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

CR-18-02212
Indictment No. G11358641.1

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
TYSON BARRY		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	25 July 2019	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 August 2019	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Barry	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1213	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: trafficking in methyl-amphetamine, possess drug x 4.  Possess unregistered handgun x 2, summary offences; possession ammunition, possess controlled weapons and deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime.  20 years old at time.  23 years old now.  Late plea.

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr Plummer	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Mr McGlone	Michael Gleeson Associates	

HIS HONOUR:  
1	Tyson Barry you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, 4 charges of possession of various drugs of dependence and 2 charges of possession of unregistered handguns.  In addition you have pleaded guilty to three summary offences being charges of possession of ammunition, possession of controlled weapons and dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, being a large amount of cash.  The maximum penalties are correctly set out in the prosecution summary.  In relation to the drug possession charges, I am satisfied that the lower penalty provision applies.  That is perhaps a charitable finding given that you were in possession of methyl-amphetamine for sale hence the single trafficking charge relating to that drug and that was a small enough quantity as well.  Additionally there was a tick book, scales, cash and I was told that the cannabis was found inside the pipe with the weapons and the methylamphetamine.  
2	However, in the case of each of the charges of possession of drugs of dependence, the quantity of drugs was very small indeed.  So, I am satisfied that the possession was not in any way connected to trafficking and so the lower penalty provision therefore applies.  In the scheme of things the possession of drug charges are the least of your problems.  They are not very serious at all given the amount involved.  
3	The fact is of course the trafficking and the firearms offences are far more serious.  
4	You were born on 31 October 1995 and are 23 years of age.  You have a very brief criminal history though there have been subsequent matters dealt with at Court including a sizeable sentence passed upon you in June 2019.  
5	The matter was opened to me last week by the prosecutor Mr Plummer and I see no need at all to go into the detail of that agreed summary which was marked as exhibit A.  I will not stray beyond those agreed facts.  Very briefly stated, the police came to your house on 22 May 2016 as a result of a report made to them by your girlfriend at the time of your behaving erratically and being in possession of a gun.  She was concerned for you and the police attended as they were concerned by that report.  They ultimately entered and found the various drugs and the two firearms as well as some ammunition.  One of the firearms, the double barrelled shotgun, was non-operational but the other was operational and you had ammunition which was suitable for that weapon.  There were a variety of drugs, some scales, a black tick book and a safe with over $18,000 in it.  The two guns are depicted in the photographs attached to the depositions.  Those two firearms were undoubtedly sinister weapons. They are sawn down shotguns.  The methyl-amphetamine was also a quite small amount but it was just over the traffickable quantity.  You admit by your plea possession for sale.  I make plain that I am not sentencing you for past acts of trafficking in relation to that that drug.  As I say the summary sets out the full factual setting and the trafficking is based on possession on that day for sale.  The control of weapons charge pertains to the three knives that are described in paragraph 9.
6	You made a no comment interview which of course was your right.  You elected to take the matter up into the committal stream and then up to this Court which was equally your right.  It was not a wise decision if I might say so.  It is why we are dealing this matter in August 2019 in relation to offending occurring in 2016.  As the issue of the search was a fundamental preliminary matter, no trial date was ever actually assigned to this case when it came up to this court.  It was said that the resolution of that preliminary matter would most likely remove the need for a trial one way or the other.  ln March 2019 I heard an application to exclude the evidence of the search and seizure.  I declined to exclude the finding of the items and you then through you counsel sought to take the matter back to the Magistrates Court on a summary plea with a section 168 application to transfer it back to the Court below.  I refused that application on 10 May and the plea then went before me on 25 July, so last week, and that followed the application by your counsel to adjourn the case from 10 May to obtain a psychological report.  No report was obtained.  You were arraigned last week and you pleaded guilty.  
7	I have only provided a brief summary of the summary.  I sentence in accordance with the full agreed factual statement.
In Mitigation
8	Your counsel, Mr McGlone had prepared some written submissions on the plea which were marked as exhibit 1.  He took me to your background in some detail both in his oral submissions and in those written materials.  He tendered a bundle of extracts marked as exhibit 2 disclosing the orders made and the sentence imposed upon you in June of this year in the Magistrates Court out at Sunshine.  He also place before me a bundle of course certificates and urine screens marked as exhibit 3.  
9	He relied upon; 
•	The guilty plea, late as it was;
•	Your youth and very limited criminal history;
•	Additionally, he relied upon the sentence which had been passed upon you in June of this year and the fact that you have been continuously in custody since 7 August 2018.  Totality was an important consideration Mr McGlone argued;
10	He argued that you had decent enough prospects of rehabilitation with family support still on offer.
11	Unlike so many of the pleas conducted before me, your counsel was very unenthusiastic indeed as to the suitability or availability of a combination type order.  In fact he made explicit submissions as to your very strong preference to emerge from custody without the sort of constraints which might be thrown up by a community corrections order and therefore have that smooth transition back into the workforce.  Release on parole was your preferred outcome and to that extent he was conceding the inevitability of a prison term and one of a quantum allowing the fixing of a Non Parole Period. He was also of course conveying your attitude to release onto a Community Corrections Order.  
Prosecution
12	The prosecutor made some brief submissions as to the relevant purposes of sentencing and he also took me to the case of Bosa [2018] VSCA 97.  The Director called in this case for a prison term.  
Background
13	Your background was set out in the written outline and the oral submissions placed before me by your counsel.  I am not going to set it all out in these my reasons.  There is no point. I accept the background placed before me. It is another good reason why I shouldn’t need to restate it all.  Very briefly you are 23 years old born on 31 October.  Importantly and it is important you were only 20 at the time of the offences occurring as they did back in May 2016.  You are the second eldest of four children.  Your parents separated when you were 14.  Your father had issues with drugs.  You on the other hand were focussed as a youngster, you did pretty well at school you left at the end of year 11 and went into an electrical apprenticeship with your grandfather.  You have almost finished that apprenticeship.  You have only, as I understand, it your final exams to go.  It follows then that you have worked for a number of years.  You were probably earning pretty good money and would have had money. Regrettably you fell into drug use.  You made some efforts to desist in using drugs by moving location and at one point you moved to stay with your sister up in Echuca.  
14	Your formal prior criminal history is of no great relevance to my task at all though I do note the possession of cartridge ammunition charge within it.  You initially spent 3 days in custody on these matters before being bailed.  You then did yourself no favours committing a range of what I will describe as fresh offences whilst awaiting the conclusion of this matter.  You had at one point been put on a community corrections order, I was told it was in August 2017, and that was for subsequent offending.  That was breached and there were other fresh offences. Exhibit 2 sets out the dates of the various offences that ultimately were dealt with on the consolidation.  You received a variety of sentences at the consolidated plea held at the Sunshine Magistrates Court on 17 June 2019.  Those sentences included a term of 304 days imprisonment which equated with your then presentence detention figure.  It follows that after the lapse of that sentence on that date you have been held on the matters for which I am to pass sentence.  So, at the time of the plea before me there was strict section 18 presentence detention of 40 days though that of course has risen since because you have been in custody since I saw your last week.  Your mother supports you and she was present during the plea. She was present during the application to exclude. She is present again here today.  That is a positive. Actually you would be surprised how many people turn up to court without any sort of support and you are not one of them and that is a good thing.  It is also good that you have done a number of useful courses in custody and are drug free as exhibit 3 makes clear.  I turn then to the matters raised in mitigation.  
Guilty plea  
15	You have pleaded guilty but at a relatively late stage it must be said.  Still you have admitted your guilt.  That is what is important. I don’t want to focus on the stage to heavily.  You have facilitated the course of justice and have taken responsibility for your crimes.  The community has been saved the time, cost and effort associated with a full blown trial up in this court.  Witnesses were called at the committal and on the application to exclude the evidence but they have at least been spared the experience of giving evidence before a jury.  Once that preliminary issue was resolved, you swiftly pleaded guilty and up to that point you presumably must have acted on the advice of your counsel in terms of the application to exclude and the merits of that application.  You could have no idea one way or the other about that sort of thing. They were legal issues.  There is still a sizeable utilitarian benefit in your pleading guilty.  I take into account your guilty plea. Plainly it is not to be met with the same level of discount as would be the position for a much earlier plea.  Here there was a committal. Here there was an application to exclude. Witnesses have been called.  There was then an endeavour to take the matter back downstairs to the Magistrates Court.  So of course, each step of the way there has been some expense incurred, that wouldn’t be incurred in the sitting of a earliest of guilty pleas.  But as I say in my judgement there must be a sizeable discount here owing to your guilty plea.  I note also that one charge did not proceed being the trafficking in cannabis but that plainly was not the obstacle to resolution of this matter.  All the eggs have been put in the basket of the exclusion of the search and once that came to nought you swiftly resolved the matter.
Remorse
16	Your counsel said very little about remorse on the plea and that is understandable given the chronology.  It is a bit hard to find any in the materials given the not guilty plea entered as it was and the application to exclude which was then made.  However, as I have said, you then pleaded guilty and you did that very swiftly.  So, I will in fact find some remorse here as evidenced by your guilty plea and I take that into account in mitigation. 
Rehabilitation
17	What then are your prospects of rehabilitation?  You have no lengthy criminal history at all.  You were young at the time of this offending.  You are still quite a young man.  It is true that you have committed the subsequent offences of which I have been informed so the delay does not give you that much by way of mitigation. Indeed no submission was made as to it having any mitigatory effect here.  However, I cannot overlook that you have been confined for almost a year.  It is your first taste of prison.  You are making very decent efforts in custody and you have a home to go to and you have family support and a job to go to.  Being in custody in the way that you have operates as a bit of a circuit breaker and it is plain from the materials before me that you were well and truly out of control back in 2016.  You are now older, and I suspect wiser, so the delay is in fact beneficial in that sense.  The matter has been over your head for a significant period but that can only be given very limited weight in the circumstances here.  You look forward to finishing your apprenticeship and re-joining the work-force.  And I hope you do.  The sentence I will impose will also further deter you to a degree.  I believe that your prospects of rehabilitation are actually really quite good but they will be conditional upon you continuing to desist from drug use.  If you continue to use drugs your life will be a train wreck.
Youth
18	I was referred by your counsel to some legal cases, decisions made by other higher Courts dealing with the importance of youth.  You were only 20 years old at the time of this offending and you are still only 23. You are still a very young man.  Your youth is still important for all the reasons advanced by your counsel and the various reference made to the importance of youth in cases such as Mills and Azzopardi.  Rehabilitation is an important consideration here, though by no means the only consideration.  Youthful offenders are less mature than adult offenders, generally less culpable, they are more likely to not actually really think through and consider the consequences of their actions and importantly, very importantly, they are far more amenable to change for the better.  Accordingly, rehabilitation is important, and less weight is ordinarily to be devoted to punishment, to deterrence and community protection.  Now these things do not apply automatically in every case in the same way. It is always important to consider the nature of the offences and the extent to which other sentencing purposes must be given some prominence.  Plainly general deterrence is important here given the gun and trafficking offence.
19	But the position is that your youth is very important and I do not lose sight of it in my sentencing task. I give it significant weight. 
The Offences
20	Let me turn to the offences.  I am not going to restate the summary, there is no need to and I am not going to dwell on the possession of drug charges.  In the scheme of things as I have said they are not serious at all given the quantity of drugs in each instance.  The most serious offending in my view relates to the possession of the guns.  They were undoubtedly sinister weapons in your possession.  Guns such as those simply have no legitimate purpose at all.  None.  They only have sinister purposes or connotations.  One of them was operational, each of them were cut down, I am not suggesting you cut them down, there is no evidence one way or the other in terms of that and you are not charged with that.  Each were secreted within the pipe.  Your counsel suggested and – this is on your instructions that you were holding on to them for another person.  He provided no detail as to who you got them from or why you took on that role and for how long you had been doing it.  I should add I wasn’t pressing for disclosure of names but at least some cogent explanation.  Well there was none provided.  I see no evidence to support your instructions at all and I raised the complete absence of any evidence to that effect with your counsel. The decision was made not to call you on that point.  I reject your instructions.  You possessed them.  They were in the pipe with the cannabis and the methyl-amphetamine.  There is not the slightest suggestion they were other than your weapons.  One was operational.  You had ammunition in other parts of the premises suitable for use in the operational weapon.  Guns such as these should not be in the community. They represent a real danger.  As you will be aware of, we have something of an epidemic of guns and gun violence at this point in this city.  Illegal guns are a great worry to us all.  So too is the community heartily sick of those who are minded to traffick in drugs of dependence.  This trafficking was based on possession for sale of a small quantity of methyl-amphetamine.  Plainly enough when I consider the tick book and the weapons including the guns and knives, you had well and truly run off the rails at the time but I must be astute not to convert the single day trafficking based on possession on that for sale into a between dates offence spanning some earlier periods.  That is not what you pleaded guilty to.  It is though still a serious crime to traffick in a drug of dependence.  There is a 15 year maximum penalty.  Nor is the possession of the cash some minor instance of that offence.  It was an amount of over $18,000.  
Purposes
21	I have to consider a number of purposes of sentencing.  I do pay regard to your prospects of rehabilitation.  That is an important purpose given your youth and relatively short dealings with the Courts.  Your prospects are pretty good indeed in my judgement.  There are other sentencing purposes which I also must give weight to.  I am required to punish you for your crimes and to do that justly and proportionately.  I must denounce your conduct.  
22	I must pay due weight to specific deterrence.  That is the need to deter you or dissuade you from offending in the future.  I think there can be some moderation of that purpose owing to your age and your very limited history before the Courts.  Also the impact of the time you have already spent in custody which will surely serve to deter you to a degree into the future.  I believe the same can be said of community protection.  It too can be significantly moderated for the same reasons.  
23	General deterrence though is in a different position.  It is still a relatively important purpose here.  It is very important that this Court send a loud message to others in the community who may think it worth considering trafficking in drugs or possessing unregistered firearms such as these.  The Courts must convey the message loud and clear through the sentences imposed that these sort of crimes will be treated very seriously when brought before a court and that stern sentences will be imposed on those who choose to commit crimes such as these.  That is what it always is, a choice. You made the choice and it was of course a very poor one.  But a poor one made in the context of you being a very young fellow.
24	I must have regard to the maximum penalties.  I also have to pay regard to current sentencing practices.  Well that is not a single controlling factor. I have looked at the case of Bosa to which I was referred but I really resist the temptation of descending to the facts of that case or the sentences imposed in that or other cases referred to.
25	At the end of the day I am exercising a sentencing discretion.  I am sentencing you for your crimes, and that is not a mathematical task. Other cases don’t provide the answer to my task.  At one stage one of the barristers, I forget which, referred to the case of Bosa as an ‘authority’.  Well, it isn’t.  Other cases are not precedents.  
26	I take into account all of the submissions made by your counsel.  I also take into account the written material placed before me on the plea.
Totality
27	There was mention made of the principal of totality of sentence.  Totality is undoubtedly important here.  You have been in custody for a significant period when measured against your age.  I can’t just look at that time and say, “well that has been taken into account as part of the sentence imposed in June of this year, it has nothing to do with my sentence”.  It is true that it was taken into account as part of that sentence.  However, as a result I have only a very small amount of strict presentence detention to declare in this case.  I still must have regard to the reality of your position because you’re the person I am sentencing.  You have already been in custody for a sizeable period and that surely must touch upon the length of sentences demanded in this sentencing exercise.  In passing appropriate sentences, I have to consider the need to pay adequate regard to various purposes and some of those purposes have to a degree already been achieved in part by virtue of the time you have already spent in custody.  So, there must be some moderation here as I judge totality to be important.  I have taken a last look at the orders I have made to guard against a crushing outcome and to ensure that the total effect of my sentences is commensurate with your criminality here.  Some of your offending was serious enough.  Some plainly was not.  
28	Prison is always a disposition of last resort.  Your counsel conceded the inevitability of a prison sentence extending beyond your current presentence detention.  
29	Your counsel was not pressing for any consideration of a combination type sentence.  Rather he spoke of the attractions of parole.  I reminded your counsel that release on parole though it might sound attractive is not a given whereas release onto a community correction order at least provides the certainty of a release date.  Your counsel’s submission did not alter.  Mr McGlone told me that you did not want a community corrections order.  For those reasons I did not have you assessed for suitability for such an order.  I must say, but for that stance, I would at least have had you assessed and I may well have considered a combination type disposition in this case.  
30	What I will do though is I will provide for the possibility of your early release by fixing what I judge to be a very modest non-parole period here.  I must proceed on the footing that you will serve every day of the head sentence that I will soon pronounce, because I am not able to take into account the possibility of your release on parole.  The Adult Parole Board will make that decision as to whether you can be released.  It really has nothing to do with me. It is between you and them.  
Ancillary orders
31	There are some ancillary orders that I have signed, and they are consented to, these various orders.  There is a disposal order in relation to the drugs and the like.  That is made under s.78(1) of the Confiscations Act.  I am satisfied that the property is appropriate to be forfeited under those provisions.  I direct that it be placed into the custody of the Chief Commissioner of Police and be held by him in the manner contemplated by the order.
32	There is a forfeiture order in relation to the firearms.  That is sought pursuant to the provisions of s.151 of the Firearms Act.  Again, there is no opposition to the making of that order.  I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make that order.  I order pursuant to s.151 of the Firearms Act, the forfeiture to the Minister of that property.
33	Finally, there is a forfeiture order in relation to the silver iPhone and the large amount of cash that was seized.  Again, there is no opposition to the making of that order, and I have signed that order.  I regard it as appropriate to make that order pursuant to the provisions of s.33(1) of the Confiscations Act.
Sentence   
34	So I am sorry to have taken so long to get to this point, Mr Barry; all you want to know is what you are looking at, and I will tell you that now.  So I wonder if you would just stand up very briefly?  It will not take long.
35	On Charge 1, that is the charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, being the methylamphetamine, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment.  
36	On Charge 2, 3 6 and 7, they are the possession of the various drugs of dependence, I actually do no not believe a prison sentence is even warranted for those charges.  As I have said, the lower penalty provision applies, in my judgment.  I believe it is open to me to impose an aggregate sentence, and that is what I am going to do.  On those four charges you are convicted and fined an aggregate sum of $1,000.
37	On Charge 4 and 5, relating to the two firearms, again I believe it is open and appropriate to impose an aggregate sentence, given the unity of the factual setting.  These were individually serious charges, as each pertained to an unregistered handgun as depicted in the photographs.  These were serious weapons.  Each charge carries a maximum term of seven years' imprisonment.  As far as I am concerned, they are the most serious charges by far.  On those two charges you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 months' imprisonment.
38	On the summary offences, on Charge 8, possession of ammunition you are convicted and fined $500.  On charge 9, the control of weapons offence relating to the three knives, you are also convicted and fined $500. 
39	On Charge, 10 possession of the $18,645 suspected of being the proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.  
40	It follows that the 12 month aggregate term imposed on Charges 4 and 5 on the indictment is the base sentence.
Cumulation
41	I direct that two months of the sentence imposed on the trafficking charge and two months of the sentence imposed on the property suspected of being the proceeds of crime charge are to be served cumulatively, that is on top of the base sentence and upon each other.  
TES
42	That produces, then, a total effective sentence of 16 months' imprisonment.
Non-parole period.
43	As I said, I am going to fix a very modest non-parole period in the circumstances, reflecting the various matters in mitigation, as indeed does that head sentence.  I fix a period of five months during which you will not be eligible for release on parole, and you have already served – it is 47 days, isn't it, today?
44	MR McGLONE:  Your Honour, it is 47 days.  However, I failed to raise with you specifically, though I did in regards to your associate, that when he was sentenced on 17 June ‑ ‑ ‑
45	HIS HONOUR:  Just hold on.  Have a seat, Mr Barry.  Yes? 
46	MR McGLONE:  He received a total effective sentence of 304 days.  That was taken as already served.  But he had been in custody for 314, so that meant that there were 10 days that weren't taken into account.  I merely raise it, Your Honour.  Given your comments in the course of sentencing, you may well have factored in the time in custody in the manner that you described.  I just raise it as a – that I didn't specifically refer to it on the past occasion. 
47	HIS HONOUR:  Well, it is pretty late in the piece to be raising it, once I have passed sentence, Mr McGlone. 
48	MR McGLONE:  It's just that I believe that that might be open to you as PSD, because ‑ ‑ ‑ 
49	HIS HONOUR:  Just tell me again, then, precisely what the position is then. 
50	MR McGLONE:  So on 17 June. 
51	HIS HONOUR:  17 June, yes. 
52	MR McGLONE:  All matters were finalised, and he was sentenced to a total effective sentence, excluding fines, to 304 days.  But he'd been in custody for 314 days.  So that's from 7 August to 17 June, or whenever the sentence was.  And that means that 10 days was not taken as PSD on that occasion.  It is my submission that you could take that into consideration as PSD, because it is after the committal mention where Mr Barry's bail was, on this matter, formally revoked.  So it can come into the auspices of s.18.  So it will just simply mean that instead of being 47 days, sorry – no actually it's 40 – I beg your pardon, Your Honour, I'll just pick up what I gave your associate this morning.
53	So I reckon that – yes, he was 40 days on the last occasion with a further seven days, so yes, you're correct, 47.  And if that 10 days is taken into consideration, it's 57 PSD. 
54	HIS HONOUR:  So anyway, you say the magistrate only declared 304 days. 
55	MR McGLONE:  That's on the transcript – on the certified extract.
56	HIS HONOUR:  I mean obviously, I mean given the nature of that sentence it was – you do not just select 304 days out of the blue unless it is equating to what you believed to be the valid PSD.
57	MR McGLONE:  I don't know, Your Honour.
58	HIS HONOUR:  Well, I mean, it is not something that rolls off the tongue, 'Here are 304 days for you'.  It is 304 because he is told that it is 304 PSD.
59	MR McGLONE:  I agree.  All I can say is that ‑ ‑ ‑
60	HIS HONOUR:  So who says it is – it should have been 314, so there are 10 days he has missed out on.
61	MR McGLONE:  It's just the calculation.  He goes into custody on 7 August, and he's sentenced on that day.  That's 314 days.  But the declaration is only in 304, so there's just that roll of 10 days.  But as Your Honour has already indicated, you have actually taken into consideration in this sentence in more general terms ‑ ‑ ‑
62	HIS HONOUR:  I have taken it into account.  I mean I can tell you, he would not be getting the head sentence that I have imposed or the non-parole period absent the time he has been in custody.
63	MR McGLONE:  Absolutely.  It only relates to the declaration of PSD, and I just leave it as a matter for Your Honour.
64	HIS HONOUR:  All right, Mr Barreiro, have you got anything to say about any of this at all?
65	MR BARREIRO:  No, Your Honour, other than the timeline as laid out by Mr McGlone is accurate; I've seen the certified extracts.  As for whether that can be taken into account as strict PSD, I think it ought be left to the court.
66	HIS HONOUR:  Well, I mean if it has not been declared, and it is not declared because the sentence did not permit it to be declared.  I mean presumably, if the magistrate thought it was 314 days I would be thinking he would have imposed a sentence of 314.  He did not.  He imposed 304.
67	MR BARREIRO:  It's unusual, and it suggests that an error might have been made in the Magistrates' Court.
68	HIS HONOUR:  I think that is plain, and if that is so, then there is 10 – as long as the Crown accept, I can go off and do all the figures and the calculations and get out my calendars and add it all up, but if someone has done all that, and they say, 'Yes, in fact it should have been 314 days, there was 314 days at the date of the Magistrates' Court sentence, he has only declared 304', then it seems to me at that stage, why could it not be declared by me as part of this PSD?
69	MR BARREIRO:  Well, it could.  I see that it could, given that ‑ ‑ ‑
70	HIS HONOUR:  It is strict PSD, isn't it?
71	MR McGLONE:  Yes.
72	MR BARREIRO:  Yes, Your Honour.
73	HIS HONOUR:  So I mean, I do not want to diddle him out of 10 days.  But are the sums accepted as being accurate by the Crown?
74	MR McGLONE:  They are, Your Honour.
75	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Well, I will make the declaration then, give him back the 10 days that – well, give him credit for the 10 days that he has been held, probably held, doubly warranted I would have thought, but it has not been declared in relation to the other sentence, so that, I think, permits me to declare it.
Section 18 pre-sentence detention.
76	So I was going to give you 47 days' credit already, Mr Barry, but the news is better.  I am making an order that you have already served 57 days by way of pre-sentence detention, and that declaration is to be entered into the records of the court.
Section 6AAA.
77	I have taken into account your guilty plea.  If you had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty of these offences by a jury, I would have convicted and sentenced you to three years imprisonment.  I would have fixed a non-parole period of 22 months, and that statement is to be entered into the records of the court.  
78	Let me just see if there is anything else I need to deal with.  Any other matters at all or not?
79	MR McGLONE:  Not that I'm aware of, Your Honour.
80	MR BARREIRO:  No, Your Honour.
81	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Well, he will need to – I mean, he will need to get cracking in terms of making application for parole.  It is not that far from now.
82	MR McGLONE:  No, that's right.
83	HIS HONOUR:  All right, look, I will sign those formal orders.  Will you go down and see him downstairs, Mr McGlone?
84	MR McGLONE:  Absolutely, yes.
85	HIS HONOUR:  All right, look, let me just look at these.  Yes, well look I have signed that formal order.  So that completes the matter then, Mr Barry.  Mr McGlone will come down and explain it all downstairs, but the effect of these orders is, you have got a head sentence of 16 months, a non-parole period of five months, and so it is not that far from now that you will be in a position to make application for parole.  So Mr McGlone will come and have a chat to you about that.  But whenever you get out, whether it is then or whether it is later, I have got no control over that, but I have at least provided the possibility for your consideration or your early release.  Follow through, and finalise that apprenticeship, and get back into the workforce, and leave this sort of place behind you, all right?  Anyway, Mr McGlone will see you downstairs.
86	MR McGLONE:  Thank you, Your Honour.
87	HIS HONOUR:  So Mr Barry can be removed, thank you.  Yes, all right, I have got a couple of appeals in the list.  I think what I will do, I will lurk out there and I will come back in a couple of minutes.
---