IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT WARRNAMBOOL
CRIMINAL DIVISION	 Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
Case No. CR-22-00511
Indictment No. M10838720.1

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
V

WAYNE DENNERT		

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CARLIN	
WHERE HELD:	WARRNAMBOOL	
DATE OF HEARING:	Trial dates: 3 October 2023, 4 October 2023, 5 October 2023, 6 October 2023, 9 October 2023, 10 October 2023, 11 October 2023, 12 October 2023, 13 October 2023
Plea date: 25 January 2024 and 22 February 2024	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 May 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Dennert	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 578		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	Criminal
Catchwords: 	Sentence following trial; intentionally causing serious injury
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:	Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; Carbis v The King [2023] VSCA 285; Dahl v The King [2023] VSCA 289; Lukudu v The Queen [2019] VSCA 248; R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.
Sentence:	Convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 10 months.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	A. McKenry (plea)	Office of Public Prosecutions 	
	E. Phillips (sentence) 		
			
For the Accused	A. Dixon (plea)	Stary Norton Halphen	
	A Murrell (sentence) 		

HER HONOUR:

Introduction
1	Wayne Dennert, on 13 October 2023, a jury found you guilty of intentionally causing serious injury to Brendan Nancarrow.  
2	In short, at around 8 o’clock in the evening of 24 April 2021, you were at home in your caravan in the Hamilton Caravan Park, when you heard a noise outside.  You armed yourself with a 78-centimetre iron bar and walked around the back of your caravan to find Mr Nancarrow near your side window.  
Mr Nancarrow had only just moved into the caravan park that day with his partner and was possibly looking for his caravan.  For reasons known only to you, you set upon Mr Nancarrow with your iron bar, beating him repeatedly and viciously whilst he was on the ground, causing multiple and life-threatening injuries.  The sound of your beating horrified a group from a nearby cabin who rushed to the scene and intervened.  They recognised Mr Nancarrow as someone they had spoken to not long before when he told them he did not know where his van was.  At that time, he was intoxicated and friendly.   
3	A plea on your behalf was conducted before me on 25 January and 22 February 2024, and it now falls to me to sentence you for your conduct. 
4	In arriving at an appropriate sentence, which in your case really means the length of the term of imprisonment, I am required by law to have regard to a variety of factors which I will outline in these sentencing remarks.  Some tend towards leniency, and some point the other way.  No one factor automatically prevails over any other.  Rather, I must have regard to them all and give each the weight it deserves to arrive at a just sentence. 

Circumstances of the offending
5	First, I must outline the circumstances of your offending in more detail.  This summary is derived entirely from the evidence given in the trial and represents the facts I have found consistent with the jury verdicts.  To the extent there are matters that aggravate your conduct, I am satisfied of those matters beyond reasonable doubt.
6	Mr Nancarrow, who was a builder, cabinet maker, checked into the Hamilton Caravan Park around lunch time on 24 April 2021, with his female partner and two dogs.  After being made to surrender his dogs, he started drinking.  He was a heavy drinker and consumed something in the order of about 3.5 litres of wine over about three hours.  He recalled walking to the toilet block with his partner at some point in the evening, but nothing else until he woke up in hospital after your assault.  
7	Whilst Mr Nancarrow does not recall what else he did, it is clear from the evidence of the people in the nearby cabin that at some point, he was wandering about trying to find his caravan.  This group consisted of five men of differing ages, who had also checked into the caravan park that day.  They had travelled from across the state in order to attend a motorbike race the next day.  Early in the evening, when it was still light, Mr Nancarrow approached their cabin and started talking to them about motorbikes.  He had a drink bottle of alcohol with him. He told them he had had ‘a blue with his missus’.
8	One of them, Ryan Farley, described Mr Nancarrow as follows:
'He was fairly drunk, like, he was definitely drunk.  He could barely stand up.  Like, he was leaning against the wall of the veranda of the cabin talking to us, but he seemed like a really nice - nice bloke'.
9	And a bit later on he said this:
'And then he just said he was going to go find his caravan, but he couldn't remember which one it was.  We asked him if he needed a hand doing it.  He said "No, I'll be right". And then that was it. He wandered off''.
10	Sometime later, when it was dark, Mr Farley was out the front of his cabin when he heard what sounded like a bat, repeatedly hitting concrete and then screams of help.  Another member of the group, Andrew Cottier, described the sound as like two metal poles banging.  Mr Farley alerted the people inside the cabin and all five ran over to where the noise was coming from, only a short distance away.  Using their mobile phones as torches, the group saw Mr Nancarrow lying on the ground near the rear wheel of your caravan.  He was helpless and posing absolutely no danger to you.  You were standing over him with, as Mr Farley put it, ‘a metal pole just whacking him’.  Mr Nancarrow was yelling for help and begging you to stop.  He was also moaning and possibly had his hands up to protect his head.
11	The group yelled at you, whereupon you stopped and ran back to the front of your van.  Some of the group followed to ensure you did not leave and you shook your pole at them from the door before going inside.  
12	One of the group, Michael Smythe, administered first aid to Mr Nancarrow while his son, Connor, called an ambulance.  This was at 8.13 pm. 
13	You also called Triple 0 from inside your van.  This was at 8.15 pm.  You were on the phone for several minutes and told operators variously that somebody had just broken into your caravan, that there were 10 of them outside and that ‘they’ had broken your caravan window and that ‘they’ were breaking into your caravan and smashing it up at that very moment, none of which was true.  You later told attending police that Mr Nancarrow had ‘just smashed up the whole caravan’ which was not only also untrue, but was an attempt by you to justify what you knew to be unjustifiable.  You had savagely beaten Mr Nancarrow for no good reason and you knew it.
14	Forensic physician Dr Rachel Marr outlined Mr Nancarrow’s injuries, which included scalp lacerations, multiple small puncture wounds on his hands and wrists, fractures to his head and facial bones, bleeding to the scalp and in and around his brain, multiple rib fractures, a haemothorax and pneumothorax, a fracture to his shoulder blade, and multiple fractures in his wrists, hands, fingers and right leg.  There was no evidence of any injury to Mr Nancarrow’s internal abdominal organs.  
15	I cannot determine precisely how many times you struck Mr Nancarrow, as eyewitness accounts varied between over 40 to less than 10.  Dr Marr opined that the minimum number of separate blows required to account for the various injuries was five and I am satisfied that you delivered at least that many.  Regardless, it was a horrific and brutal attack, which not only caused serious life threatening and life changing injuries to Mr Nancarrow, but profoundly affected those who witnessed it.  Mr Farley described it as ‘one of the most brutal things I’ve ever seen’.  I commend the actions of the cabin group in intervening and assisting Mr Nancarrow. 
16	Ambulance paramedics attempted to intubate Mr Nancarrow at the scene without success.  He was manually ventilated and transported to the Hamilton Hospital, but then airlifted to the Alfred Hospital, because of the severity of his injuries.  He had dangerously low blood pressure due to blood and volume loss and was admitted to the intensive care unit of the Alfred Hospital.  He was determined to have post-traumatic amnesia and required surgery on both hands.  As you know, Mr Nancarrow still has no memory of the incident. 
17	In hospital, Mr Nancarrow developed deep vein thrombosis.  This was treated with blood thinners once the doctors were confident that the bleeding in his brain was not going to extend further.  On 28 April 2021, he received a unit of blood due to dangerously low levels of haemoglobin.  On 24 May 2021, he was transferred back to Hamilton Hospital where he stayed for approximately two weeks primarily for rehabilitation.  Occupational therapists provided hand therapy and on 24 June 2021, two months after the incident, he was still wearing splints on his hands.  Physiotherapists saw him for the injuries to his shoulder and right knee.  He was still experiencing restricted movement in his shoulder and knee on the date of his discharge.  He received ongoing antibiotics for a total of two months, due to an infection of the K-wire in his right hand. 
18	You gave evidence that you were inside watching television when you heard banging and voices outside your caravan.  The voices said things like ‘go that way, yeah that’ll be open’.  You noticed the curtain of your previously closed window blowing in and went outside to investigate, taking your pinch bar with you.  You saw people everywhere and one of them, Mr Nancarrow, ran at you.  You hit him with the pinch bar, but he just kept charging at you aggressively, trying to punch and kick you, no matter how many times you struck him. 
19	Clearly the jury rejected your argument that you were acting in self-defence.  It is not my function to be a mind reader.  I do not have to try to ascertain precisely what the jury was thinking.  Nor am I obliged to adopt a view of the facts most favourable to you, as long as my view is consistent with the verdict and as I have already said, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any matters adverse to you.  
20	Suffice to say I found your evidence incredible.  I do not accept that there were many people outside your caravan prior to you striking Mr Nancarrow.  I do not accept that he charged at you, or that he had been trying to break into your caravan, or even that he damaged your window.  There is nothing in his history to cause me to think he did any of that.  Your account of him repeatedly charging at you was Monty Pythonesque in its ludicrousness.  It was, I am satisfied, complete nonsense.  Similarly, the rest of your evidence was, I am satisfied, a fabrication to justify your actions.  The only thing I do accept is that you heard a noise of some sort, which caused you to investigate. 
Your personal circumstances 
21	Turning now to your personal circumstances which were outlined in defence submissions and various reports.  Consultant Forensic and Adult Psychiatrist, Associate Professor Danny Sullivan, met with you once on 27 December 2023 for 75 minutes via videoconference to Port Phillip Prison.  He also reviewed a wide range of materials, including documents and footage relating to this case and medical records from multiple sources, including general practitioners, hospitals and Justice Health.  The medical records dated back as far back as 2010 and included past neuropsychological reports and information about you from your sister.
22	Dr Sullivan produced a report dated 19 January 2024 and a supplementary report dated 23 January 2024.  He also gave evidence on your plea.  I was also provided a medical report from Ravenhall Correctional Centre, dated 3 April 2022. 
23	You are now 58 years old.  You were 56 at the time of the offending.  You were born on a farm outside Hamilton and are the third in a sibship of six, with four sisters and one brother.  Your father drove a school bus and your mother worked on the farm and was a homemaker. 
24	You told Dr Sullivan that you had an unhappy childhood.  You believe that you were held responsible for the family problems and described your parents as self-centred and your father as a harsh disciplinarian.  You had behavioural issues from a young age and frequently ran away from home.  Whilst you blamed your family for your troubles, your sister told Forensicare in 2013 that the conflict within the family was because of your behaviour.  You are estranged from all of your siblings and both your parents are deceased.  
25	Your schooling was not much better than your home life.  You attended primary and high school in Heywood and were apparently suspended in Year 5 for smoking.  You struggled academically and say you can only just read and write.
26	You left school at age 15 and report that you bought a farm using a bank loan, although I cannot see how that could be possible.  In any event, that enterprise was short-lived.  Thereafter, you did a variety of jobs, without ever completing any formal apprenticeships.  You renovated houses, worked in factories and timber mills, traded in sheep and cattle and owned at least one other farm.  You say you worked seven days a week whenever possible, but your sister described you being repeatedly dismissed from your employment.  You have now not worked for over 25 years and having been assessed as ineligible for the disability support pension, have survived on the jobseeker allowance.
27	As well as periods of owning property, you have had periods of homelessness.
28	You married in 1995 but separated and divorced only two years later.  You have one child from this relationship, a daughter Shelica, who was born in 1996.  You speak to Shelica occasionally over the phone from prison but believe she has been poisoned against you by your ex-wife.  You have had no other significant relationship. 
29	You told Dr Sullivan that you were sexually abused as a child, but I have no details of what occurred or how it affected you.  
30	Medically, you suffer from asthma, possible emphysema, irritable bowel syndrome, eczema, industrial deafness, tinnitus and are missing all but four teeth. You have had a fractured hip in the past and claim that in 1985, you sustained a head injury in a car accident with lasting effects on your memory, perception and balance.  
31	You have a history of problematic cannabis use, but neither drugs nor alcohol appear implicated in the present offending which occurred about one month after you say you last smoked cannabis.  You have never received drug or alcohol treatment and say you have been abstinent from alcohol for at least 10 years.
32	You are not cognitively impaired but do function in the borderline to low average range.  Dr Sullivan could find no evidence that you suffered a head injury in 1985.  There was no supporting collateral information and neuroimaging did not indicate brain trauma.  His impression on questioning you was that you did not suffer from delusions, but rather rigid thinking.  He considered it likely that your chronic cannabis use contributed to your relatively low intellectual functioning, although this should be reversible upon sustained cessation.
33	You gave Dr Sullivan a history of depression and anxiety but denied feeling depressed at the time of his assessment.  He considered that you meet past diagnoses of severe substance use disorder, involving cannabis and recurrent depressive disorder of mild-moderate severity, currently in abeyance with medication. 
34	You admitted to Dr Sullivan that you sometimes experience outbursts that are disproportionate to the situation and that as a young person, you displayed aggressive and disordered behaviour.  
35	Dr Sullivan’s overarching opinion was that you likely have a significant mixed personality disorder, including paranoid, schizoid, and antisocial traits.  This disorder has likely impacted all aspects of your life and is characterised by a number of traits including:
•	A sense of entitlement, leading to conflict with others when your demands are not met;
•	Rigid, black and white or stubborn thinking;
•	A desire to portray yourself in the right, or to convey an impression which is not born out by other sources of information;
•	Suspiciousness about the motives of others and being quick to perceive slight to you;
•	Limited interest in or capacity to maintain social relations with others;
•	A frequently hostile, antagonistic, truculent or aggressive demeanour;
•	Poor emotional regulation, with aggressive outbursts which do not appear instrumental, but rather reflect poor control of your affect and a disproportionate response to situations.  This does not appear associated with other mental health disorders, such as depression or substance use.
36	I shall return to the significance of this diagnosis to your offending shortly.   
Objective gravity of your offending and moral culpability
37	Two factors of central importance in determining any sentence are the objective gravity of the offending and the moral culpability of the offender.  If there was any doubt about the seriousness of the offence of causing serious injury intentionally, the maximum penalty of 20 years makes it clear.  
38	Your offending was a serious example of a serious offence.  Ms Dixon submitted that it was not planned or premeditated.  That may be true, but you did arm yourself with an iron bar and lock your caravan door behind you before going around the back of the van to investigate.  You then used the iron bar to savagely beat a defenceless and vulnerable man.  After he fell to the ground, you struck him again and again, only desisting when other people intervened.  You had absolutely no reason to strike Mr Nancarrow in the first place and even less of a reason to continue to strike him when he was on the ground.  Inherent in the offence is the causing of serious injury, but the injuries you caused were not only life threatening and extensive, they have had lasting consequences for 
Mr Nancarrow.  
39	You gave Dr Sullivan a similar story to that which you told the jury.  You said that ‘criminals’ plural, broke into your van by cutting the flywire and jimmying your window and that when you went outside, they all ran away except for the one that kept attacking.
40	In his report Dr Sullivan opined that your personality disorder was causally associated with your offending.  He described how it predisposes you to be suspicious and perceive threats or malign intent from others.  It also makes you easy to anger, disproportionally aggressive and hard to settle.  In relation to the offending, he considered that it was likely to have impacted your capacity to think clearly and make rational choices ‘in managing the situation which arose’. However, he did not believe that it affected your understanding of wrongdoing, nor that it made you disinhibited or obscured your intent. 
41	Dr Sullivan maintained his opinion, both as to your diagnosis and as to its relevance, under cross examination.  He described your personality disorder as moderate to severe.  He indicated he had chosen his words ‘the situation which arose’ carefully, in recognition of the possibility that your account of the incident was not true.  Indeed, even if all that had happened was that you had heard a noise outside your caravan and even if you had given a false account to the attending police shortly afterwards, he still believed your ability to deal with the situation was compromised, because of your personality disorder.  
42	I am satisfied that you did lie to the attending police, that you did lie to the jury and moreover, that you lied to Dr Sullivan about what happened.  When I say lie, I mean you told deliberate falsehoods, not that you said things that you honestly but wrongly believed to be true.  No matter that you may have lied about what happened, Dr Sullivan considered that your personality made it likely that you would have felt threatened, not necessarily physically, but in at least a broad sense of believing that someone was seeking to do the wrong thing by you in some way.  Whilst generally he did not consider that lies about what happened undermined his opinion, he did agree that they indicated an appreciation of wrongdoing.  
43	Mr McKenry submitted that Dr Sullivan’s evidence did not provide a foundation for the application of Verdins limb one (or two for that matter).  Ms Dixon submitted that it did and further that:
‘[your] psychiatric condition is relevant to the court’s assessment of the plausibility of [your] assertions that [you] felt Mr Nancarrow posed a threat to [you]’.  
44	I accept Dr Sullivan’s opinion that you suffer from a personality disorder.  On balance, I also accept that your personality disorder contributed to your offending in the manner he described and has therefore reduced your moral culpability somewhat.  To be clear, I am not satisfied your moral culpability is reduced because I accept your account of why you felt threatened.  Rather, it is in spite of your account, and because I accept the evidence of Dr Sullivan that for you to have reacted in the way that you did, you likely felt threatened at least in the broad sense he described.  I am not persuaded that you felt physically threatened, but I am satisfied you perceived some sort of threat and that your ability to react appropriately was compromised, even as you must have realised, that Mr Nancarrow was not armed and posed no threat.  I am also satisfied, and this time beyond reasonable doubt, that you immediately recognised that you had done the wrong thing and that you have been trying to cover up for it ever since by lying.
Impact of your offending 
45	In his victim impact statement, Mr Nancarrow explained that since your assault, he feels ‘extremely jumpy and nervous for no apparent reason’.  He is trying to come to terms with how his life has changed because of his injuries and regularly sees a doctor in relation to his mental health.  His social life is non-existent and he resorts to alcohol to escape his feelings.  His body aches and he has sleepless nights.  He struggles to do general daily and work tasks, such as writing, gripping and pushing buttons on machines at his work.  He cannot even shake hands.  
46	As I have said Mr Nancarrow was a builder, cabinet maker by trade.  This occupation is now lost to him and he is not suited to working in an office.  He is reduced to labouring with the consequence that his income has been reduced by half, not to mention the unpaid leave he has had to take for medical or court reasons.  Not surprisingly, he is frustrated and worries about his future, especially since he doubts he will ever fully recover.  
47	In short, your assault has been devastating.
Current Sentencing Practices
48	To promote consistency of approach in sentencing, particularly, the application of relevant principles, I am required to have regard to current sentencing practices which may be gleaned from statistics or sentences imposed in other cases or both.  
49	The most recent Sentencing Advisory Council Statistics of the higher courts indicate that 95 per cent of people sentenced for intentionally cause serious injury over the five years, between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2022, received an immediate term of imprisonment, ranging from a number of months to 14 years, with five to six years being the most common sentence at 18 per cent.  This wide disparity of sentences is reflective of the wide spectrum of seriousness of the offence.
50	Of course, statistics are of limited assistance because they never tell you anything about the details of the cases.  Many, if not most of the cases included in these statistics, will have involved pleas of guilty and at least some of the sentences will have been shorter, because they were imposed during the pandemic.  
51	Sentences imposed in comparable cases are generally more useful, as they can constitute a guide or yardstick against which to measure any sentence proposed in the instant case, however, as has been noted for this offence, it is hard to find strictly comparable cases.
52	I have had regard to the cases to which I was referred by Ms Dixon, but as she acknowledged, none of them are truly comparable, which is not surprising.  I have also had regard to the more recent cases of Carbis and Dhal and note the case of Lukudo, which was included in Ms Dixon’s list of cases, was also referred to by the sentencing judge in Carbis for its observations on the use of a weapon.  Again, Carbis and Dhal are not directly comparable.  
53	Significantly, out of all the cases I have looked at, only two involved sentences imposed after trial.
54	What the statistics and these cases highlight is the fact that ultimately, my duty is to impose a just and appropriate sentence on you, in the unique circumstances of this case. 
Your character and risk of reoffending
55	You have been before the courts on three prior occasions for assault and once for damaging property and resist police.  The first assault was when you were 
32 years old and was committed in combination with the breach of an intervention order.  The next was when you were 46 years old, and the third when you were 51 years old in 2017.  You received fines for the first two matters and a suspended sentence for the last, indicating that it was of a more serious nature.  Apart from those matters, you have a smattering of dishonesty, drug and driving offences, all preceding 2017.  
56	For someone who committed such a serious offence, this is a relatively limited criminal history, however, what is shows, is a preparedness to assault when the occasion arises.  It is troubling that you did not learn from your past court appearances and that you have not grown out of your propensity to resort to violence.  To the contrary, this offence represents a significant escalation of violence and criminality. 
57	To the extent your personality disorder explains your conduct on this night, it gives cause for concern.  If you could decide to beat someone, as savagely as you did Mr Nancarrow, simply because you heard a noise outside your caravan, how might you react in the future to some equally innocuous event, which you perceive to be a threat?  Ms Dixon submitted your age and physical condition, especially upon your release, militate against you being a danger to the community, however, even the infirm can wield a weapon and your personality is such that you were disposed to keep a large iron bar within the confines of a small caravan, just in case you might need it.  
58	I asked Dr Sullivan about your risk when he gave evidence.  He said that aging often brings about improvement in maladaptive behaviours of people with personality disorders, but acknowledged that that did not appear to be the case with you.  He noted that your poor health, particularly your cardiorespiratory function, may offer some protection, but accepted that your
‘personality structure will almost certainly lead to further situations in which [you] are prone to grabbing the wrong end of the stick or taking people as out to get [you] and perhaps being prickly or difficult or aggressive in anticipation of that’. 
59	Relevantly, Dr Sullivan gave treatment recommendations involving psychological and pharmaceutical intervention, both of which are available in prison and can be incentivised by the promise of parole.  However, even if it were efficacious, your behaviour in custody so far does not inspire confidence that you will be amenable to such treatment.  According to the J-Care records, you have been negative, suspicious, aggressive and either dismissive or demanding of medication, depending on what the medication was.  At one stage, you said you would rather die than accept treatment, albeit, you were not specifically referring to Dr Sullivan’s treatment suggestions.
60	Of further concern is your attitude to your offending.  As I have said, I am satisfied that you immediately appreciated the wrongfulness of your conduct and yet you have persisted in lying about what occurred.  You have attempted through your false accounts and Ms Dixon’s cross-examination, to besmirch the character of your victim and to attack the credit of several of the eyewitnesses as well.  
61	On 28 October 2023, after the jury had found you guilty, you were reviewed in Port Phillip and quoted as saying that you 'beat a cunt half to death with a metal bar who broke into [your] home’ and that you ‘should have killed the cunt and put his body in the bush and then [you] wouldn't be in prison’.
62	When combined with your personality disorder and attitude to treatment so far, your complete and utter lack of remorse, does not bode well for your future.  I could not describe your prospects as good, or even reasonable.  At best, they are fair and that is only because of your age and health.  
Delay
63	Ms Dixon submitted I should take into account the three-year delay between arrest and sentence.  I accept that you have had this matter hanging over your head for all that time and no doubt, it has been a worry, but this delay was largely brought about by your decision to run a trial.  You were entitled to do that, but you can hardly complain of the delay it has caused.  I give this delay little weight. 
The burden of imprisonment
64	In fixing sentence, I take into account the fact that your time in custody has been, and will continue to be, harder by virtue of your personality disorder for the reasons given by Dr Sullivan.   That is, Verdins limb five is engaged.   
Purposes of sentencing
65	I am obliged not to impose a more severe sentence than is necessary to achieve the sentencing purposes of just punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, and protection of the community.  A custodial sentence must only be imposed as a last resort and then must be the absolute minimum required.
66	For crimes of violence such as yours, general deterrence and denunciation are paramount sentencing considerations.  Further, your history and attitude to your offending gives rise to the need for specific deterrence.  To the extent your personality disorder requires a moderation of those principles, which I accept, the need for community protection is correspondingly increased for the reasons I have already explained.   
67	My sentence must also be just and take into account mitigating factors, as well as allowing for your rehabilitation by the setting of an appropriate non parole period.  
68	Weighing up the competing considerations as best I can, and Mr Dennert please stand, you are convicted on the charge of causing serious injury intentionally and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.  I set a non-parole period of six years and ten months.   
Presentence Detention
69	I declare that you have served a total of 1,103 days pre-sentence detention, not including today, in respect of this sentence and order that this declaration be entered in the records of the court and that the period be deducted administratively.  You can be seated now, thank you Mr Dennert.  
Ancillary orders
70	The prosecution has made an application for forfeiture in respect of the crowbar and various evidentiary items, which was not opposed by the defence.  I will make that order.  Are there any other matters that I need to address?
71	MS MURRELL:  Nothing further, Your Honour.
72	COUNSEL:  No, Your Honour.
73	HER HONOUR:  All right, so Mr Dennert, did you understand that sentence?  It is 10 years with a non-parole period of six years and ten months, with the time in custody to come off that.
74	OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.
75	HER HONOUR:  All right, thank you.  We will adjourn the court.
- - -