IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
GENERAL LIST		

Case No. CR-22-01504

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
MICHAEL DRAGOVIC 		
---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF PLEA:	24 November 2023	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 November 2023	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Dragovic	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 2217		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords:	Guilty plea - criminal damage - common law assaults - persistent breach of a family violence intervention order - attempt to pervert the course of justice - intimate partner violence - phone call from prison directing the victim to withdraw statement - disputed fact concerning whether violence implied in prison phone call - committing indictable offence whilst on bail - good prospects of rehabilitation based on compliance with CISP bail and a CCO since release on bail. 
Cases Cited:	 Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; DPP v Oksuz [2015] VSCA  316;  DPP v Reynolds [2022] VSCA 263; Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342. 
Legislation Cited:	 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Sentence:	Total effective sentence of 24 months non-parole period of 12 months.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr Davis	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Offender	Mr Hooper	James Dowsley and Associates	

HIS HONOUR:

1	Michael Dragovic, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of criminal damage which has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, six charges of common law assault which has a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, one charge of persistent breach of a family violence intervention order which has a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and one charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice which has a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to committing an indictable offence whilst you were on bail maximum sentence three months' imprisonment.
2	You were born in November 1974.  You were 47 years old at the time of the offending. You were living at Unit 106, 33 James Street Windsor. You were on bail for an unrelated matter. 
3	The victim is Ranae Smith. She was 40 years old at the time of the offending. A secondary victim in the matter in relation to criminal damage is Larry Williams. 
4	Before the offending in this case, you had been in an intimate relationship with Ms Smith for the preceding four months or so.
5	She usually lived with her mother in Mount Waverley, but she would often stay at your unit and sometimes at Mr Williams’s residence. 
6	On 12 January 2002 you were with the victim Ms Smith at your unit. You were unwell.  She called an ambulance for you. Whilst she was on the phone, you became angry and called her a 'using bitch' and said she 'doesn’t give shit' about you. You then left the unit. 
7	Shortly after 3.00 am on 13 January 2023 Ms Smith left the unit and went to Mr William’s residence.  She attempted to contact you unsuccessfully until about 11.00 am when you told her she owed you money and that you would report her to the police for theft. 
8	At 11.20 am, you told her that you were coming over to Mr Williams’s place. 
9	At approximately 11.30 am, Ms Smith, inside Mr Williams’s residence, heard a car turn up outside. She recognised the sound of your vehicle. At that time, she and Mr Williams were sitting in the office of Mr Williams’s residence. 
10	The complainant then heard a loud banging at the front door.  Mr Williams told you to wait as he was looking for the keys to unlock the front door, but you continued to bang on the door. Ms Smith describes the banging as 'really loud and really hard.'  It was sufficient to break part of Mr Williams’s front door causing a piece of the wooden door to break off.  That is the substance of Charge 1, criminal damage.
11	As Ms Smith unlocked the front door, you repeatedly yelled at her 'get in the fucking car'.  She got in your Mercedes Benz sedan that was parked in the middle of the road.  She was afraid you would hurt Mr Williams and continue to cause a scene. 
12	You then sped away from Mr Williams’s residence. 
13	A witness, Michelle Kardis, drove her vehicle into Watson Street Armadale at approximately 11.20 am and parked 50 metres away from your vehicle.  She heard a male voice 'yelling and screaming' and a 'really loud banging' coming from next to where she had parked.  She also observed you to grab Ms Smith by the arm and lead her towards your vehicle, at which time Ms Smith looked 'very hesitant'. As you were screaming at Ms Smith, she observed you get into your vehicle and speed off. 
14	Whilst you were driving erratically to your unit you punched Ms Smith to the head multiple times with your fist.
15	At approximately 11.35 am, you arrived at your apartment complex and parked your car in the underground carpark. Ms Smith was in the vehicle.  As you and Ms Smith entered the front door of the apartment complex, you kicked her twice to her buttocks with your right foot. This incident was captured on CCTV footage and is the basis of Charges 3 and 4 of common law assault.  The earlier assault in the vehicle was the basis of Charge 2.
16	As you and Ms Smith approached the lift in the main foyer, you struck her to the back of her head with your left open palm, causing her to stumble forward.  Again, this was captured on CCTV footage.  This is the basis of Charge 5, common law assault.
17	You told Ms Smith to 'get the fuck upstairs'. 
18	Inside the unit you continued yelling at her and accused her of lying to you.  At this time, you became physically aggressive again towards her throwing her around, causing her to fall over, and you kicked her in the leg area.  This is the basis of Charge 6, common law assault.
19	You also pushed her on the couch.  You would not let her off the couch and you punched her multiple times, including to the arms, chest, neck, face, head and back.  That is the basis of Charge 7 of common law assault, as I follow it.
20	When she was able to Ms Smith managed to leave the unit and got as far as the staircase to the ground floor, and you caught up to her at that point and stood in front of her, preventing her from leaving.  You continuously told her to return to the unit.  CCTV footage captured her running from the apartment complex onto the street at 11.50 am, closely followed by you. 
21	 Once inside, as Ms Smith tried to walk away, you pulled her ponytail causing her to come back towards you. This was witnessed by Matthew Grindrod who is the chairman of your apartment complex body corporate.  That is the basis of Charge 7, the earlier one Charge 6, was throwing her around.

22	At approximately 12.08 pm, Mr Grindrod let you and Ms Smith back into the apartment complex as neither of you had a security fob.  He observed Ms Smith looking distressed and upset. 
23	After letting you and Ms Smith back into the apartment complex, he called Triple 0 at 12.13 pm.
Police Investigation 
24	At approximately 12.45 pm, two police officers attended your address in response to the Triple 0 call. 
25	Ms Smith opened the door and one of those officers, Constable Scott, immediately observed the bruising on her neck. The other officer, Constable Goodchap, immediately noticed a large knife on the floor. He secured the knife.  He had a discussion with Ms Smith while you were in another room and her response to him was to say, 'I don’t know why you’re here'.  She showed First Constable Goodchap her injuries and he directed you to attend Prahran police station in respect of a family violence safety notice.
26	At approximately 1.15 pm another officer attended your unit and took a series of photographs of Ms Smith’s injuries before she was taken to Mr Williams's residence where police later attended and took photographs of the damage to the front door and further photographs of Ms Smith’s injuries.
27	Later, at 4.08 pm, a family violence safety notice was explained to you and served.
28	At 4.11 pm, you were placed under arrest and were then interviewed.  
Record of interview 
29	In your interview you said:
•	That you had been in bed for three or four days and you had only left your apartment to go outside to get your keys.
•	You said 'Jenna' was your partner and you been in a relationship with her for four or five months and you have lived together in that time.
•	You said the only time you had gone outside in the last four to five days was to look for your keys.
•	You had been unwell, and Ms Smith tried to call an ambulance for you last night.
•	Ms Smith was there with you when you woke up in the morning.
•	You said you had not driven the Mercedes in the last four or five days.
•	You said you did not go to Mr Williams’s residence in Armadale.
•	You said you did not assault Ms Smith.
•	You did not cause the bruising to her arm or any other injury to her.
•	You were shown the CCTV footage of you assaulting Ms Smith in the foyer of the apartment complex and you said you could not recall that happening, but you admitted it was you in the footage.
•	You then later admitted to assaulting Ms Smith in the foyer, but you said you were frustrated at her for leaving and going to a friend’s house.  You asserted that she felt guilty and that she was in the wrong.
•	Later in the interview you said she returned to the apartment of her own will.
•	You denied damaging the front door to Mr Williams’s residence and said the door had always been broken.
•	You said there were no assaults or arguments in the car.
•	You denied grabbing her at Watson Street and you said there was no struggle.
30	After the interview you were charged and remanded in custody.  
31	On 14 January 2022, Ms Smith saw a general practitioner, Dr Gregory Frean.  He observed the following injuries:  swelling to the right temple; bruising to the right cheek; an abrasion and bruising to the right neck; a scratch on the right shoulder; bruising on the right upper arm; a deep bruise to the left upper arm; slight swelling over the left chest; a bruise to the upper right thigh; a large bruise on the left shin; and swelling to the back of the head.
32	Further photographs were taken on 20 January 2022 of the complainant's injuries.  The photographs of her injuries are in the depositions, and I have looked at and considered those photographs.  It is clear she has bruising on many areas on her body including some large significant bruises.
33	On 27 January 2022, a family violence intervention order was issued against you in favour of the complainant.  You were prohibited from contacting or communicating with her in any way.  You were served with that order on 15 February 2022.  
34	On 30 March 2022, the complainant told the informant she wanted to withdraw her statement against you.  She said she did not want to go to court, and she wanted the case to go away.  He asked her why and she said that you had been contacting her from prison and you told her she needed to get rid of the matter.  She told the informant that she had a second phone number under the name Rebecca Best, and she had been using that name and phone in contacting you.
35	The informant obtained your prison phone calls with Ms Smith with her using the name Rebecca Best.  Between 22 March and 13 April 2022, you contacted the complainant on 29 occasions in breach of the family violence intervention order.  That is the basis of that charge.
36	The charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice is based on a phone call which took place on 29 March 2022.  In that phone call you refer to Ms Smith as Rebecca and you tell her what Jenna must do to achieve a withdrawal of the charges. 
37	Prior to that call, on 23 March 2022 you told the complainant that witnesses have a right to withdraw.  That is put as context to the call on 29 March.
38	The full transcript of the phone call from 29 March 2022 is set out in the prosecution opening.  Additionally, the recording was played in court and tendered.  I have listened to that call on several occasions.  
39	I will summarise the call. 
40	You told the complainant that you expected to receive the sentence of 24 months and she would not see you in that time.  You told her that it was wrong what the 'cops done'.  You told her she needed to withdraw her statement.  You suggested she had not taken care of you when you were sick for four days and she had gone away for six hours and that she had gone to 'Larry’s place' and she had never put that in the statement, which would have been good for you.  You then admitted hitting her from behind and kicking her.  You suggested that her account of an assault taking place over 40 minutes was wrong and that she had pre-existing bruises.  You told her that you were being blamed for every bruise and mark on her body and you could not believe what she had done.  
41	You complained to her that you were doing 24 months and that you had lost wages and money, and that your legal expenses would be significant.  You then suggested that you would receive a sentence of '36 months but on the low 24 months'.  You raised that she had been placed on a community correction order in the past and was well known to police, seemingly to suggest that because of that she could withdraw her statement.  You suggested she did not need the stress of going to court.  You raised the issue of money that she owed you and you were still waiting for that money.
42	You then said to her, 'I’m gonna see you in about 24 months, and guess what, when I come out, guess what, guess what – well, oh my god, am I gonna make up for some lost time'.  The prosecution relied on these words as an implied threat of violence.  
43	Mr Hooper, your counsel, submitted that I cannot be satisfied of that implication beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof for an aggravating fact in sentencing.  He submitted that in assessing those words I need to consider them in the context of the call where you were threatening that she would never see you again.  
44	Having listened to the call on several occasions, and of course read the words in the transcript, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that having regard to the significant assault you had perpetrated against her earlier; the words used in that part of the call and the tone of your voice, which in my opinion differed markedly from the tone you used in the rest of the call, that you were intending to imply violence when you were released from prison.  
45	In the remainder of the call, you told the complainant that she did not need this in her life.  You said you had scratched her from your life and that you wanted every cent back of the money she owed you.  You also referred to her being affected by drugs and ended the call saying that you would not see her for 24 months.  
46	As I have already said, the following day the complainant went to the police and sought to withdraw her statement.  
47	There were further calls on 6 and 7 April referred to in the prosecution opening in which you told the complainant that your relationship with her was over.  These calls are not part of the attempt to pervert the course of justice but rather part of the contravention offence.
48	You pleaded guilty to these charges in July of this year.  A resolution had been agreed by the parties in June.  The matter had proceeded by way of contested committal and had been booked in for a trial listed to be heard in December of this year but some of the most serious charges against you were withdrawn, which allowed for a resolution.
49	Considering the charges that were withdrawn, and I accept your plea to the charges on this indictment was at an early opportunity.  By pleading guilty you have spared the police, the prosecution, and the court the use of the resources involved in a trial.  You have spared the witnesses, particularly Ms Smith, the experience of giving evidence in this matter.  The utilitarian value of your guilty plea is heightened in the current circumstances because your guilty plea has contributed to the reduction of the backlog of trials in this court caused by delays during the pandemic.  I apply the principles in Worboyes.  I accept your plea indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.  Remorse is more difficult in this case.  Beyond the guilty plea there is no evidence of remorse and Mr Hooper did not submit that there was.
50	You have one prior conviction for resisting a police officer.  I do not see that prior conviction as having any significant relevance to sentencing in this case, other than you cannot call on the benefit of an unblemished record.
51	You also have a subsequent conviction.  At the time of the offending in this case you were on bail for trafficking and resisting an emergency services worker. That matter was ultimately dealt with in 2022 and you received a community correction order which you successfully completed.  Your bail in relation to that matter is the basis of the summary offence of committing an indictable offence on bail.
Victim impact
52	A victim impact statement from Ms Smith was tendered as an exhibit on the plea.  She described some ongoing physical effects beyond the injuries alleged in the prosecution opening, which the prosecutor, Mr Davison, did not seek to rely on and I have not had regard to those matters in assessing the injuries she sustained. 
53	Nonetheless, your offending has had a significant impact on her.  She says in her victim impact statement she deferred her studies due to pressure she felt and her mental state in the aftermath of this incident.  She has become reclusive and does not like being alone anymore.  She is no longer able to tolerate displays of anger or impatience from others.  She is often anxious.  She becomes distressed when she sees family violence incidents reported on the news.  She has been seeing a psychologist to assist with trauma. 
54	It is obvious from the victim impact statement that your offending has had a significant ongoing impact on her which informs just punishment for your offending.  
Sentencing principles – Family Violence Offences 
55	In the case of DPP v Reynolds referred to by the prosecutor, Mr Davis, on the plea, the Court of Appeal reviewed the sentencing authorities in relation to offences of family violence.  The common law assault offences and the persistent contravention offences fit directly into this category and the attempt to pervert the course of justice offence occurred in the context of family violence, and so did the criminal damage offence.  
56	Another common phrase used to describe this type of offending is intimate partner violence.  The same principles apply.  In Reynolds the court referred to the cases of Pasinis, Mercer, Kalala and Evans, all of which deal with sentencing principles for family violence. 
57	 In Reynolds the court adopted the following passage from the case of Kalala:
'The trial courts of this State are imposing sentences for family violence offences with increasing frequency. This court has repeatedly emphasised the need to condemn family violence, in line with community expectations.' 
58	In Reynolds the court then concluded: 
'As these authorities make plain, general deterrence, public denunciation, just punishment and community protection must be the prominent sentencing factors when sentencing for family violence offending.'
59	Those principles apply to your offending in this case. 
60	In my view the common law assault offences should be assessed as comprising one related episode. The criminal damage offence was really the start of that incident.  The incident involved sustained violence over a period of approximately 40 minutes, although it was not a continuous assault over that period.
61	In my view you were seeking to exercise control over Ms Smith.  You were angry she was at Mr Williams’ and in your view, she was not looking after you properly when you were sick.  Family violence is never justified, but on any view, it is hard to reconcile your conduct with such inconsequential explanations.  I am at a loss to explain, on this material, why you behaved in the violent way you did.
62	Against that background, you struck her multiple times with your fists including multiple punches to the head region, you kicked her, you pulled her hair when she tried to walk away, and you threw her around the residence which you shared with her – or at least when she was there.  You are not charged with intentionally causing injury or recklessly causing injury and I do not sentence you on the basis you intended or foresaw injury.  But as a matter of fact, your conduct did cause multiple significant bruises in many areas of her body including to the side of her face, her arms, her legs, her upper thighs.  These are shown in the photographs of her injuries in the depositions.  In my opinion this was a serious incident of family violence, and these are serious examples of common law assault. 
63	In line with the authorities to which I have referred, general deterrence and denunciation, must be given substantial weight in deciding the appropriate sentence. 
64	The offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice is obviously a serious offence with a maximum penalty of 25 years.  In the case of DPP v Oksuz [2015] VSCA 316, the Court of Appeal found that a sentence of six months for attempting to pervert the course of justice was inadequate and increased the sentence to four years.  Kyrou JA said this of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice:: 
'The offence is serious because the conduct that constitutes it strikes at the heart of the administration of justice.  It does so because it involves an offender seeking to deter witnesses from giving evidence - or giving truthful evidence court proceedings.  Where the offence is committed in the context of a criminal proceeding, the aim of the offending conduct is to undermine the crown’s ability to secure a conviction against an accused person and thus bring him or her to justice.  The serious harm to public safety and the rule of law resulting from such offending conduct is obvious.'
65	Clearly in this case that is what you were intending to do in the phone call with Ms Smith on 29 March 2022.
66	Your counsel, Mr Hooper, made a submission that the impact of such conduct has less weight because of the availability to the prosecution of eliciting the statement through either s65 or s32 of the Evidence Act.
67	In my opinion, that does not much reduce the gravity of the offence in this case because plainly the absence of the complainant in any family violence case makes the prosecution's task of securing a conviction much more difficult, and that is what you were intending to do.
68	In this case the offence occurred when you were not supposed to have any contact with Ms Reynolds because a family violence order was in place.  The call, which is the basis of the offence, involved in my view an effort to control the victim by emotional manipulation and an implied threat of violence, designed to persuade her to withdraw the statement, which she then tried to do.
69	In assessing the gravity of your attempting to pervert the course of justice offence though, I have had regard to the fact that this was not just one call, rather than a series of calls with overt threats, a feature often seen in such cases.
70	This case clearly falls below the more serious examples of attempting to pervert the course of justice, but nonetheless remains a serious offence. 
71	There is overlap in this case between the attempt to pervert the course of justice and the contravention of the family violence order which involved 29 calls while you were in prison.  In respect of those calls some subterfuge was used in that you referred to the victim via the pseudonym, Rebecca West, in the calls, presumably to avoid detection.  I take into account though that the victim must have agreed at some level to participate in those calls with you. 
72	Overall, in these offences, you engaged in serious violence against a woman who was your intimate partner in a controlling way for little reason.  You then sought to avoid criminal responsibility by manipulating her after you were put in prison for that offending.  The offending has had a significant impact on her. 
73	You committed all these offences while on bail, which is an aggravating feature of the offending, and you took no notice of the family violence intervention order which was supposed to protect the victim.  The restrictions placed on you by the criminal justice system did not deter you from continuing to offend. 
74	In these circumstances I regard your moral culpability for the offending as substantial.
75	Turning then to your personal circumstances. Your counsel, Mr Hooper, in his comprehensive sentencing submissions, set out your personal circumstances.  You are the youngest of three children.  Your mother is retired.  You presently live with her pursuant to your bail conditions.  Your father passed away in 2020.  He was in a nursing home when he died.  
76	You completed your education at high school, and you have been employed in various occupations since.  You worked at Cadbury Schweppes for three years as a storeman and then 13 years at Metcash Logistics, also as a storeman.  You were part of the ground crew at Qantas for four years, but you lost that job in the pandemic in early 2020.  You worked as a shopfitter between August and December 2021.  You have not been working since your release on bail in relation to these matters.  You are currently receiving a carer’s benefit as you are looking after your mother.
77	You have a history of cocaine use which is referred to in the tendered documents.  You say, and I accept, you have been abstinent since your arrest other than one relapse.  
78	Mr Hooper relied on your guilty plea to which I have already referred.
79	He also relied on the fact that while you were in custody before receiving bail the prison was still subject to some pandemic restrictions, such as lockdowns and limited availability of courses and programs.  I have taken that matter into account as a, in this case, fairly modest mitigating factor.  
80	Mr Hooper relied on the delay that has taken place since you were charged in respect of this matter.  It has now been some 22 months in terms of the delay.  You were granted bail on 9 May 2022.  In this case I accept that you have suffered the stress of having this serious matter hanging over your head since you were charged.  Additionally, in that time you have been able to show a capacity for rehabilitation.  I have moderated the sentence to reflect these matters. 
81	After you were granted bail, you spent a period of supervision under the CISP bail system, which included a period of drug counselling and a men’s behaviour change program.  I have had regard to the document tendered as to your compliance with the CISP program.  You also completed a community correction order for the drug trafficking and resist emergency services worker offences, which included 150 hours of unpaid community work, supervision, assessment and treatment for drugs, alcohol and mental health, and offending behaviour programs. Again, I received a document which sets out that you complied successfully with that community correction order, and I have taken that matter into account.
82	Mr Hooper submitted, and I accept, that you have not come to the attention of police for further offending since you were released.
83	Mr Hooper submitted that the decision in Boulton applies in this case, and notwithstanding the serious nature of the offences, a community correction order properly meets the sentencing purposes and allows your continued rehabilitation.
84	He relied heavily on what he described as your exemplary compliance with the CISP bail and the community correction order.
85	Mr Hooper provided a table of cases in his submissions and during the plea largely related to the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.  He referred to a number of Court of Appeal decisions and County Court sentences.  These matters are indicative of current sentencing practices.  Of course, no two cases are the same and there are relevant differences between the various decisions relied on.  What is required is individualised justice to the circumstances of your case.  Current sentencing practices are a guide, to which I have had regard, but they are not a controlling factor in deciding the sentence.
86	In assessing your prospects of rehabilitation, the absence of relevant prior convictions and your performance on the CISP bail and the community correction order, are factors in your favour. That said, this was serious offending which occurred on bail and some of it in defiance of a family violence order, and there is little evidence of remorse in this case.  In my opinion you do have good prospects of rehabilitation, but the nature of the offending here does give me cause for concern about future offending against intimate partners. 
87	Mr Hooper in his submissions returned to the decision of Boulton and others, arguing that even for significant offences a community correction order might be available, and he submitted that a combination sentence of time served, and a community correction order was open and appropriate in this case.  The prosecution submitted that the gravity of the offending in this case is such that a proper application of sentencing principles requires a head sentence and a non-parole period. 
88	In Boulton, the Court of Appeal said that a sentencing judge should ask the following question:
'Given that a CCO could be imposed for a period of years with conditions attached which would be both punitive and rehabilitative, is there any feature of the offence, or the offender, which requires a conclusion that imprisonment with all its disadvantages is the only option?'.
89	In this case, in my opinion the common law assault offending was serious, and the principles of general deterrence and denunciation are very clearly important.  That offending was followed by an attempt to pervert the course of justice, which I regard as a separate and distinct serious offence for which principles of general deterrence and denunciation must be given substantial weight.
90	In the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that only a head sentence with a non-parole period is sufficiently punitive to reflect those principles.  Community protection, just punishment and specific deterrence all have a role to play, but community protection and specific deterrence are less significant given the steps you have taken towards your rehabilitation. 
91	 I must, of course, consider your rehabilitation and I have done so in fixing the sentences in this case.  
92	This will be the first time you have been sentenced to imprisonment and I am conscious that my sentence involves returning you to prison after a lengthy period adhering to bail conditions and a community correction order, and that my sentence will weigh heavily on you. 
Aggregate Sentence 
93	In this case I have decided to impose an aggregate sentence for the common law assault offences.  Section 9 of the Sentencing Act allows me to impose an aggregate sentence in circumstances where the offending is properly described as a series of offences of the same or similar character.  In this case the assault offences were part of one ongoing episode against the victim involving repeated assaults over a 40-minute period.  An aggregate sentence is one sentence of imprisonment for all seven charges of common law assault, rather than an individual sentence for each charge with orders that follow for periods of cumulation between the charges.  Such a sentence allows me to reflect totality and proportionality of the conduct which gives rise to those charges. 
Totality 
94	In deciding the amount of cumulation between the charges, I have taken into account that the conduct which constitutes the attempt to pervert the course of justice is also part of the contravention offence and the close connections in time and circumstance between the criminal damage and the assault offences, and the other offences. 
95	I have had regard to the totality principle which requires that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the total criminality of your offending.  
Non-Parole Period
96	The non-parole period is the minimum period of imprisonment that justice requires to be served.  It must reflect the objective gravity of the offending.  In fixing the non-parole period, punishment is mitigated in favour of rehabilitation.  The benefit of the minimum term is for the purpose your rehabilitation.  I have decided to allow for a reasonably significant period of supervision in this case to reflect the steps that you have taken towards rehabilitation since you were granted bail. 
97	The sentences that I impose are as follows:
98	On Charge 1 of criminal damage, you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of one month.
99	For Charges 2 to 7 of common law assault, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 16 months.
100	For Charge 8, persistent contravention of an intervention order, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of six months.
101	For Charge 9, attempting to pervert the course of justice, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 14 months.
102	For the summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to seven days.
103	The base sentence, therefore, is for the aggregate sentence of common law assault.  
104	Six months of the sentence on Charge 9 and two months of the sentence on Charge 8 is to be served cumulatively on the base sentence and on each other.  All other sentences are concurrent.
105	That makes a total effective sentence of 24 months.
106	I fix a minimum non-parole period of 12 months.
107	What is the PSD?  How many days?
108	MR HOOPER:  120.
109	HIS HONOUR:  120 – you agree?
110	MR DAVIS:  Yes, Your Honour.  
111	HIS HONOUR:  I allow 120 days to be deducted as pre-sentence detention from the sentence I have imposed.
112	Pursuant to s6AAA, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 34 months with a minimum non-parole period of 24 months.
.  
- - -