IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 22-02200, CR-23-00839, CR-23-00840, CR-23-00841

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
MAGUD MANIEL		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE McINERNEY	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	13 April 2023 and 9 June 2023	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 June 2023	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Maniel & Anor	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 1073		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:			CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: 		Armed robbery – Causing injury intentionally – Possession of a drug of dependence – improper possession of an Australian travel document – Robbery 
Legislation Cited:		s 18, s 75, 75A Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) – s 73 Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) – s 32(4) Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) – s 6AAA, s 16(3C) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:		Farmer v The Queen [2020] VSCA 140 - The Queen v Brock Mills [1998] 4VR 225 - Azzopardi [2011] VSCA 372 - Bugmy [2013] HCA 37 - Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169 
Sentence:		Aggregate total effective sentence 2 years and 4 months, non-parole period of 12 months 451 days PSD, Fine, Disposal Order and Compensation Order,

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms E. Strugnell	Mr. D. Marino	
			
For the Accused	Mr T. Battersby	Ms G. Dean	

HIS HONOUR:

1	Yes, Mr Maniel, you can hear us?  Mr Maniel, can you hear us?
2	OFFENDER:  M'hmm.
3	HIS HONOUR:  Yes?
4	OFFENDER:  Yes, I can, Your Honour.
5	HIS HONOUR:  Good, thank you.
6	This plea to indictment no.11889526 took place on 13 April.  Ms Strugnell appeared on behalf of the prosecution, Mr Marino appears today, and Mr Battersby appeared and does today on behalf of Mr Maniel.
7	The sentence given the relative youth of Mr Maniel, his personal background and the plea of Mr Battersby has been one that has been not easy and has caused me some consideration.  Importantly in that regard, Mr Maniel has never been subject to a sentence of confinement, much less gaol, albeit that he has been remanded.  During the two mentions, alternative paths were discussed with Mr Battersby as to a sentence either by way of a deferred sentence or a CCO.  The issue is however, Charge 1 in this particular indictment, that is 5(2H), relates to a charge of armed robbery which is an offence pursuant to s75A of the Crimes Act, which brings with it a maximum penalty of 25 years' gaol.  Given the circumstances, it is a defined category 2 offence, which pursuant to s5(2H) of the Sentencing Act, must be met with a prison sentence, unless circumstances detailed in the section are established.
8	At the original hearing, no s5(2H) submission was made, however the matter was adjourned until 9 June for consideration of the defence position and consideration by all parties of Farmer v The Queen [2020] VSCA 140.  In order to give the Court flexibility, the Court ordered a Community Correction report which was provided to the Court, the report being dated 18 April 2023 and being tendered today as Exhibit B, which included a mental health assessment dated 1 April 2023, such a report being a positive report in regard to Mr Maniel.
9	It was felt also appropriate to transfer the matters which I had been advised were in the Magistrates' Court relevant to Mr Maniel to this Court, to again provide sentencing flexibility.  In fact, on analysis, the matters were not matters which were going to proceed to the Magistrates' Court, but in fact which were in the indictable stream, to be forwarded to this Court to be heard by a jury.  In that regard, I requested counsel on the original plea to hold the briefs to the adjourned date because of the number of matters being considered in Mr Maniel's sentence.
10	When we resumed, in fact, three new indictments were filed, to which Mr Maniel also pleaded guilty.  Firstly, indictment no. K117119371, a charge of possess a quantity of cannabis on 19 May 2019, which insofar as sentencing was accepted by counsel in the sense that, given the circumstances, Mr Maniel would be sentenced on the basis of possession for the purpose of trafficking, for which the maximum sentence provided under the section was five years.  In that particular indictment, Exhibit A prosecution opening was tendered to which Mr Battersby indicated acceptance of the facts of that opening as the facts upon which I am to sentence his client.  Mr Maniel had no priors as of that date and was placed on bail.
11	On that resumed hearing, Mr Battersby also entered a plea to the five summary offences associated with that indictment.  
(1)	a breach of Rule 48.1 of the Road Safety Rules, as to turning right, for which the maximum penalty is three penalty units; 
(2)	a failure to produce licence, an offence under s59(2) of the Road Safety Act, for which the maximum penalty is five penalty units; 
(3)	a breach of the provisions as to learner driver and driving unsupervised which is a breach of the Road Safety Regulations 46.2 for which the maximum penalty is 20 penalty units; 
(4)	a breach insofar as not having a L plate displayed upon driving of s47(1) of 
the Road Safety Regulations for which the maximum penalty is 3 penalty units; and finally, 
(5)	summary offence five, dealing with the proceeds of crime, being in this instance, a sum of $2,470 cash, an offence pursuant to s195(1) of the Crimes Act which has a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
12	The second additional indictment filed is indictment no.M11396723.  This related to a robbery committed by Mr Maniel on 18 June 2021, being the robbery of an iPhone and various other Nike items from one Maniel Pesa, such is an offence against s75 of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty prescribed is one of 15 years imprisonment.  The summary matter that we received a plea from Mr Battersby too, Charge 2, is a breach of s30B of the Bail Act, for which the maximum penalty is one of three months' gaol.  Insofar as the indictment, Mr Battersby accepted the facts as detailed in Exhibit A of this indictment, the prosecution opening as the facts upon which I am to pronounce sentence upon his client.  Given that by now he had a prior and had been convicted on 12 December 2020, he had received for that a 12 months CCO and the provision therefore of s16(3C) now applies of the Sentencing Act, insofar as such offence was committed while on bail.  
13	The third additional indictment is indictment no.M11268407.  This involved a further charge of robbery, this time committed on 19 June 2021, when Brock Roberts was robbed of a mobile phone.  Again, Exhibit A tendered in regard to that indictment as to the prosecution opening was accepted by Mr Battersby as the facts upon which I am to sentence his client.  Mr Battersby also pleaded guilty on his client's behalf to two summary offences.  Charge 9, being a breach of Bail Act under s30B for which the maximum penalty imposed is three months' gaol, and Charge 12, deal with suspected proceeds of crime, in this instance three phones for which pursuant to s195 of the Crimes Act, there is a two-year maximum penalty.
14	Exhibit B was the victim impact statement tendered by Mr Roberts dated 4 April 2022.  This crime was committed when he now had a prior offence and while he was on bail, therefore s16(3C) of the Sentencing Act applies.  
15	At the adjourned hearing Exhibit 4 was tendered which was a letter from Mr Maniel to the Court as to his own self-realisation and intent in the future, and Exhibit 5 which were four negative drug screens recorded in gaol, from 22 October 2022 to 10 March 2023.  
16	This morning also tendered was a reference, Exhibit 6, which I have already referred to and it presents as a very glowing testament insofar as Mr Maniel is concerned, from Mr Semra.  As I have already detailed insofar of each of those additional indictments, there were orders made for those matters to be heard in this Court.
17	The ultimate submission of the prosecutor, Mr Strugnell was that given the armed robbery, its circumstances, and what he described as Mr Maniel's active participation in such crime, there was no option but a prison sentence.  Further he submitted that the offence had been committed while on bail, and was further aggravated by the fact that he was serving a Community Correction Order at the time.
18	Before I come to the defence submission and my conclusion, I should describe the offending of each of the four indictments that I have to sentence on.  I will begin in date order.
19	The possession of a drug of dependence, in this instance for the purpose of offending, indictment no.K11719371, is an offence against s73(1) of the 
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act for which the maximum penalty prescribed is five years' imprisonment and/or 400 penalty units.  Insofar as this offence is concerned, it is indicative of what Mr Maniel describes in his letter, Exhibit 4, of his last five years.  That is from the age of 18, he was 19 at the time of this offending, having his life afflicted by his involvement with drugs.
20	As detailed in Exhibit A to this indictment he was found in a car with $2,230 cash, deposited in the boot, a number of Ziplock dealer bags of cannabis weighing 40 grams, and $240 cash in the front passenger seat.  As I said, he is to be sentenced as agreed on the basis that such possession was for a trafficking purpose.
21	It should be pointed out that this sentence, if it was unrelated to the other matters involved would, given the amount, albeit the purpose, have more than likely not involved any gaol and most likely have been involved a Community Correction Order, given that he had no priors, no gaol and it was an early plea ultimately.
22	Insofar as the next indictment, that is the robbery upon Mr Pesa, this is an offence under s75 of the Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty is 15 years imprisonment.  At this stage Mr Maniel was aged 21.  The offence set out in indictment M11396723 as I have said was a robbery upon Mr Pesa on 18 June 2021.  On the basis of a ruse committed upon Mr Pesa, Mr Pesa arrived at a property to allegedly do a deal in regard to the sale of Xanax.  He was lured by Mr Maniel inside the property from the street where they had met and he was then attacked in company and struck by someone unknown.  
23	He was restrained by Mr Maniel.  His phone was taken from him as were various items that he was wearing under the Nike brand.  Mr Maniel was able to be identified by Pesa who knew him.  As I said this crime was committed while on bail and at that stage in circumstances where he did have a prior offence.  Given the circumstances, it might be said he was lucky that he not charged with aggravated robbery.  There is no victim impact statement. Again, if it was dealt with on its own, more than likely no gaol would have been imposed and perhaps a further Community Correction Order imposed.
24	The next indictment is no.M11268407 and this concerns the robbery of Mr Roberts.  This offence again is pursuant to s75 of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty is 15 years imprisonment, occurred on 19 June 2021.  Here again Exhibit A as I have said in this indictment demonstrates the crime was committed with four 
co-accused.  Again, one might remark it is fortunate that Mr Maniel was not charged under s75A.  The phone of Mr Roberts was demanded and he was physically assaulted by not only Mr Maniel but another person who I believe to be called Hassan.  After some struggle the phone was taken and taken back to the car.  
25	Roberts was injured as a result of the joint assault.  The police arrived at the scene and Mr Maniel was found with a stolen scooter upon his lap in the car.  This has no reference to this charge against Mr Maniel, but was the property of a friend who had been at the scene with Mr Roberts.  The observations made at the time by the police was that Mr Maniel was non-responsive, in what was perceived to be him affected by drugs.
26	The victim impact statement, Exhibit B, was tendered on behalf of Mr Roberts.  He describes from the assault having problems with his jaw.  His jaw tightens and he suffers from pain.  He suffers from ongoing stress recalling the circumstances of this assault.  He has suffered from loss of income, and in particular the loss of the value of the phone for which he paid apparently $649.50.  In his statement, he states that without the phone he became agitated, anxious and somewhat disconnected, and in particular at p10 of such statement, reports feeling particularly unsafe after having been subjected to such crime.  
27	As a result of these crimes, Mr Maniel was placed on remand for a period of 41 days, until he was then bailed on 16 August 2021.  He then failed to appear when he was bailed to appear on 15 March 2021 and spent 114 days in gaol until 17 July 2022, when he was then further bailed.  As to dealing with that offence on its own, it is difficult to say even in the circumstances because by then, there were aggravating factors and clearly this was a serious robbery.
28	I come then to the final indictment which Mr Maniel was before the Court originally and that is indictment N11589526.  Clearly as detailed by the prosecutor, from the time of the offence in the first indictment, that is 19/05/19, which was simply a drug offence, there has been an escalation in the offending of Mr Maniel leading to the circumstances that are before us in this indictment.  He was 22 at the time of this offence.  As I have said Exhibit A was the summary, accepted by Mr Battersby.  The offence took place on 19 August 2022.  
29	The prosecutor submitted that not only was it a grave category 2 offence, but that here Mr Maniel was a willing participant throughout.  He willingly took place in the assaults and was party to the use of the gun, although he at no stage held it.  He made the demands for the money, he physically took part in obtaining the money from the victim's account and depositing such funds into his own account.  He was part of a deprivation of the victim, over an extended period of time, and was also part of the threats made to the victim insofar as not telling the police.
30	Insofar as the crime itself subterfuge was used to lure the victim who had attended the address in Ascot Vale, Union Street.  He was then lured into apartment 10 eventually, at 40 Ascot Street, Ascot Vale. When Mr Maniel entered the room he was introduced as the biggest 'gansta' around.  Mr Maniel assaulted the victim with a closed fist.  The co-accused entered with a gun, and put the gun to the victim's chest. Mr Maniel at the same time continued to assault the victim.  The victim was asked for his phone passcode which he gave, and $1,900 was transferred to Mr Maniel's Commonwealth account, and ultimately $500 was transferred to the co-accused.  
31	The wallet of the victim was obtained and both accused hit and kicked the victim, in this regard see [25] of Exhibit A.  The car of the victim was then driven away by a third co-accused and as I have said threats were made to kill the victim by both Mr Maniel and the co-accused, if he told the police.
32	Insofar as the injuries to the victim, Mr Singh, Exhibit C was tendered.  It shows that he suffered from displaced nasal bones and a fracture to the right zygomic area.  It should be pointed out that any fracture of the zygoma, on either side of the face, requires considerable force.  He had bruising around the left eye.  He had broken teeth and fractured ribs.  In the victim impact statement Exhibit B at p5 he talks of needing capping insofar as the six chipped teeth.  He had fractured ribs, the pain from that is obvious.  He says that it took him 10 days to recover his walking capacity.  In particular, he was concerned about the $1,900 stolen from his ANZ account, the loss of income that he had suffered as a result of this crime, and the damage to his car.  At p7 of the victim impact statement he said that he was socially scarred as a result of this crime.
33	Mr Battersby on behalf of Mr Maniel as I have said, pleaded guilty to two summary offences in this matter.  Again, one was a breach of bail and another was a proceeds offence which related to two licences and one bank card.  
34	In regard to the totality of the indictments I signed a disposal order relevant to the drugs as to the drug indictment and the offence which took place on 19 May 2019.  And insofar as the last indictment, I have signed a compensation order in the sum of $1,900 in favour of Mr Singh.
35	Hence upon analysis, owing to the influence of drugs and the associated lifestyle, Mr Maniel has indeed, as put by the prosecution, progressed in his criminality over the two years and two months from the first indictment to the fourth indictment, from a person involved in drug matters, albeit that such drugs were for trafficking, to a category 2 offence under s75A.
36	The PSD has now been agreed at 451 days, which makes up approximately 14 months.
37	I come back to my opening remarks in the last hearing made to Mr Battersby.  
On such resumed hearing I indicated to Mr Battersby that I had read all the materials tendered by the defence, in particular Exhibit 2 the psychological report of Ms Lechner, augmented during the adjournment by Exhibit A the CCO assessment and the MHARS assessment.  I indicated to Mr Battersby upon analysis of Farmer v The Queen [2020] VSCA 140 and the high hurdle required under s5(2H)(e), see [51] of such report, that such operation as detailed by the Court of Appeal, will be at times harsh, but the stringency of the test cannot be avoided.
38	I indicated to Mr Battersby that upon the accumulation of factors identified by him in oral submission, not put in the original written submission, see Exhibit 1, [68], but the factors now put to me I found were not such to satisfy the stringency of the test required under s5(2H)(e).
39	As Mr Strugnell submitted, the principles of R v Brock Mills [1998] 4VR 225, [241]-[242], are diminished where you have such grave offences and the circumstances surrounding such offences which related to the category 2 offence.  Indeed, as I said to Mr Battersby given the totality of the pleas that were now before the Court it did not present a pretty picture for his client.
40	Mr Battersby submitted that the Mills principle still applied.  With which of course, I agree.  As I say of course, they apply, albeit at the time of the last offence that his client was 22.  However given his age, the sentencing principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation must be moderated in the interests of rehabilitation.  Mr Battersby also referred to Azzopardi [2011] VSCA 372, in particular the comments of the then Court of Appeal Justice Redlich, as he then was, at [59]-[68].
41	I then come to the plea made to the Court on Mr Maniel's behalf by Mr Battersby, I refer to the written plea, Exhibit 1, and to the oral matters put to me.  The first matter concerned the personal circumstances of Mr Maniel.  The case of Bugmy [2013] HCA 37 was referred to, and again given the refugee background demonstrated in regard to Mr Maniel such principles need to be looked at and always apply, if one can be satisfied that the offending is connected in some way to the deprived background alleged.  See in particular [28] of such case.
42	However, upon my analysis, despite his childhood experiences in Sudan prior to arriving in Australia at the age of four, and the traumatic memories as described by Ms Lechner in her report Exhibit 2, in particular at p2, he seems to have settled into Australia very well. He has achieved excellent results at school and in sport.  Unfortunately then, as set out in his letter, from approximately the age of 18, the role of drugs seemed to have played a major role in his life.  Such appears to have equally coincided with loss of confidence, the tragic loss of a friend at an early age, and unfortunately his failure to gain a pathway to a basketball career, for which he showed great promise, due to injury.
43	Looking at the totality of his circumstances, insofar as Bugmy is concerned I don't identify profound childhood deprivation as being such that the weight that should be given to personal and general deterrence should be moderated at all.  
See [29].  
44	I accept that all the offending is explained by his drug taking.  In particular the armed robbery charge was committed when he was affected by benzodiazepines.  
45	As to the armed robbery I accept that the co-accused, who was aged 29 and is yet to be tried, was the instigator and person who actually used the gun.  
However, as I have said, I accept the description of the prosecution that Mr Maniel was an enthusiastic participant.  Indeed, such was accepted by Mr Battersby at 
[7] of his submission, that the totality of the circumstances present the Court with a serious example of this offence.  Mr Battersby put that certainly, 
he had no priors at the time of this offence.  
46	Exhibit 4 that I have referred to, the letter written by Mr Maniel was tendered to the Court and I accept the genuineness of Mr Maniel's desires to change his life, given his recognition of what he describes as a waste of the last five years of his life.  I perceive, despite the seriousness of these offences as Ms Lechner remarks at p3 of Exhibit 2, that Mr Maniel is socially and emotionally immature and that his decision making was undermined by drug taking.
47	As I have stated he is a person who has not been in gaol before he was remanded however, he has now served a period of 451 days by way of pre-sentence detention.  The mitigating factor of a plea of guilty was put to me by Mr Battersby which I accept insofar as all of the indictments and the summary charges that I have rehearsed.  I accept that such indicates remorse by Mr Maniel and a desire to assist justice.  I accept that in the circumstances all of the pleas are utilitarian.
48	I also accept that the principles set out in Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169, [39] apply, whereby all of the pleas are such that, given that they are made in circumstances where the legal system is still beset by the delays caused by the pandemic, that an enhanced greater weight is to be given in mitigation upon such pleas, and a more pronounced amelioration of sentence is appropriate.
49	Finally, Mr Battersby submitted, given Mr Maniel's relatively young age, that a crushing sentence should not be applied, despite the seriousness of the armed robbery charge and s5(2H) of the Sentencing Act.
50	Fundamental to the plea of course was the hope of rehabilitation for Mr Maniel.  
As I have said at the age that he is now before the Court, he is still relatively young.  One would hope he takes the opportunities eventually to fulfil the early promises that he has shown.  The Court has a desire to limit his experience in gaol and the effects that gaol can have upon a young person.  However, when he does exit gaol, fundamental to your life, Mr Maniel is that there are no drugs utilised by you.  In this regard I note the very strong character reference that has been recently filed at the Court by Mr Semra, concerning Mr Maniel.
51	Unfortunately owing to my determination as to the necessary sentencing in regard to the armed robbery, I do not accept that I can defer the sentence under s85A(1), so that Mr Maniel can create circumstances, by his hopeful ongoing rehabilitative steps, which would enable me to then impose a combined sentence under s44.  I have concluded that given the offence, the mandate of s5(2H) must be complied with.
52	Alternatively, Mr Battersby submitted I could impose a straight sentence for armed robbery, then a CCO for the balance of the offences.  However, given my view of the required sentence for the armed robbery, 38(3) of the Sentencing Act would render such suggestion nugatory.
53	It is particularly unfortunate Mr Maniel for you, however as the Court of Appeal said in Farmer:
'The operation of s2H will in some cases be harsh.  However, the stringency of that test laid down by Parliament cannot be avoided in this instance by this court'.
54	I am also in sentencing required to take into account, s16(3C) of the Sentencing Act.
55	Taking all of the above into account, Mr Maniel I sentence you as follows.
56	Given the circumstances, Mr Maniel is in custody and on remand, Mr Maniel you can just stay seated, I will pronounce the sentence, I will hear from counsel as to any concerns they have as to the meaning of such sentence and then, 
if necessary, Mr. Battersby can have the opportunity to talk to you before the connection is turned off.
57	I am going to deal with the armed robbery indictment first, that is indictment no.11889526.  
58	Insofar as the armed robbery charge, Charge no.1 on the indictment, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years.
59	In regard to the second charge, of cause injury intentionally to Mr Singh, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of six months.
60	In regard to the third charge, possession of methamphetamine, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of two months.
61	In regard to Charge 4, the possession of bendiadiazephine, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of two months.
62	And in regard to the final matter, the Commonwealth charge related to the breach of the Passports Act, I convict and discharge you of that matter.
63	I make no order for cumulation and I accept the tension in that decision with the mandate of s16(3C) of the Sentencing Act.  However, despite the clear intent of the Parliament, I find upon the basis of the factors that I have detailed, and in particular on the basis of totality, that any cumulation would be inappropriate. 
64	Therefore the total effective sentence imposed in regard to the indictable five offences, is a period of two years.
65	Insofar as the summary offences, Charge 12, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of one month, and on Charge 15, a period of imprisonment of three months.
66	The total effective sentence for all sentences in regard to that indictment and the summary matters is therefore two years.
67	Coming then to indictment K11719371.  As I have said Mr Maniel, had no priors on the date of that offending and as I have said he would usually be granted a Community Correction Order if it was heard alone, especially considering the positive report, despite the reservation made in the report as to the struggle that Mr Maniel may have as to rehabilitation unless he frees himself from drugs.  However, in all of the circumstances, I have decided to impose a penalty of 
four penalty units, effected very much by the volume of the drug found, albeit the purpose.  The relevant penalty unit at the time was $161.19 and, in those circumstances, he will be fined the sum of four penalty units.
68	As to the five summary charges, the same penalty unit value applies:  
(1)	In regard to Summary Charge 1, a fine of one penalty unit.  
(2)	Summary Charge 2, a fine of one penalty unit.  
(3)	Summary Charge 3, two penalty units.  
(4)	Summary Charge 4, one penalty unit.  
(5)	And the final proceeds offence, Charge 5, two penalty units.  The total of the fines imposed in that indictment is the sum of 11 penalty units, being $1,460.71.
69	Then coming to indictment no.M11396723.  As I have earlier remarked at this stage he is on bail and therefore s16(3B) of the Sentencing Act applies, and he is also on a Community Correction Order.  He is still at this stage a young offender, being aged 21.  Again, given the circumstances, he was probably lucky not be charged with armed robbery and the prior essentially is unrelated.  However, the offence itself must be acknowledged. In the circumstances, I have determined that he should be sentenced to a period of imprisonment on this robbery charge of 12 months.
70	I order that two months of that sentence be cumulated upon the sentence imposed in the armed robbery charge, indictment no.11889526.  
71	As to Summary Charge 2 that relates to this indictment, I will impose a period of imprisonment of one months' gaol.
72	Finally, coming to indictment no.11268407.  The second robbery charge for which as I have said, a maximum penalty of 15 years applies.  Clearly like the other offence, it was committed while he was part of a drug milieu, however this was an attack undertaken in particular on strangers.  As to the victim impact statement, Exhibit B, in this matter, it was fortunate indeed that the victim did not suffer a broken jaw, thereafter he suffered for six months tightness in the jaw area and face and had social and emotional concerns about the loss of his property.
73	Again, as I have already noted, at the St Kilda police station, non-responsiveness of Mr Maniel was reported by the police officers.  Taking all matters into account in regard to that indictment, I impose a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. I order that two months be cumulated upon the sentences imposed earlier by me on indictments no.11889526 and 11393723.  That is this two months be cumulated upon the sentence imposed in both indictments.
74	In the summary charge to that indictment, Charge 9, I impose a period of imprisonment of one month.  Charge 12, a period of imprisonment of three months.  
75	The aggregate sentence therefore imposed in regard to all indictments is two years on the armed robbery indictment and cumulated upon that and each other is two months for each of the robbery indictments, making a total aggregate for the three indictments of two years and four months.
76	For clarity I indicate that all sentences imposed on the summary charges, which involved imprisonment are to be served concurrently with such aggregated order.  In regard to all fines imposed, I order a stay of 12 months.  
77	Insofar as the aggregate period of imprisonment imposed on Mr Maniel of two years and four months, I order that he serve a minimum period in gaol but before being eligible for parole of 12 months.
78	I declare pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing Act, that the period served to date of 451 days be deemed service of the aggregate period of imprisonment imposed for all of these indictments. That therefore means that subject to him being granted parole, he can indeed be released as he is in fact served more than the minimum period on remand.
79	I have signed the disposal order as to the drug offence.  I have signed the compensation order in regard to Mr Singh, for the sum of $1,900, for which I grant a 12 month stay.
80	Pursuant to 6AAA, I indicate that had Mr Maniel not pleaded guilty to the indictments before me, the aggregate period of imprisonment imposed would not have been two years and four months with a minimum period to serve of 12 months, but a period of 40 months with a minimum to serve of 28 months.  The purpose Mr Maniel of advising you that is that Parliament wants it to be made very clear that if you have pleaded guilty you should understand the benefit of that plea, by way of understanding the higher sentence that would have been passed upon you had you not pleaded guilty.  It is a very difficult analysis to make, given the volume of factors that I have had to talk about in this instance.
81	Mr Maniel, you now have a very serious offending history at a young age.  You are now 23.  You have a history of two convictions for robbery, one for armed robbery and one for possession of drugs, for the purpose of trafficking.  For all those crimes you have been given a sentence of two years and four months.  Given that you have already served approximately 14 months on remand, you would be now eligible for parole, once arrangements are made by Corrections.  However, as best I can understand it, it will not be long before you are released.  
82	What I want to remind you of is the words to the Court in your letter, Exhibit 4, as to the total loss of your life over the last five years and your intent for the future.  You need to get back to school in whichever way you can, part-time or full-time.  You need to get back to sport, in whichever you can.  Even if it's, because of your injury, it has to be in administration.  You obviously have great skills given the glowing character reference.  Most importantly, you must be not involved again in drugs.  It leads you to criminality and this serious criminality.  There is a positive being Exhibit 5, the negative scans that have been reported in gaol.  Also, you will have the ability to come and be supported by your family who have been there always for you.  It seems to me that they are the sort of steps that you need to take to change your life, because given the serious nature now of the offences of which you have been convicted, you come back to this Court on serious charges and you will not get such a lenient sentence, do you understand?
83	OFFENDER:  Yes.
84	HIS HONOUR:  So, Mr Maniel, the Court hopes that you do effect the rehabilitation that has been put to me that you intend to effect.
85	OFFENDER:  Yes.
86	HIS HONOUR:  Gentlemen is there any matters that I need to clarify.
87	MR BATTERSBY:  Not from me Your Honour.
88	MR MARINO:  The element - - - 
89	HIS HONOUR:  Sorry, Mr Maniel?
90	OFFENDER:  Can I ask one question please?
91	HIS HONOUR:  Yes.
92	OFFENDER:  Um, I wanted to ask with um, parole, would I have to do the violence course?
93	MR BATTERSBY:  I'll speak to Mr Maniel about that those matters.
94	HIS HONOUR:  No, Mr Maniel, what I'm going to do, do you want take the advantage of talking to him here?
95	MR BATTERSBY:  If I can, I know Your Honour has another matter listed in this Court.
96	HIS HONOUR:  Well, I don't mind if you do that.
97	MR BATTERSBY:  If I could just have two minutes, that would be excellent.
98	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, all right.  I've got to stand down when they re-assemble anyway.
99	MR BATTERSBY:  Thank you, Your Honour.
100	HIS HONOUR:  But Mr Tipstaff if we could arrange for Mr Battersby to have the opportunity to talk to his client for a couple of minutes before we re-assemble another Court.
101	TIPSTAFF:  Yes, Your Honour.
102	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you both for your assistance, much appreciated.
103	MR BATTERSBY:  If Your Honour pleases.
104	MR MARINO:  As Your Honour please.
105	OFFENDER:  Thank you, Your Honour.
106	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, well good luck Mr Maniel.  I don't want to see you again, 
I say that in the nicest way, all right?
107	OFFENDER:  Yes, no worries.
108	HIS HONOUR:  Except in the sporting news.
- - -