a period of three or four months prior to your arrest after trying the drug to “understand the lifestyle” you say but that you could not stop.   You would seem to have a dependency on methamphetamine prior to your arrest, but it is not clear to me that your offending is primarily driven by drug-addiction. You report that you first joined a gang at age 10, and have associated with two gangs since then.  You say that gangs are not for you anymore. On the summary before me and your circumstances, it is not clear that this offending is gang-driven.

[20]     Whatever motivated you, it was foolish for you and the others involved to think you could pull off a stunt like that in town like Dargaville and get away with it.  You would get caught sooner or later.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[21]     In sentencing you, I have considered the purposes and principles set out in ss

7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2000.  In particular, I have had regard to the need to hold you accountable for your offending, the need to promote in you a sense of responsibility  for  and  an  acknowledgement  of  your  offending,  and  the  need  to

denounce the conduct in which you were involved.   I have also considered the relevance of deterring you and others from committing similar offences.

[22]     I must take into account the gravity of the offending with which you were involved, including your respective culpability. I must consider the seriousness of this type of offending, and the general desirability of consistency of appropriate sentencing levels with your co-offender and with similar offenders committing similar offences. I am also mindful that I must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances and that I need to consider your personal circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation.

Approach to sentencing

[23]     In sentencing you, I must first select a starting point that reflects the seriousness of your offending and your individual culpability. I will then adjust that starting point having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors personal to you.

Selecting the starting point

[24]     I adopt the charge of aggravated robbery as the lead charge in your offending. As counsel have both said, the guideline judgment is R v Mako.6  The Crown and your counsel agree that Mako, in particular, paragraph [54], is applicable to your case - although they have proposed quite different starting points.

[25]     Paragraph [54] of Mako identifies the following factors which, the Court of

Appeal says, warrants a starting point of six years’ imprisonment. These are:

(a)	The robbery of commercial premises where members of the public can be expected to be present;

(b)	Targeting substantial sums in tills or a safe by a group;

(c)	Using a lethal weapon;

6	R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 (CA).

(d)	The use of disguises and other indications of preparation.

[26]     The Court of Appeal goes on to say the starting point should increase to eight years when firearms are loaded, the danger of harm is increased in other ways, or actual violence is used, and that a starting point of at least nine years would be justified when the offending has the hallmarks of a gang operation and if firearms are presented to the police.

[27]    The Crown submits that a starting point of nine years imprisonment is appropriate in your situation, relying on the aggravating features of planning and premeditation, disguises, use of weapons, detention of and threats to the victims, and the value of the property stolen.  That was the starting point adopted by Judge de Ridder when sentencing your co-accused, Mr Anderson.  The Judge took into account the disguises, premeditation and planning, two offenders, use of weapons, and vulnerable victims working late at night when no one else was about.

[28]     Clearly, the fact Judge de Ridder adopted that starting point is highly relevant and persuasive given you and Mr Anderson acted in this together, with you, arguably, playing a more serious and culpable role given your brandishing of a firearm.  That said, I am required to come to my own decision based on my understanding of the facts and the law.

[29]     As Mr Blaikie has said the Court in Mako envisaged that the elements present in the current offending would attract a starting point sentence of six years. This is on the basis that the firearm was not loaded, the danger of harm or violence was not increased, and actual violence was not used.  Your counsel emphasises that you have insisted that the firearm was not loaded during the robbery. There was no post-robbery offending, there is no evidence this was gang-related offending, and you asked the victims whether you could ring anyone to notify them, which is said to show your appreciation of what you did being frightening to the victims.

[30]     There is force in those points.   It is also appropriate to take into account paragraph [58] of Mako, which states that forced entry to premises at night by a number of offenders seeking money, drugs or other property, with violence against

victims, where weapons are brandished even if no serious injuries are inflicted, would require a starting point of seven years or more.

[31]	I am satisfied that your offending has the following aggravating features:

(a)       A moderate degree of premeditation and planning, established by the use of homemade disguises, black clothing and latex gloves.7  It would be stretching things, however, to say your planning was sophisticated and well-thought through.

(b)	The presence of a lethal weapon in the form of the firearm you brought.

You maintain that the cut-down rifle was unloaded.  When you were arrested the police located in your vehicle a 12 gauge pump action shotgun, containing one round of ammunition.  This appears to be a different firearm to the one used in the robbery, which does not seem to have been recovered.  There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the firearm you used in the robbery was loaded.  Generally, the use of an unloaded firearm gives rise to less danger, but the firearm remains an aggravating feature given that its purpose is to induce fear into and coerce victims by making them believe they are in mortal danger.8

(c)       Threats of violence towards staff members.   While you used such threats to intimidate and achieve your purpose, you did not use any actual violence during this robbery.  That is significant because actual violence on top of threats and intimidation takes the conduct into another dimension and would attract a higher starting point.9

(d)       Binding  and  immobilising  the  staff  members  was  terrifying  and traumatic and adds to the overall criminality.10

7	R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 (CA) at [36] and [38].
8	At [39].
9	At [43].

(e)       Entry of a commercial premises where you expected to be able to secure a reasonably high potential gain – although I accept you did so at an hour when the general public were not likely to be present and were not present.

(f)       The value of the property stolen, in that there were substantial sums of cash and jewellery taken from the premises which have not been recovered.11

[32]     The only mitigating feature of your offending, which I take into account in assessing the seriousness of the associated offending, is that you showed a degree of empathy to the victims, offering to call someone to ensure that the victims would be released promptly.  While this may have been to give you enough time to make your getaway, it does show a degree of concern for your victims’ wellbeing that slightly mitigates the overall treatment of the victims – but only slightly.

[33]     So, having regard then to the fact that your offending involved two offenders entering commercial premises at night seeking money and other property, with an unloaded firearm, disguises and other indications of preparation, threatening, detaining and tying up victims, albeit while not using violence against them, with substantial sums stolen, I consider a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment to be appropriate.

[34]     I consider your case more serious than the Mako example for a six-year starting point because of your detaining and tying up the employees. But I see your offending as somewhat less serious than the Mako example where eight years was appropriate because your firearm was unloaded, no actual violence was used, and there was no evidence of a gang operation. That is why I consider a starting point of seven years to be appropriate, whether it is expressed as a starting point of six years imprisonment for the features of your aggravated robbery followed by an uplift of one year imprisonment for the kidnapping charges, or as a starting point taking into account the associated kidnapping/detention as aggravating the seriousness to reach seven years.

[35]    In reaching the starting point of seven years I have also had regard to comparable cases involving offending similar to yours:

(a)       In Anderson v R, a starting point of seven years imprisonment was held to be within range for a carefully planned aggravated robbery of small commercial premises.12

(b)       In R v Marsters, a hotel robbery involving a reasonable degree of planning and premeditation, targeting of commercial premises to try maximise gain, yet where no actual violence was used and substantial sums stolen, was held to warrant a starting point of seven years.13

(c)       In Tukaki v R, the Court of Appeal held that a starting point of eight and a half years was at the top of the available range for an aggravated robbery with a significant level of planning and premeditation.14

(d)       Starting points of between seven and a half and nine years were adopted in High Court decisions involving a robbery of a tavern in Papakura after considerable planning by six offenders armed with a range of weapons including a loaded sawn-off pump-action shotgun, during which five victims were detained – although not bound – and actual violence was used with the punching and kicking of one victim who needed hospital treatment.15

[36]     As I have said, the associated charges of kidnapping form part of the extended aggravated robbery offending and elevate its seriousness.  I have taken into account the detaining of victims as an aggravating feature of your offending and do not propose to apply a further uplift for the kidnapping charges.

12	Anderson v R [2014] NZCA 410.
13	R v Marsters [2013] NZHC 1434.
14	Tukaki v R [2013] NZCA 411
15	R v Tuku-Inamata [2014] NZHC 2654; R v N [2014] NZHC 2236; R v Wellington [2014] NZHC
2993; R v Inamata [2015] NZHC 284.  These starting points were confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Martin v R [2016] NZCA 213, although the Court of Appeal commented that that the starting points for Mr Tuku-Inamata and N of eight years each could be regarded at the lower of the available range given the violence and threats associated with the offending; at [11].

[37]     I turn next to your minor driving and possession charges and the charge of breach of prison release conditions.  I must decide whether to uplift the starting point to reflect this discrete offending. As the Crown acknowledges, no uplift was imposed on Mr Anderson for his cannabis offending.  Mr Blaikie notes that it may well be this offending was implicitly incorporated into the starting point chosen by Judge de Ridder in order to explain the starting point of nine years.

[38]     Whether or not that was so, I am not satisfied that an uplift is appropriate in your case.  I am guided by the recent decision of Paerau v R, where the Court of Appeal held that when evaluating an uplift for non-second strike offending as part of the totality assessment under s 85(4) of the Sentencing Act, the Court should take into account that any uplift will be served in full and must also adhere to the requirements of  s  8(g)  of  the  Sentencing Act  to  impose  the  least  restrictive  outcome  that  is appropriate in the circumstances.16   Having regard to totality and the relatively minor nature of these charges in the context of your overall offending, I decline to impose an uplift for your driving-related offending, cannabis offending and your breach of prison release conditions.

Personal aggravating features

[39]     I turn now to address your personal aggravating factors.  You committed the present offending while subject to a sentence of 80 hours community work for minor driving and theft charges.   Offending while subject to sentence may in some circumstances warrant a minor uplift.

[40]     More relevant is your previous conviction for aggravated robbery.  In 2012, you were convicted for an aggravated robbery committed in 2011, for which you received your first strike warning and were sentenced to four years and two months imprisonment. You were 19 and were accompanied by two co-offenders, aged 12 and
13. I note that both the present and 2011 aggravated robbery you were six years older than your co-offender(s) at the time. This suggests that you are not a young and naïve offender pressured by older members of family or friend groups into offending –
rather, you may be the mature figure in these scenarios.

16	Paerau v R [2018] NZCA 139 at [40].

[41]     In 2011, you had a machete with a 30cm blade while your two co-offenders carried carving knives and a screwdriver. The shop owner picked up a piece of wood and blows were exchanged with you, resulting in cuts to the victim’s ear, arms and torso before he retreated. You then stole $50 of cash from the till and your co-offenders smashed up parts of the shop interior causing over $6000 worth of damage.  Even so, apart from a conviction for a male assaults female in 2010, you do not otherwise have a history of violent offending.

[42]     The Crown submits an uplift is required to reflect this previous conviction for aggravated robbery. Your counsel submits that while this Court could impose an uplift of up to six months to reflect this, given you must serve your full sentence without parole any uplift would give an unjust outcome and be a crushing sentence for a 25- year old.  Both the Crown and Mr Blaikie have referred me to the Court of Appeal decision of Barnes v R17 in support of their submissions.  In that decision, the Court of Appeal held that when imposing a stage 2 or second sentence strike sentence which must be served in full, a sentencing judge is not precluded in law from considering the parole consequences and should have regard to whether a sentence, including its non- parole consequences, would be disproportionately severe or manifestly unjust.18

[43]     As the Court of Appeal held in Barnes, it will be an exceptional case in which the loss of parole is taken into account when constructing a second-strike sentence.19
However, as both counsel have referred to today, the Court of Appeal in Wipa v R confirmed, that while as a matter of sentencing practice the Court usually sets the term of a sentence without reference to parole, this is not an inflexible rule and the Court may  depart  from  it  for  good  reason  in  pursuit  of  Sentencing Act  objectives.20
Specifically, the Court held that when considering an uplift for previous convictions, or for offending while on bail or subject to sentence, the court should decide whether, having regard to the loss of parole under s 86C, an uplift is needed to achieve the sentencing  purposes  of  denunciation,  accountability,  deterrence  and  community
protection.21

17	Barnes v R [2018] NZCA 42, [2018] 3 NZLR 49.
18	Barnes v R [2018] NZCA 42, [2018] 3 NZLR 49 at [56] and [77]-[79].
19	Barnes v R [2018] NZCA 42, [2018] 3 NZLR 49 at [79].
20	Wipa v R [2018] NZCA 219 at [35].
21	Wipa v R [2018] NZCA 219 at [36].

[44]     I am not satisfied that such an uplift would serve those statutory purposes in your case.   Rather, I consider an uplift could be disproportionately severe in your circumstances.  Those include the circumstances appointed to by Mr Blaikie of the risk of you becoming institutionalised and I regard those circumstances sufficient to establish exceptionality as referred to in Barnes and Wipa.  Moreover an “uplift” to recognise your previous conviction is inherent in the denial of parole for this second- strike offence.22   Your offending while subject to a sentence was for unrelated and minor driving and theft charges, as reflected in the sentence you were serving. I consider that to impose an uplift for either of these features would be disproportionately severe in the overall context of your offending and your personal circumstances, bearing in mind that you will be serving a long-term sentence without eligibility for parole.  This is compounded when compared to the eligibility of parole your co-offender.23   Mr Anderson would be eligible for parole after one third of his final sentence, and it would appear he had a largely similar role to you.  That is, he would be eligible for release just before two years.

Personal mitigating features

[45]     I turn first to consider your age.   Discounts for youth are available where appropriate, balancing the seriousness of offending and prospects of rehabilitation, to recognise the neurological differences which give young people, until their mid- twenties, reduced impulse control and decision-making capacity as compared to more mature adults; to recognise the disproportionately severe impact of a long prison sentence on a young person; and to recognise the greater potential for rehabilitation of young offenders in some cases.24

[46]     You were 24 at the time of the offending.  This places you at the very upper end of the available range for a youth discount. You are 25 now. Given you are not a first-time offender and in fact have a history of frequent offending from a young age and have committed a second aggravated robbery, I do not consider that you are of

22	Wipa v R [2018] NZCA 219 at [26]-[29].
23	Barnes v R [2018] NZCA 42, [2018] 3 NZLR 49 at [58].
24	Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 53, (2011) 25 CRNZ 446 at [77]; Lawson v Police [2016] NZHC
1158 at [32].

such an age that you are substantially less culpable for your actions.  Your case for a youth discount is not compelling.

[47]     However, the Courts recognise long sentences cause particular difficulty for young people.25   You are going to serve a long period of imprisonment without any prospect of parole, and to acknowledge the potentially crushing impact of a long prison sentence on a young person I grant a modest discount. In conversation with the report writer you said you did not want to “just get sentenced and rot away”. Avoiding that fate and more prison sentences in the future will require serious motivation and determination from you, Mr Cameron.

[48]     This brings me to your prospects of rehabilitation.  You are assessed as very high risk of re-offending due to your history of offending while sentenced and of gang- affiliations, and a very high risk of harm due to your use of a firearm and a machete in both aggravated robberies.  You did not complete the Special Treatment for Violent Offenders having been exited from that programme when last in custody due to misconducts.  You have expressed frustration at “white man’s programmes” and you are assessed as benefitting from a Specialist Maori Cultural Assessment.  A report under s 27 of the Sentencing Act has not been prepared.  Nonetheless, it is my view that culturally relevant programmes to assist in strengthening your ties to your whanau and whakapapa may be appropriate to reduce your likelihood of reoffending.  You have expressed remorse and a determination to start again.  The pre-sentence report notes that you have several re-integrative needs, including housing, financial management, vocational training and employment.  You hope to undertake building qualifications while in custody so that you have employment options upon release.  I encourage you to follow through on that.

[49]     I consider that a combined discount of 9 months, or around 10 per cent, is appropriate to reflect the features of the disproportionately severe consequences of a long prison sentence on a man as young as yourself, as well as your positive prospects of rehabilitation.   This brings your sentence to six years and three months imprisonment.

25	Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 53, (2011) 25 CRNZ 446 at [77](b) and [87].

[50]     You are entitled to a further reduction in sentence to recognise your early guilty plea.  The Crown submits that a discount of up to 15 per cent is appropriate.  Mr Blaikie submits that that a discount of up to 20 per cent is appropriate.  I appreciate that, knowing you faced a long prison term, you were reluctant to risk being labelled as an informer and you have not provided assistance to police. Your plea was entered some four months prior to trial.  Mr Anderson pleaded guilty and was sentenced in January this year. He received between 20 and 25 per cent credit. Given the difference it seems right that you receive between 15 and 20 per cent.  I give you a credit of one year and one month.

[51]     That brings your sentence to one of five years and two months’ imprisonment.

Sentence

[52]     Regarding reparation, I consider Judge de Ridder’s approach to Mr Anderson is proper, in that there is no possibility of your paying the Warehouse but that you should be liable for $200 to the supervisor as your portion of compensation for her handbag.

[53]     The report writer notes that  you have $1505 in outstanding Court fines,

$754.67 in outstanding Court fees.  Given the long period of imprisonment without parole ahead of you, I remit these so they at least are not hanging over you.

[54]     Mr Cameron, would you please stand.

[55]     On the charge of aggravated robbery, I sentence you to five years and two months’ imprisonment to be served without parole in accordance with s 86C(4) of the Sentencing Act.

[56]     On the five charges of kidnapping I sentence you to one year imprisonment, in each case to be served concurrently.

[57]     On the charges of driving while disqualified, driving under the influence of drugs, possession of a Class C drug, and breach of prison release conditions, you are convicted and discharged. However, as required by ss 32 and 58 of the Land Transport

Act 1998, you are disqualified from driving for a period of six months following conviction of the driving related offences.

[58]     The effective sentence is five years and two months’ imprisonment.

[59]     I suspend your sentence of community work in accordance with s 78(7) of the

Sentencing Act.

[60]     In accordance with s 86C(6) if, but for this being your second strike, I would have ordered you to serve a minimum period of imprisonment, I must state the period with reasons.  You are young and have stated your desire to rehabilitate. Placing the barrier of a minimum term of imprisonment might detract from the Parole Board assessing your progress and providing motivation for you to reform.  On the other hand, given the seriousness of your offending, but for this being your second-strike offence, I would have sentenced you to a minimum term of two years and six months’ imprisonment in order to hold you accountable for the harm done, denounce and deter the conduct and the type of offending.

[61]     As you are aware, this is your second strike.  This is now your final warning which will explain the consequence of another serious violence conviction.  You will be given a written notice outlining these consequences which lists these serious violent offences.

[62]     If you are convicted of any serious violent offence, other than murder or manslaughter, then you will be sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment for each offence.  That will be served without parole or early release unless it would be manifestly unjust.

[63]     If you are convicted of manslaughter, committed after this warning, then you will be sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Judge must order you to serve at least
20 years imprisonment unless the Judge considers it would be manifestly unjust to do so, in which case the Judge must order you to serve a minimum of at least 10 years imprisonment.

[64]     If you are convicted of murder after this warning, then you must be sentenced to imprisonment for life and the Judge must order you to serve the sentence without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.  If the Judge finds that it would be manifestly unjust to do so then he or she must impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 20 years, unless that would be manifestly unjust, in which case the Judge must sentence you to a different minimum period of imprisonment.

[65]     If you are sentenced to preventive detention you must serve the maximum term of imprisonment of the most serious offence for which you are convicted, unless the Judge considers that would be manifestly unjust.

[66]     That is my sentence Mr Cameron.  It gives me no pleasure to impose such a sentence on someone as young as you are. You have said you want to break out of the pattern of gangs and criminality in which you have been trapped these past years.  I urge you to follow through on the steps you have identified that will help you take control of your own life.  Even after serving this sentence you will be a young man with the best part of your life ahead of you. Please use the opportunities for the training and rehabilitation available to you, and do not come back before this Court for this kind of reoffending.

[67]     You may stand down.

G J van Bohemen J