IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	 Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
ADRIAN CLEMENT (a pseudonym)		

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	28 November 2024	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 December 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Clement (a pseudonym)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 2028	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:			CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords:		Sentence – Two separate plea Indictments – Pleas of guilty to seven charges of Indecent assaults over two Indictments – Historic sexual offending – Relevant criminal history - Multiple child victims -  Age disparity between accused and victims  - Aggravating feature of offending – Accused inveigled himself into family to gain access to victims – Gross breach of trust – Family allowed sole care of vulnerable victims to accused – Accused engaged in grooming behaviour - Impact on victims significant – Elderly accused with several medical ailments
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:		Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308
Sentence:		Convicted and sentenced to Total effective Sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 months’ imprisonment  - No pre-sentence detention declared - Serious sexual offender – s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 declaration – Sex Offender registration for life
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr C. Rattray	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Mr N. Hutton SC	CLT Lawyers	

HER HONOUR:
1	Adrian Clement, you have pleaded guilty to six charges of indecent assault upon a male on Indictment No.P10350111.1, to which I might refer as the 'first indictment' from time to time, and one charge of indecent assault on Indictment No.P11669034.1, to which I might refer as the 'second indictment' from time to time.
2	The maximum penalty for each of the offences that you have committed is
five years' imprisonment.
3	In sentencing you, I must take into account the maximum penalty, as this reflects the seriousness with which Parliament regarded the offences at the relevant time.
4	I sentence you on the following factual basis:
5	I was told that you were born in June 1946.
6	At the time of the offending, you were living at an address in regional Victoria, and serving in the Australian Army.  You were working as a leader in a youth organisation as well although it is unclear as to whether you held each of these positions at the same time.
7	The complainants in this matter are as follows.
8	Firstly, in respect of the first indictment, there is the complainant Patrick Dillon, who was born in 1965 and was 11 years old at the time that you offended against him.  He was a member of the same youth organisation in a suburb of Melbourne.
9	He was under your leadership at the youth organisation, and his family were family friends with you.
10	Nicholas Dillon was born in 1968.  He is the brother of Patrick Dillon.  He was 10 years old at the time you offended against him and was also under your leadership at the youth organisation .
11	The third complainant in relation to the indictment to which I have referred is the brother of Nicholas and Patrick Dillon, Troy Dillon, who was aged between seven and nine at the time that you offended against him.
12	Michael Parker, who was born in 1972 and had a different surname at the time, is the complainant in relation to the second indictment.  He was nine years old when you offended against him.  Michael was acquainted with you through family friends.
13	At the time of the offending the subject of the first indictment, the Dillon brothers lived together with their parents and sister in the family home at an address in suburban Melbourne. 
14	By way of background and context information, I was told that on 2 February 1977, you were appointed to the Victorian Group of the particular youth organisation you were connected with.  A month later, you were appointed as the manager of this particular suburban youth organisation and you were in direct authority over Patirck and Nicholas Dillon.   This involvement put you in contact with the Dillon family.
15	You became familiar with the three Dillon brothers through befriending their family and spent time at their family home.  You would join the family on outings and activities which included stock car racing at the speedway and having dinner at each other's houses.  Through this involvement with the family, you gained the family's trust and the admiration of the three child victims.
16	As a result of the trust which was placed in you, the victims' parents allowed their three sons to stay overnight at your address alone with you.
17	The victim Michael Parker came to know you through being family friends with the Robinson family.  The Robinson family lived at an address in regional Victoria, and Michael Parker lived with his mother and grandparents at an address nearby.
18	Michael Parker was friends with the youngest son of the Robinson family.  You befriended and gained the trust of the Robinson family through your role as a leader in the youth organisation where David Robinson's older brothers were members.  David Robinson was a friend of Michael Parker.
19	You would regularly visit the Robinson household and take David away for weekends for stock car racing.  Through this relationship, you came to befriend Michael Parker, who was nine years old at the relevant time.
20	In May 1983, Michael Parker's mother died, and Michael was placed in foster care.  In December 1983, you attended a foster care agency and offered to foster Michael on a long-term basis.  Fortunately, the offer was refused by the agency.
21	I come now to the circumstances of the offending and context/relationship evidence which relates to the Dillon brothers and Patrick Dillon in particular at this stage.
22	At the time of the offending against Patrick Dillon, he was about 11 years old, and you were about 30.
23	In February 1977, Patrick Dillon was a member in the suburban youth organisation.  He had a love of aeronautics and admired those in charge.  You were viewed as a charismatic young man with military experience, who the young members looked up to.
24	You groomed Patrick Dillon by showing him particular attention and affection outside of the activities of the youth organisation.  Patrick Dillon recalls you making him feel special at the time.
25	You would often drive Patrick Dillon home after various events, gaining the trust and favour of his parents.  This also put you into contact with Patrick’s younger brothers, Nicholas and Troy. 
26	On an occasion in 1977, Patrick Dillon stayed at your home for the first time and by himself.  There were two bedrooms in your house.  However, you insisted that Patrick sleep in the same bedroom as you, in a separate bed.
27	During the stay, you told Patrick that there was an initiation process for all members that involved putting toothpaste on the initiate's penis prior to masturbating it.
28	Whilst you and Patrick were lying on your beds in the dark, you started pressuring Patrick to take part in this so-called initiation, offering to conduct this for him.  Patrick refused.  However, you kept raising this 'initiation' process repeatedly in an attempt to pressure him.
29	Patrick Dillon recalls a further incident at your house where, after a shower, he walked into the bedroom and saw you standing there naked, exposing your penis.
30	Patrick stayed at your house on about three or four occasions.  On one of those occasions, you said to him that you had something special to show him.  You had a deck of cards that you said were from Malaysia.  You showed him the cards which had pictures of naked young boys with naked adult males with erect penises.  Patrick told you that this was gross, and you put the cards away.
Patrick Dillon  – Charge 1 – indecent assault (between 1 January 1976 and
31 December 1977)
31	The facts giving rise to Charge 1 in relation to Patrick Dillon, said to have occurred between 1 January 1976 and 31 December 1977, are as follows:
32	At the time of the alleged offending which gives rise to this charge, you owned a Ford Futura.  The car was well cared for and of great interest to Patrick and his two brothers.  Patrick recalls that in late afternoons, when it became dark, you took him for drives in empty land development areas where it was quiet and private.  You sat Patrick on your lap and let him control the steering wheel whilst you operated the pedals.  He found this experience very exciting, and he felt special that he was able to engage in it.
33	While sitting on your lap and steering the Ford on an occasion, you moved your hand towards Patrick’s penis.  He used his elbow to block your hands.  This happened multiple times, and eventually you managed to slip your hand past Patrick’s arm, and you grabbed his penis and testicles, squeezing these from outside of his clothing.  This was painful for him, and he immediately hopped off your lap and sat in the back passenger seat.  It is this conduct on your part which gives rise to Charge 1 on the first indictment.
34	You offered to repeat the driving experience.  However, Patrick said he wanted to go home.
35	After this, Patrick Dillon  did not go driving with you again, nor did he stay at your address.  As a result of this, you shifted your grooming and attention onto his younger brothers, Nicholas and Troy.  Patrick sensed your withdrawal from giving him attention after you had offended against him, and he said that he no longer felt special in your eyes.  He feared seeing you whenever you visited the family home.  He left the youth organisation at this time.
36	In about 1989-1990, Patrick Dillon made his first disclosure to his wife.  They were driving past your house, and he said, 'That's where the creep tried things on me'.  He was encouraged to report the offending, but he did not feel ready at this time.
Nicholas Dillon 
37	At the time that you offended against Nicholas Dillon, he was 10 years old, and you were about 31.
38	On 6 February 1979, Nicholas joined the same youth organisation in suburban Melbourne where you were the manager. 
39	You were already a family friend through your involvement with Nicholas’ family, and Nicholas recalls you as being like an uncle to he and his brothers.
40	Nicholas attended your house on numerous occasions, often with his brother Troy and sometimes alone.
Charge 2 – indecent assault (between 1 January 1978 and 31 January 1978)
41	As you had done with Patrick Dillon, you would take Nicholas driving at night and allow him to control the steering wheel while sitting on your lap.  Nicholas was impressed with your car, and he was excited to be driving with you.
42	On an occasion after an event, you were driving Nicholas from Melbourne back to your address.  He sat on your lap and controlled the steering wheel.
43	You reached around and put your hand onto Nicholas’ pants and underwear and started fondling his penis and testicles.  You then put your other hand into the back of his pants and underwear and inserted your finger into
Nicholas Dillon’s anus.  This conduct gives rise to Charge 2.
Charge 3 – indecent assault (between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1978)
44	In relation to Charge 3, said to have occurred between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1978, I was told that on another occasion, Nicholas Dillon was sitting on your lap, controlling the steering wheel on the road from Melbourne to your home. He was wearing pyjamas, and it was dark.
45	You reached around and put your hand into Nicholas’ pyjama pants and fondled his penis and testicles.  You then put your other hand into the back of his pyjama pants and inserted your finger into his anus.  This conduct gives rise to Charge 3.
Charge 4
46	In relation to Charge 4, I was told that at the Dillon’s family home in suburban Melbourne,  Nicholas and Troy  Dillon shared a bedroom, with Nicholas sleeping on the top bunk and Troy on the bottom bunk.
47	On an occasion when you were at their home, you came into the boys' bedroom to say goodnight.  The boys' parents remained in the living room.
48	You slid your hand under Nicholas’ green doona and fondled his penis and testicles over his pyjamas.  You then slid your hand inside his pyjama pants and fondled his penis and testicles.  It is this conduct which gives rise to Charge 4.
Charge 5 – indecent assault (between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1979)
49	In relation to Charge 5, said to have occurred between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1979, the basis for this charge is that on an occasion in either 1978 or 79 at a hall, you were sitting in the office area of the main hall while Nicholas and the children were performing activities.  You asked him to come into your office, which was a private room.
50	When in the office, you asked Nicholas to stand next to you as you sat at your desk.  You shifted some paperwork around, revealing a pornography magazine to him.  You asked Nicholas if he would like to come to your address and look at more nude pictures.
51	You then slid your hand down the back of Nicholas’ uniform pants and inserted your finger into his anus, causing him a lot of pain.  He quickly stepped back and told you, 'No'.  It is this conduct which gives rise to Charge 5.
52	Nicholas told you that he was not interested in doing that and left the office.  After this incident, Nicholas then left the youth organisation.
53	Nicholas Dillon first disclosed the offending to his brother Troy when he was in his 20s.
Troy Dillon 
54	At the time that you offended against Troy Dillon, he was aged between seven to nine years, and you were aged between 29 and 31.
55	Troy was not in the youth organisation, but due to the family relationship with you and his brother's involvement in the youth organisation, he developed a friendship with you and trusted you.  You paid Troy a lot of attention and gave him gifts.
Charge 6 – (between 1 January 1976 and 31 December 1979)
56	The basis for Charge 6, said to have occurred between 1 January 1976 and 31 December 1979, is that on an occasion at your home, Troy Dillon  was sitting on your lap on the couch in your living room.  He was wearing a T-shirt and shorts.  You and he were alone at the house and were watching TV.
57	Whilst watching TV, you put your hand on Troy’s thigh.  You then put your right hand down the top of his shorts and underwear.  You grabbed his penis and testicles for a short time before he  pulled your hand out of his shorts.  You put your right hand down the top of his shorts and underwear again and grabbed Troy’s penis and testicles for a short time before he pulled your hand out once more.  You then put your hand down the top of his shorts and underwear for a third time, grabbing Troy’s penis and testicles.  Troy stopped resisting, and the assault occurred for a longer period, with Troy eventually pulling your hand out of his shorts.  It is this conduct which gives rise to Charge 6.
58	Troy disclosed the offending in late 2021 when Nicholas had reported the offending against him to police.  After Patrick and Nicholas rejected your attempts to further assault them and after they had both left the youth organisation, you lost interest in them and the family.  You stopped going to their home or having the boys stay over at your address.
59	I understand that on 26 September 1979, you were appointed to the
New South Wales group of the youth organisation. 
60	Patrick, Nicholas and Troy Dillon did not have a close relationship as they got older and spoke infrequently.  They did not disclose their experiences with you until they were in their 20s.  They did not disclose the offending to their parents.
Michael Parker 
61	At the time you offended against Michael Parker, he was nine years old, and you were about 35.
Charge 1 – indecent assault (between 1 March 1981 and 5 March 1982)
62	The basis for Charge 1 on the second indictment, said to have occurred between 1 March 1981 and 5 March 1982) is that on occasion, you took Michael Parker and his friend David Robinson to the MCG to watch the Richmond football team play.  After the game, you took them back to your address.
63	On the particular occasion giving rise to Charge 1, when back at your address, Michael Parker was in the bathroom at the wash basin which was upstairs.  You approached him from behind and reached into his shorts and grabbed his penis with your hand.  It is this conduct which gives rise to Charge 1 on this second indictment.
64	On 7 July 2021, Nicholas reported the offending to police.
65	On 16 July 2021, he attended a Melbourne suburban police station and disclosed more details about the offending.
66	On 11 February 2022, police spoke to Patrick Dillon where he disclosed the offending against him.
67	On 14 February 2022, police spoke with Troy Dillon, who did not wish to report the offending but wanted to support his brothers.  However, on
17 February 2022, Troy made disclosures to police about your offending against him.
68	On 26 July 2022, you attended a police station, and you were arrested and interviewed in respect of the offending alleged by Patrick, Nicholas and Troy Dillon. 
69	During the interview, you said the following things.
70	In relation to the offending against the three brothers, you said that you did not recall anything happening and said that you were in the army from 1972 to 1981 at various postings.
71	You said you vaguely recalled the boys' names, but you knew of the family.
72	You said that you knew the Dillon family through the youth organisation, but you could not recall the period you came to know the family.
73	You said you were not with the youth organisation at the same time you were in the army.
74	You said you were a manager in the youth organisation training young boys and at a Melbourne suburban branch. 
75	You said that the brothers never came to your house.
76	You said you could not remember the 'initiation' process as described by the complainant Patrick Dillon. 
77	You could not remember the pornographic cards, as you had never been into pornography, you said, and you never had the cards as described.
78	You could not recall any of the offending alleged by Patrick, Nicholas and Troy Dillon. 
79	On 5 April 2022, Michael Parker disclosed to police the offending against him.
80	On 28 July 2022, you attended a police station where you were arrested and interviewed in relation to the offending against Michael Parker.
81	When interviewed, you said that you joined the youth organisation from about 1960 to 1981.
82	You said you recalled the Robinson family and David, who you knew through the youth organisation. 
83	You recalled Michael Parker  from that time.
84	You said that Michael would come to your house and watch television and that the boys would come to your house to see your stock car and help with the car.
85	You said you would take them to the speedway but could not recall taking them to AFL football.
86	You said you could not recall the alleged offending against Michael Parker.
87	Mr Clement, your offending is most serious and deserving of a punishment which is just in all of the relevant circumstances.  Your offending must be strongly denounced.  It is an aggravating feature of all of your offending that, as your own counsel said, you inveigled yourself into the families of the victims in a bid to have access to them, engaging in grooming behaviours, and you breached the trust that the families had in you and that the victims had in you.  In a number of instances, you committed the offences when the complainants were solely in your care and so particularly vulnerable to you.
88	In one instance, you offended against Nicholas Dillon in his own home, brazenly doing so whilst his parents were in another room of the house and his brother was in the lower bunk.  Also, as the learned prosecutor said, on occasions, you were most persistent with your assaults, committing these despite objections from the particular complainant involved.  There was a substantial age gap between the victims, the oldest of whom was only 11, and you, and when it was apparent that a particular complainant was not going to be cooperative with you anymore, if they were in the first place, you callously moved onto the next. 
89	I regard the offending against Nicholas Dillon as particularly serious in instances where you penetrated his anus with your finger.  I note that this occurred on three separate occasions, being part of the conduct which is relied on for the purposes of Charges 2, 3, and 5 on the first indictment.
90	Further, you exploited your authority in your role at the youth organisation and the apparent adoration that some of these complainants had for you in committing some of these offences.
91	In all, your offending is abhorrent, and it is most concerning that you say you have little or no recollection of a number of the victims.  In fact, it beggars belief, in my view, and in due course I will refer to other offending of which you have been convicted where you clearly did remember but told police otherwise.
92	There is nothing before me which serves to reduce your moral culpability.
I find that your moral culpability is high.
93	In sentencing you, I take into account the victim impact statements which were provided by Nicholas and Patrick Dillon.  Each of these victims/survivors read their victim impact statement aloud, which was a most courageous thing to do.  Their suffering was palpable.
94	Patrick Dillon spoke of the trust that you had won from his parents and siblings and the abuse of that trust by sexually offending against he and his brothers.  He spoke of telling his parents about the abuse in 2012 and the fact that they were visibly shocked and upset about this.  He said that he believed that his parents felt extremely guilty about allowing he and his brothers to go to your house unaccompanied, and he felt their pain and the abuse of their trust by you.  He said that he did not tell anyone about the sexual abuse until he confided in his future wife in about 1988.  He said that she had encouraged him to report this to the police, but he felt shame and guilt about what had happened to him, and he wanted to move on with his life.
95	He spoke of you returning to his home in suburban Melbourne after abusing him when he was 11.  He spoke of hiding from you when you came to the house and of experiencing guilt and shame in relation to what you did to him.  He said that this was when you started taking his brother Nicholas to your home.  He said that, to the present day, he felt guilt that he never said anything in order to try to protect his younger brother although he acknowledged that of course he was a child himself.  He said, though, that he still felt ashamed about this and he was upset that a child should have ever been put in this position. 
96	As I said at the plea hearing, Patrick Dillon has absolutely nothing to feel ashamed or guilty about – he was only a child and should never have been put in the position that you put him in, apparently being aware that he would not say anything or would not be believed if he did.  The only person who should feel guilt and shame is you, Mr Clement.
97	Patrick Dillon said that you had a big personality and were fun to be around, and he spoke of your V8 car.  He said that you were physically imposing.  He said that since you offended against him, he had been distrustful of other people with a similar personality and was always looking for something more sinister that they might be hiding behind a façade.
98	He also spoke of your plea of not guilty at the committal hearing stage, which he said had invalidated the trauma that he had felt you put him through as a child.  He found it stressful knowing he would have to defend and/or explain his statement in court and relive the events from his childhood.  He said that it signified to him that you had no real remorse at that stage and that had caused him considerable distress also.
99	Nicholas Dillon said that he was a victim and a survivor.  He said that the abuse at your hands had changed his life and shaped the person that he now was.  He said that he had been condemned to a life sentence of pain and torture because of your offending.  He said the abuse was a violation of his body, his sense of self, his trust in others as well as his safety and well-being.
100	He said that he experienced pain going beyond physical suffering.  The pain infiltrated every aspect of his existence, leaving him feeling alone, anxious and that his days were racked with fear.  He said that he found solace in sleep but woke up early, and the anxiety would hit him, he said, like an axe to his chest.  He said that simple tasks such as showering and putting on clothes or shoes were difficult, as he had learnt routines to minimise his anxiety.
101	He said that the impact on his mental health had been severe, and he had battled with anxiety, depression and PTSD, seeking therapy and support to navigate the overwhelming feelings that often threaten to drown him.  He said that each day was a struggle to reclaim his sense of normalcy and to rebuild his shattered self-esteem as well as finding a path forward that was not defined by the darkness of his past.
102	He said that despite all of this, he had found strength and resilience within himself.  He said that speaking out at the plea hearing was a testament to his determination to not be silenced or defined by abuse and that he was committed to healing and reclaiming his life, as well as ensuring that his voice was heard.
103	He said that the journey towards recovery was a long and arduous one, but he was hopeful.  He said he was learning to trust again and to find joy in the small moments and to rebuild the relationships that were impacted by the trauma.  He said that you took many things from him, but you did not take away his spirit or will to survive.
104	Mr Clement, these are the very real impacts that your offending has had upon these victims/survivors, and I take these matters into account in sentencing you.  Also, it takes no imagination to presume harm in respect of the victims who did not make victim impact statements.
105	Nicholas Dillon is to be commended on his fortitude, and it is to be hoped that he and Patrick are able to fully heal sooner rather than later.
106	At the time of this offending, you had no prior convictions.  However, you have been dealt with for relevant criminal offending in the past with your criminal offending spanning from 1970 to 1984, overall.
107	On 5 March 1981 in the Campbelltown District Court, New South Wales, you were dealt with for five charges of indecent assault of a male, and it appears that you entered a recognisance in the sum of $250, and there was a requirement that you be supervised by the Adult Probation Authority for a period of three years.  You were fined $1,000.  Although there is a marginal overlap between these matters and the between-dates offending concerning Michael Parker, it was accepted by the prosecution that the New South Wales matters would not be treated as prior convictions for the purposes of sentencing you.  Therefore, I do not do so.
108	The commission date for the New South Wales offences have not been ascertained, and all that could really be said is that they must have occurred before the date on which you appeared in the District Court in New South Wales, being before 5 March 1981.
109	On 2 April 2004, in this court, you were dealt with for three counts of gross indecency, four counts of indecent assault on a male under the age of 16, two counts of buggery and one count of attempted buggery.  No prior convictions were alleged against you on that occasion.
110	The offending was said to have occurred between January 1970 and February 1981 when you were a member of the youth organisation, and each of the victims also belonged to this youth organisation.   The victim in respect of Charges 1-5 concerned a boy aged between 12 and 14 years, and you were then aged between 24 and 26.  Charges 1 and 2 were both representative counts, with the sample count concerning the first occasion on which you told the victim that he had to prove that he was pleased to be your friend by performing fellatio on you and you then performing the same act on him.  The charges were representative of conduct of this kind, which ensued regularly between you and this victim after the first occasion.
111	Charge 3 concerned you driving the same victim to a secluded area after a youth organisation function outside Melbourne, where you sat him on your lap and penetrated his anus with your penis, causing him considerable pain.  This gave rise to a charge of buggery.  It was also a representative count, as the conduct occurred on other occasions.  There was another occasion where you attempted to insert your penis into his anus, which gave rise to attempted buggery, which was said to be count 4.  This was also a representative count, as the conduct had occurred on other occasions.  Count 5 concerned you inviting the same victim to masturbate you at your home on an occasion when you were ill.
112	In the sentencing remarks, it was observed that the offences generally occurred in your car and almost always after a youth organisation function or some associated event with the exception of Charge 5.  It was said that they occurred over a period of almost three years, and you desisted only as your victim became more mature and you saw less of each other and also because of the victim's parents becoming concerned that you and their child were becoming too close and warned you off.
113	Counts 6-9 concerned another victim who was a member of the youth organisation, and your offending occurs during the same periods as you were abusing another victim, which I understand is the first victim in respect of these matters.  After a sexual encounter between you and this victim occurring in South Australia, you offended against the second victim after he and three other boys attended your house during the school holidays.  You gave the second victim alcohol to the point where he was sick and vomiting.  When he was in the shower, you stood behind him and fondled his penis.  This gave rise to Charge 6, indecent assault on a male under the age of 16.  The victim fondled your penis, which formed the subject of Charge 7, gross indecency.  The conduct occurred on other occasions, and therefore Charges 6 and 7 were said to be representative.  Again, the offences occurred generally in your car and on occasions after social outings.
114	Charge 8 occurred after you had played a game of bowls with the second victim.  You removed your pants and demanded he perform oral sex on you.  He refused, and you became aggressive and pushed his head onto your penis, forcing him to suck your penis until your reached orgasm.  On another occasion, 'under the guise of giving' the victim a driving lesson, you sat the second victim on you lap and penetrated his anus with your penis, causing him considerable pain.  This conduct occurred on other occasions as well, which meant that count 9 was a representative count of buggery.
115	Count 10, which was a charge of indecent assault on a male under the age of 16, concerned the third victim and occurred at a later period in your life, being 'between January 1978 and February 1981'.  This period aligns with the period of offending in which you engaged against Nicholas Dillon and Michael Parker.  You were aged between 32 and 35, and the victim the subject of count 10 was aged between 11 and 15.  The third victim was a member of a suburban youth organisation, and you were the leader of the same youth organisation but in a different suburban group at that time.  According to these sentencing remarks, it appeared that you were in the army at that stage, and the victim recalls you collecting him from his home in suburban Melbourne to drive the two of you to your parents' holiday house.  You were dressed in army fatigues.  Again, you invited this victim to sit on your lap to drive.  You fondled his penis through his clothing, which gave rise to count 10, which was also a representative count.  It was noted that it appeared that further assaults took place on another occasion at your parents’ holiday house when you were down from New South Wales on leave from the army and that you were spending the day at your parents' house.  'Twice on this day you pulled [the third victim's] pants down and at least on one occasion you fondled his penis'.  The conduct was also covered by count 10, which was said to be a representative count.
116	In relation to those matters, you made a number of admissions to one of the victims and apologised for your conduct.  You had a further conversation where you made further admissions with one of your victims.  In your record of interview, conducted later that day, you acknowledged that at the relevant time you were attracted to young boys and admitted knowing each of the three victims.  You denied targeting boys for sexual acts and said that your admissions had been falsely made.  As recorded in these sentencing remarks, you, 'otherwise professed a lack of recollection of any of the specific acts alleged, and to which you ... subsequently pleaded guilty'.
117	This approach by you as to a professed lack of recollection has a familiar ring to it, Mr Clement.
118	A total effective sentence of eight years and six months' imprisonment was imposed with a non-parole period of five and a half years, declaring you had already served four days at that time.
119	On 27 June 2007, also in this court, you were sentenced, in relation to two counts of gross indecency in the presence of a person under the age of 16, two counts of indecent assault, one count of gross indecency with a person under the age of 16, and three counts of taking part in an act of sexual penetration with a child aged between 10 and 16 years.  The maximum penalty for the charges of gross indecency either with or in the presence of a person under the age of 16 was two years' imprisonment; for indecent assault, five years' imprisonment; and for taking part in an act of sexual penetration, 10 years' imprisonment.
120	The offending giving rise to these charges concerned offending which took place at your home during 1984 on three separate occasions.  The two victims were 11-year-old boys, one of whom lived across the road from you and the other who was introduced to you by the first victim.
121	The offending occurred during 1984, so about two or three years after you offended against Michael Parker, the last of the victims in the matters before me, and about three years after you had been dealt with by the New South Wales District Court.  The offending on the occasion for which you were sentenced in 2007  involved you giving the victims cigarettes and alcohol and getting them to play a game which resulted in all of you being naked.  Other offending involved you touching the penis of one of the boys and on a third occasion you played the same game as on the first, gave the children alcohol and cigarettes then engaged in mutual penis touching.  You then sucked the penis of one of the boys in the presence of the other and then led this boy into a bedroom and sucked his penis once more.  You soaped his anus, then penetrated his anus with your penis.  You told the boys not to tell anyone about what you had done.  The matters were reported to police in 2004.
122	It was recorded by the sentencing Judge that in 1985 you had been dealt with in the Magistrates' Court for 'similar sexual offending against
pre-pubescent boys' which appeared to have occurred in 1983 or 1984.  LEAP reports were referred to where there was one charge of attempted penetration of a child and seven charges of indecent assault.  You were sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a 12-month non-parole period.
123	In relation to the offending before the sentencing Judge in 2007, a total effective sentence of five years' imprisonment was imposed, ordering that four years of the total effective sentence be served concurrently with the sentence that you were currently undergoing by virtue of the sentence imposed in 2004, effectively extending the sentence imposed in 2004 by one year. The sentencing Judge in 2007  imposed a new non-parole period of three years.  You were sentenced in relation to these matters during the course of serving the sentence imposed by another Judge as I have said on 2 April 2004 in this court.
124	I was told by Mr Hutton SC, who appeared on your behalf, that the two-year prison sentence you received in 1985 was for more serious offending than that before me, being penetrative in nature.  If this is a reference to paragraph 8 of the 2007 sentencing remarks, it seems that the matters were dealt with in the Magistrates' Court, and there was one charge of attempted penetration of a child and seven charges of indecent assault.  I was not provided with the details in relation to these matters save being told by your counsel as to the nature of the offending.
125	I also note in the present offending, there are three instances of digital penetration of the complainant Nicholas Dillon’s anus.
126	I note that the serious sexual offender provisions were not in place at the time of the 2004 sentence.  However, the serious sexual offender provisions were in place as at the time when sentence was imposed in 2007 and these provisions apply to that sentence and of course apply to the offences before me after the first two sentences that I impose in circumstances where sentences of imprisonment will be imposed on these and those thereafter.
127	I make it clear that I do not sentence you again in relation to any of this other offending to which I have just referred, and you are to be sentenced by me as having no prior convictions.  However, self-evidently, there are some features of this other offending which are common to the offending before me.  The nature and extent of this other offending provides a good deal of context in respect of the offending for which I sentence you, and your explanation or avowed explanation for the offending for which I now sentence you.
128	In sentencing you I take into account your background.
129	You were born in 1946 in regional Victoria. 
130	Both of your parents are now deceased.
131	You have a sister who you have not seen for over 30 years.
132	Your early childhood was very disrupted because your father worked for a particular company which required you to move locations every three years due to the need for him to work at various different locations.  You instructed your counsel that you remembered living various locations in regional Victoria and suburban Melbourne. 
133	You went to three different primary schools and three different high schools.  Your highest level of education was Year 9.
134	When you were a child, you participated in the youth organisation.  You instructed your counsel that you were offended against sexually as a 13- to 14-year-old, saying that you were raped by an older male.  You instructed your counsel that you could not complain about this back then as no one believed children.  This attitude appears to be something that you relied upon in relation to the victims in respect of the matters now before me.
135	I have no psychological or psychiatric material to assist me in determining any mental health or other issues concerning the behaviour for which I now sentence you.
136	I was told that after school you worked for the same company as your father did, for four years, before being called up for national service from 1966 to 1968.  You did not see active service, but you were stationed in Malaysia after the conflict there.
137	After completing national service, you got out of the army and worked again for the same company you had worked for four years before joining the army once more as a regular soldier for 11 years from 1972 to 1983.  You instructed Mr Hutton that you did not believe that you worked for the youth organisation whilst also being in the army.  However, the dates during which you worked in the army seem to correspond with the dates of alleged offending by victims who were predominantly members from the youth organisation.
138	In any event, I was told that when you returned to civilian life, you worked in various places in the auto spare parts field.
139	After the most recent sentence of imprisonment, you were released in late 2010, and since that time, until June 2023, you worked as a storeman/driver at a business that sells promotional T-shirts and branded products.  You worked there for 13 years before retiring this year for health and age reasons.
140	In 1985, you married.  Your wife already had five children.  Together, you had two more children, and you remained together until 2016, so she apparently stayed with you during the periods of imprisonment imposed in 2004 and 2007.  Mr Hutton said that you remained a stepfather to two of your five stepchildren, but you are estranged from your 36-year-old daughter.  You still see your 33-year-old son.  You have an eight-year-old granddaughter, but you are banned from seeing her.  You have a two-and-a-half-year-old great granddaughter that you do see.
141	I was told that your finances are poor.  When you and your wife separated in 2016, you paid her a share of the joint assets and you had some money in the bank.  That money is now restrained by the solicitors who are acting for you, with ongoing civil proceedings relating to other victims.  You are renting a small accommodation and are on the aged pension.  When I queried Mr Hutton as to whether you were legally aided, he said that you were not but that he had retained the brief to represent you and did so at previous rates rather than those that a senior counsel might charge.
142	I was told that you used your time in prison constructively when you have been there, and you were a model prisoner who never caused any issues for staff.  I understand that whilst in gaol in the past, you have undertaken a sex offenders program.
143	Mr Hutton submitted that you felt ashamed and embarrassed at your offending and you believed that you were seeking affection from the victims.  At the plea hearing, Mr Hutton said that you were motivated to offend against the victims in the case before me out of a need for comfort.  I must say, I have a difficulty with any avowed need for the affection of the victims in view of the nature of your offending and in circumstances where there was such an overlap between offending against the victims in the case for which I now sentence you and other victims to which I have referred.
144	Perhaps seeking comfort is a euphemism for seeking sexual gratification from young boys, each of whom were of a similar age; as you said in a previous record of interview, you were attracted to young males.  There is ample proof of this, and in my view, your explanation for your offending rings somewhat hollow.
145	Although you pleaded not guilty when the matter proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief in the Magistrates' Court, you entered pleas of guilty at an early stage in circumstances where I understand you were willing to plead guilty to an appropriately framed indictment or indictments.  I was told by Mr Hutton that once you obtained appropriate legal representation, the matter resolved quickly, and he surmised that you entered a plea of not guilty in the Magistrates' Court due to the fact that there were a number of matters which have since fallen away.  By pleading guilty at such an early stage, the law says you are entitled to a significant discount in the sentence that you would otherwise receive, as you have saved the witnesses, especially the victims, the time and trouble of giving evidence and you have saved the community the time and expense of contested proceedings.
146	Mr Hutton submitted that I ought also accept that the pleas of guilty demonstrated remorse on your part, and he told me that you have expressed remorse in respect of your offending against the victims.  On the other hand, you say you do not really recall the victims, or some of the victims, or the offending and offended against these victims at a time when it appears you were offending against a whole number of others.  Having said this, there is a significant period since this time where you have not offended, and, as I have said, I understand you have completed sex offender programs whilst in prison.
147	In the end, I accept that you have some remorse in relation to your offending insofar as you are able to experience this and that such remorse is reflected by your preparedness to facilitate justice by pleading guilty at a fairly early stage.  As to whether your remorse is heartfelt and insightful, I am unable to say.
148	In sentencing you, I have factored in that you are to be sentenced as someone without any criminal record as such because of the timing of various court appearances for your other offending.  I have also factored in that other than the overall period of your offending in relation to these and other matters, there was nothing before the late 1970s and nothing after the early 1980s.
149	I have taken into account that you have received three separate prison sentences for offending that predates and postdates the offending before me and that you have lost the opportunity for a level of concurrency in respect of sentencing for the matters before me and other matters for which you were sentenced at earlier stages.
150	Totality is a consideration in your case, as is the loss of opportunity for a level of concurrency.  However, it is noteworthy that you received immediate terms of imprisonment in relation to three groups of prior offending, and I am sentencing you in respect of other offending impacting four different victims.
151	As I said, the serious sexual offender regime now operates, as it did in 2007, albeit that a disproportionate sentence is not warranted in your case in order to protect the community.
152	It is accepted by you that, overall, the offending before me is serious and would likely have resulted in a prison sentence had you been sentenced for the offending in the late 1980s or early 1990s.  It seems to me that a prison sentence would have been imposed in 2004 or 2007 in relation to the matters before me albeit that a level of concurrency would have been warranted because of the principle of totality.
153	In sentencing you, I have taken into account that the offending before me occurred over 40 years ago albeit that the last time that you were dealt with was in 2007.  Your counsel submitted that the delay of 40 years was likely to have caused a forensic disadvantage for you if there were a trial, and there would be nothing in the way of scientific or medical evidence to support the victims' allegations in the matters before me.  He submitted that, therefore, the pleas of guilty should have a particularly high value.  I have made a significant allowance in relation to your facilitation of justice.  However, I must say I doubt that there would have been much in the way of scientific or medical evidence to support the victims' allegations at the time or soon thereafter in view of what you did to them.  However, I do not speculate about this.
154	Mr Hutton, most properly, did not submit that there was any delay that was attributable to the investigation of your offending by police once complaints was made.  The learned prosecutor submitted that there was something of a delay in this regard, and that there would have been a degree of stress which you would have experienced with matters hanging over head from the time that you were first made aware of the allegations against you in July 2022 concerning the Dillon brothers.  I note that you were interviewed in relation to Michael Parker two days after this and you were charged in February 2023 in respect of the Dillon brothers and July 2023 in respect of Michael Parker.  In the circumstances, I do not regard the delay involved as being of any substance, and it was not submitted by your counsel that I ought factor in any stress experienced by you in respect of this time period.  However, I accept that during the intervening period between the last of your offending in 1984, for which you were sentenced in 2007, and now you have demonstrated that you have been able to rehabilitate, which is evidenced by the fact that you have not been charged with any further offending during that intervening period.
155	I have also taken into account that you are now 78 years old and you have various medical ailments which are being appropriately managed.  These were set out in a letter from your doctor as being:
(a)	type 2 diabetes;
(b)	recurrent ligamentous strain to your right ankle;
(c)	sensorineural deafness;
(d)	solar keratosis (weekly dry ice treatment);
(e)	spondylosis (lumbosacral);
(f)	prostate cancer;
(g)	dermatitis;
(h)	osteoarthritis of your spine and knees.
156	Your general practitioner, Dr Marshall, said that your health was precarious and that you would suffer more greatly in a gaol setting.  However, Mr Hutton most properly acknowledged that this was not an appropriate aspect of
Dr Marshall's opinion and that you accept that your health issues are not so great as to warrant particular consideration in the sentencing exercise.  In all of the circumstances, I make marginal allowance in your favour in that any period in gaol for you would be somewhat more difficult than for someone without these ailments in all the relevant circumstances, including the fact that they can be appropriately managed whether you are in gaol or not.
157	In all the relevant circumstances, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being very good.  This is especially due to the length of time in which you have not reoffended and the fact that you are now 78 and have a number of ailments which would make offending more difficult for you.  I place fairly minimal weight on specific deterrence and protection of the community.  However, I place very strong weight on general deterrence in a bid to deter others from offending as you have.  I must also place firm weight on imposing a just punishment in all the relevant circumstances and to strongly denounce your conduct, as I have previously said.
158	Your counsel made a number of submissions in relation to the loss of opportunity for concurrency and what might have been had the offending before me been dealt with at an earlier stage.  I have considered those submissions, but I have also noted that the serious sexual offender provisions were not in place in respect of the matters for which you were sentenced in 2004, as I have said, and I also observe that sentencing practice at that time and in 2007 is not current sentencing practice albeit that I have had regard to the sentences imposed at that time and the offending involved.
159	I have had regard to current sentencing practice and the cases to which I have been referred at the plea hearing, and I have had regard to sentencing practice at an earlier time when you committed the offences, such as I can find this to be.  Such considerations are matters to which I have had regard, but they are not controlling considerations in the exercise of my instinctive synthesis.
160	Your counsel submitted that in all the circumstances, I could impose a community corrections order, citing the case of Boulton in this regard.  I rejected this submission as, in my view, your offending is too serious and a community corrections order could not appropriately address the weight needed to attach to all relevant sentencing considerations.
161	Mr Hutton submitted that if I were of the view that a sentence of imprisonment was warranted, then a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment ought be imposed, submitting at the plea hearing that it was in the interests of justice to do so.  Subsequently, via email through my associate, I queried whether this was the correct test, and it is now accepted that the correct test in operation at the relevant time by virtue of s27 of the Sentencing Act 1991, then in place, was that a court may make an order suspending the whole or part of a sentence of imprisonment if it is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in the circumstances.
162	In considering whether it is desirable to do so, the court must have regard to:
(a)	the need, considering the nature of the offence, its impact on any victim of the offence and any injury, loss or damage resulting directly from the offence, to ensure that the sentence –
(i) adequately manifests the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which the offender engaged; and
(ii) adequately deters the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar character; and
(iii) reflects the gravity of the offence; and
(b)	any previous suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed on the offender and whether the offender breached the order suspending the sentence; and
(c)	whether the offence was committed during the operational period of a suspended sentence; and
(d)	the degree of risk of the offender committing another offence punishable by imprisonment during the operational period of the sentence if it were to be suspended.
163	Further, I can only make an order to suspend a gaol term if the total effective sentence does not exceed three years' imprisonment.  Also, I must not impose a suspended sentence unless the sentence of imprisonment, if unsuspended, would be appropriate in the circumstances having regard to the provisions of the Sentencing Act.
164	In sentencing you, I must have regard to the principle of parsimony; that is, the sentence that I impose must be no more severe than is necessary to meet all the appropriate purposes of sentencing.
165	As I have previously said, it is also a relevant consideration that you have already served substantial gaol terms in respect of other victims, and it would be expected that if the matters before me were dealt with at the time of the previous sentences, there would have been a measure of concurrency in respect of the offences for which I now sentence you in keeping with the principle of totality.
166	Having regard to s27 of the Sentencing Act, to which I have referred, and applying this to your case, I have come to the view that notwithstanding the factors in your favour in applying the relevant test, your offending is too serious, the impact on the victims is too great, and the weight attaching to general deterrence and denunciation is too great as to find that it is desirable to impose a suspended sentence.  Also, I have arrived at a sentence of imprisonment which exceeds three years as a head sentence.
167	MX RATTRAY:  I apologise, Your Honour.  One thing that has arisen – and it is perhaps due to an issue in clarity over email correspondence to Your Honour's chambers – was the parties' position on whether s27(1A) does apply to Your Honour's sentencing consideration here.
168	HER HONOUR:  What is that?
169	MX RATTRAY:  Which is the test that Your Honour outlined - - -
170	HER HONOUR:  Is does not apply?  I thought you said it did apply.
171	MX RATTRAY:  In my email correspondence, I accepted that Your Honour's or the court's research officer was correct - - -
172	HER HONOUR:  Well, what is the test?  What is the test?
173	MX RATTRAY:  It is sub-section - - -
174	HER HONOUR:  Whether it is desirable to do so?
175	MX RATTRAY:  Sub-section (3) of 27 as at 1 September - - -
176	HER HONOUR:  What is the test, and where have I said something that is not correct, please, Mx Rattray?
177	MX RATTRAY:  Sorry, Your Honour.  The test is - - -
178	HER HONOUR:  So you are saying that 27(1A) does not apply?
179	MX RATTRAY:  That is certainly my position, and I understand that my friend agrees.
180	HER HONOUR:  The test is, though, 'if satisfied it is desirable to do so in the circumstances'.
181	MX RATTRAY:  That is correct, Your Honour.
182	HER HONOUR:  Very well.  And so in considering whether it is desirable in the circumstances to make the order, you say that (1A) does not have application?
183	MX RATTRAY:  No, Your Honour.  That sub-section applies to offences which occur after 2006 and before 2013.
184	HER HONOUR:  All right.  So I just simply apply that test - - -
185	MX RATTRAY:  Which is - - -
186	HER HONOUR:  - - - which, in any event, having regard to the circumstances set out in (1A), would be some of the relevant matters, I would have thought, in any event, would they not?
187	MX RATTRAY:  That is right, Your Honour, and it is the case that I have referred Your Honour to a Court of Appeal decision which did consider (1A) as part of their sentencing consideration and in circumstances where offending occurred prior to the 2006 amendment.
188	HER HONOUR:  All right.  Well, I will simply revise my sentencing remarks in that regard, and I will simply apply the test 'if I am satisfied it is desirable to do so in the circumstances', and then I just take into account all the relevant circumstances.
189	MX RATTRAY:  Yes, Your Honour.  It is perhaps, I submitted, a two-step in a sense.  So the 'desirable in the circumstances' is in relation to s27(1).  With regard to s27(3), Your Honour must also be satisfied that the term of imprisonment by itself, were it not suspended, be suitable in the circumstances.
190	HER HONOUR:  Yes, I cannot squash a sentence to try and fit it into a suspended sentence.
191	MX RATTRAY:  Yes, Your Honour.
192	HER HONOUR:  Yes, all right.  Well, thank you for that assistance.  I must say it was a little unclear as to what everyone was saying about this but thank you for that assistance.  So what I will do is, I will take those matters out, revise my sentencing remarks in that way.  In my view, the things that are set out in any event in sub-s(1A) would be some of the things that would be relevant in any event, and I have taken into account all relevant circumstances in any event in arriving at the sentence that I have.
193	MX RATTRAY:  Yes, Your Honour.
194	HER HONOUR:  So I just want to make that clear.  As I have said, I can only make an order to suspend a gaol term if the total effective sentence does not exceed three years of imprisonment, and as you pointed out and I have referred to, I must not impose a suspended sentence unless a sentence of imprisonment, if unsuspended, would be appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the provisions of the Sentencing Act, all right.
195	MX RATTRAY:  Yes.
196	HER HONOUR:  So in my view, the matters that I have referred to do not really materially take the matter one way or the other in terms of my instinctive synthesis and my assessment of whether it is desirable to impose a suspended in this particular case, so I just make that clear.
197	MX RATTRAY:  As the court pleases.
198	HER HONOUR:  Thank you, Mr Prosecutor.  Do you agree with that position?
199	MR HUTTON:  I do, Your Honour.  And given Your Honour's conclusion on the duration of the proposed sentence, whether we are right or wrong, you do not get to sub-s(1A) anyway.
200	HER HONOUR:  No, no, that is right.
201	MR HUTTON:  So it makes no material difference.
202	HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you, all right.  I will just continue.
203	In sentencing you, I must have regard to the principle of parsimony; that is, the sentence that I impose must be no more severe than is necessary to meet all the appropriate purposes of sentencing.
204	As I have previously said, it is also a relevant consideration that you have already served substantial gaol terms in respect of other victims, and it would be expected that if the matters before me were dealt with at the time of the previous sentences, there would have been a measure of concurrency in respect of the offences for which I now sentence you in keeping with the principle of totality.
205	Having regard to the fact that I have come to the view that a sentence in excess of three years is warranted as a head sentence in this case and, in any event, because of the seriousness of the offending and the other relevant matters that I have considered and the weight that needs to attach to relevant sentencing considerations, in my view, it is not desirable in any event to impose a suspended sentence, but as Mr Hutton has helpfully indicated, it does not really arise in circumstances where, in my view, an appropriate sentence exceeds three years as a head sentence.
206	In view of my assessment, however, of your prospects of rehabilitation and the minimal weight attaching to specific deterrence and protection of the community, I will provide for a large gap between the head sentence and
non-parole period in your case.
207	I am now going to impose sentence, and the first thing I will do is convict you of each of the offences on each of the indictments.
208	By reason of your convictions for these offences, you are to be recorded as a registrable offender for life.  You must report your personal details to the Chief Commissioner of Police annually for the rest of your life.  You must first report these details within seven days after your release from custody.  Details in writing of these reporting conditions will be served upon you now by my associate, Ms Hammond, I will ask your counsel to assist you to attend to an acknowledgement of that notice and have you sign it.
209	MR HUTTON:  That has been signed, Your Honour.
210	HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you, Mr Hutton.  I am now going to sentence you in relation to Indictment P10350111.1 – that is, the first indictment – as follows.  You are sentenced to the following periods of imprisonment in relation to that indictment:  Charge 1, 12 months; Charge 2, two years, which will be the base sentence.
211	From this point on, you are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender, which will be noted on the court records.  This means there is a presumption of cumulation hereafter.  However, I intend to impose some cumulation in respect of the sentences on Charges 1 and 2 on this indictment, as these are separate instances of offending, and in the case of Charge 1, there is a separate victim.  Charge - - -
212	MX RATTRAY:  Sorry, Your Honour, just another matter which arises, and I apologise again.  My understanding of the serious sex offender provisions is that having previously been convicted before courts, acknowledging that they are not prior convictions for the purpose of the sentencing, he is a serious sex offender - - -
213	HER HONOUR:  Yes, so he is a serious sexual offender after - - -
214	MR HUTTON:  For the first one.
215	MX RATTRAY:  For the first - - -
216	HER HONOUR:  I beg your pardon.
217	MX RATTRAY:  Continue on, yes.
218	HER HONOUR:  Yes, yes, all right, yes.
219	MX RATTRAY:  Sorry, Your Honour.
220	HER HONOUR:  No, no.  Well, I will amend my sentencing remarks in that way too, very well.  So I will start again.
221	So you will be sentenced as a serious sexual offender from Charge 1 on the first indictment – it will be 12 months' imprisonment; Charge 2, two years, which will be the base sentence; Charge 3, two years; Charge 4, 12 months; Charge 5, two years; Charge 6, 12 months.
222	In relation to the second indictment, P11669034.1, in relation to Michael Parker, you are sentenced to 12 months in relation to Charge 1.
223	I direct that two months' imprisonment from the sentences on Charge 1 on each indictment, and from Charges 4 and 6 on indictment ending 111.1, plus five months from the sentences on Charges 3 and 5 be served cumulatively with each other and with the base sentence.
224	This produces a total effective sentence of 42 months or three years and six months, and I direct that you serve 20 months before becoming eligible for parole.
6AAA
225	If not for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of five years, 10 months with a non-parole period of three years, nine months.
226	I will make an amendment to the serious sexual offender declaration and the stage at which it applies.
227	MX RATTRAY:  As the court pleases.
228	MR HUTTON:  As Your Honour pleases.
229	HER HONOUR:  Now, is there anything further arising from any of the remarks then?
230	MX RATTRAY:  No, Your Honour, there is nothing from the prosecution.
231	HER HONOUR:  All right.  Now, Mr Hutton, did you wish to have a word with your client, or will you do that downstairs?
232	MR HUTTON:  I will go downstairs, Your Honour.
233	HER HONOUR:  All right.
234	MR HUTTON:  Thank you.
235	HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  If you could please remove Mr Clement (a pseudonym), thank you.  We will now adjourn.
‑ ‑ ‑