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

CR 19-01833

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
AMMAR NAJJAR		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LACAVA	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	18 May 2020	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 August 2020	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v NAJJAR	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 1245	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Charges: Recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving a motor vehicle x 2, recklessly causing injury x 2, multiple summary charges.
Sentence: 5 years’ imprisonment with a non parole period of 3 years and 4 months.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr A. Grant		
			
For the Accused	Mr A. Chernok		

HIS HONOUR:
1	You have pleaded guilty to two charges of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving a motor vehicle (Charges 1 & 2).  The maximum penalty for each of these offences is imprisonment for 10 years.  In each of these charges you acted alone.
2	In addition, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of recklessly causing injury (Charges 5 & 6).  The maximum penalty for each of those offences is imprisonment for five years.  In each of these charges you acted with a 
co-offender Shari Oliver.
3	These charges are contained in indictment  C1811951.  I have sentenced 
Ms Oliver separately.
4	At the time that you pleaded guilty, you also pleaded guilty to a number of related summary offences, and through your counsel you have agreed to having those matters dealt with by me in this court.
5	There were six such charges.  Charges 9 and 16 are each charges of driving a motor vehicle whilst your license was suspended.  The maximum penalty for this offence is 200 penalty units or two years' imprisonment.
6	Charge 10 is a charge of driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding a prescribed concentration of drugs.  The maximum penalty for this offence, if it is a first offence, is a fine of not more than 12 penalty units.  For a second offence the fine increases to not more than 60 penalty units, and for subsequent offences a fine of not more than 120 penalty units.
7	Charge 12 is a charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of not more than 30 penalty units or imprisonment for three months.
8	Charge 14 is a charge of failing to stop a motor vehicle upon police request.  The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 60 penalty units, or six months' imprisonment, or both.
9	Charge 23 is a charge of failing to render assistance after an accident.  The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 80 penalty units, or eight months' imprisonment.
10	Each of the related summary offences was committed by you acting alone.
11	The circumstances of your offending are set out in a summary of prosecution opening dated 12 November 2019.  That document was tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit A.  The relevant parts of it were read in open court by the prosecutor Mr Grant.  Your counsel Mr Chernok did not dispute that the prosecution summary is accurate and forms a proper factual basis upon which I can proceed to pass sentence upon you.
12	In those circumstances it is not necessary that I here repeat in detail that which is set out in the prosecution summary and I will set out the facts in an abbreviated way.  These sentencing remarks should however be read in conjunction with all that is set out in the summary of prosecution opening.
13	On 6 July 2018 you were the driver of a Honda motor vehicle which had been the subject of police observations earlier in the day.  You were accompanied at the time by a co-offender Shari Oliver who was seated in the front passenger seat.
14	At about 6:20 pm Leading Senior Constable Scott Andrews and Senior Constable Levina Bell observed the Honda vehicle.  They were in a marked police car, and they activated the lighting and siren on that police car in order to intercept the Honda.  The Honda was observed to be travelling south on the Calder Highway at Kangaroo Flat, a suburb of Bendigo.  It was necessary for the police to make a U-turn in order to carry out the intercept.  Both police officers were in uniform and wearing high visibility vests.
15	You initially stopped the Honda, and you got out of the car and you were standing towards the rear of it.  Ms Oliver was seated in the passenger seat.  The police thought the vehicle may have been stolen and wanted to speak with you.  As the police approached, you rushed back to the Honda and sat in the driver's seat behind the steering wheel, and you attempted to escape from the police.
16	As the prosecution summary vividly describes, a confrontation followed with the police whereby you and Ms Oliver, whilst attempting to escape police, physically struggled with the police whilst at times the Honda was moving on and across the roadway with the police outside of the vehicle but attempting to stop you from driving away.  The roadway was relatively busy with other traffic and the incident and struggle with the police caused interference to the traffic.
17	At all times you were the driver of the vehicle.  You were behind the steering wheel and you had control of the accelerator which you used to rev the engine.  Senior Constable Andrews attempted to prevent you from leaving by reaching into the vehicle and across you in the driver seat and he moved the gear shift into the park position.  Ms Oliver then tried to assist you in getting the vehicle moving away from the scene.  She shifted the gear shift lever of the Honda whilst seated in the passenger seat.  As Senior Constable Andrews was outside of the Honda, but leaning into it, both you and Ms Oliver struggled with him to control the gear shift and steering.  Ms Oliver attempted to eye gouge 
Senior Constable Andrews whilst screaming verbal abuse at both of officers.  As Senior Constable Andrews struggled with you, you had control of the accelerator and you revved the Honda.  The gear shift lever moved from Park, Reverse, and Drive several times.  Senior Constable Andrews had to enter the Honda fully to maintain contact with you and the car which he felt moving at slow speed.  He continued to struggle with you for control of the Honda, and as he did so the vehicle drifted from the left-hand side of the road across two lanes of traffic for southbound traffic to come to rest on the median strip that divided north and southbound traffic.
18	At the same time that this was going on the other police officer involved Senior Constable Bell saw her partner struggling with you for control of the vehicle.  She approached the front of the Honda and attempted to open the passenger side front door and found it locked.  She then went to the front of the vehicle which rolled forward.  To avoid being struck by it she pushed her hands onto the bonnet and jumped out of the way.  She followed the Honda as it crossed the roadway.
19	She again approached the passenger side of the Honda and drew her conducted energy device (CED).  She observed Ms Oliver eye gouging and punching Senior Constable Andrews as Andrews, Oliver, and yourself all tried to control the gear shift of the vehicle.  She then went to the driver's side of the vehicle and attempted to assist Senior Constable Andrews.  She called on both you and Oliver to stop and when you did not, she sprayed you both with OC spray.  She emptied a can of OC spray but that did not stop both you and 
Ms Oliver from continuing to struggle with Senior Constable Andrews for control of the car.  She then activated her CED and dry stunned you with it several times.  You yelled at her to stop.  She told you to stop the car and get out.  But you did not obey.  Instead the vehicle lurched forward and struck a light pole.  It then reversed at a fast rate of speed and whilst doing so the open driver's side door struck Senior Constable Bell, throwing her into a tree and injuring her.
20	At this time Senior Constable Andrew's was still in the Honda leaning across you in the driver's seat and Ms Oliver was still in the passenger seat.  Whilst Senior Constable Bell was still on the ground, the vehicle again started moving forward.  Senior Constable Andrews pulled hard down on the steering wheel to keep it on the left of the roadway, but the vehicle again crossed both carriageways on the south-bound side of the Calder Highway and drove up an embankment where it collided with a large gum tree.
21	At this time the driver's side door of the Honda was still open with 
Senior Constable Andrews hanging in the vehicle wrestling with both you and Ms Oliver to control the vehicle.  You reversed the vehicle back onto the roadway.  At this time Senior Constable Andrews had you in a headlock which prevented you from being able to see.  Your accomplice Ms Oliver took hold of the steering wheel and steered the vehicle south down the Calder Highway.
22	Senior Constable Andrews at this stage was in fear of his life.  Ms Oliver suggested to you that if you slowed the vehicle Senior Constable Andrews might get out.  Senior Constable Andrews told you that if you did slow the vehicle he would get out.  You then slowed the vehicle but before Senior Constable Andrews could get out of it you again accelerated.  You were in control of the accelerator.  As the car was accelerating Senior Constable Andrews pushed himself out of the vehicle landing in the centre of the two south-bound lanes of the Calder Highway.  At the time there was other traffic and Senior Constable Andrews had to roll off the road surface to avoid being struck by it.  This is the conduct embraced by Charges 1, 2, 5 and 6.  Some of the incident and the verbal exchanges between you and Ms Oliver with the police officers is captured on CCTV footage.  During that part of the incident that is captured on the footage, 16 vehicles can be seen driving past on both lanes of the Calder Highway and some of them are shown to have taken evasive action as a result of what was occurring.
23	You and Ms Oliver then fled the scene in the Honda with you still driving it  (Charge 23 is a charge of failing to render assistance after an accident).
24	You were both apprehended and arrested about 20 kilometres from the scene.
25	Senior Constable Andrews and Senior Constable Bell were taken to hospital by ambulance.  Senior Constable Andrews suffered severe rib and back soreness and cuts and abrasions.  Senior Constable Bell suffered a fractured left wrist, cuts to the head and other minor cuts and abrasions.
26	You were administered a preliminary oral fluid test which showed the presence of methylamphetamine (related summary Charge 10 driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding a prescribed concentration of drugs).
27	At the time your licence to drive was suspended (related summary Charges 9 and 16 driving a motor vehicle whilst your license was suspended).  You have a number of prior convictions for driving whilst your licence has been either suspended or cancelled.
28	At the time of this offending you were on bail (related summary Charge 12 committing an indictable offence whilst on bail).
29	Your offending, in exposing both victims, in this instance police officers, to risk of their safety by the way you were driving a motor vehicle on the highway, in all the circumstances, is clearly a serious example of what is self-evidently a serious offence.  The offences in Charges 1 and 2 were introduced into the Crimes Act 1958 only about a year before you offended.  They were introduced because of the increased use of vehicles as weapons against police on duty.
30	As I said when sentencing Ms Oliver, offending against police officers is becoming more commonplace.  Virtually every day this court is reminded of just how difficult the job of being a dedicated police officer in the service of the community as a whole can be.  This case again highlights that regrettable fact.  Those who would seek to offend in this way must realise that if they do so and are apprehended, they are subjecting themselves to the strong likelihood of imprisonment.
31	Being a police officer is one of the hardest jobs in our community.  Some might say it is a job that gets harder every day, especially when police officers have to deal with drug-addled offenders like yourself and Ms Oliver.  
32	Here, Senior Constables Andrews and Bell were both clearly identified as police officers wearing their respective uniforms and high visibility vests.  They were initially in a marked police car.  They required you to stop and you tried to escape creating a situation of extreme danger and risk to the safety of both officers, given the confrontation occurred on the Calder Highway and your use of the motor vehicle.  There are no redeeming features of your offending behaviour, save that I accept that is was not planned.  It can probably be explained as a stupid, spontaneous reaction at having been approached by police officers in circumstances where you were drug affected.  That explains the offending somewhat but does not excuse it at all.  I accept this was not some mere fleeting offence.  It occurred over a period of a minute or two which must have seemed like an eternity to the victims.
33	Charges 5 and 6 are charges of recklessly causing injury.  It is not suggested that by the way you behaved you intended to injure the officers, but you appreciated that in the way that you acted, your actions would probably result in the officers being injured and you continued with your conduct regardless.  
I think you were very lucky both officers were not more seriously injured by your actions.
34	Your counsel conceded that your offending falls within the higher end of the range for this type of offending.  He submitted that for part of the time, when Senior Constable Andrews was leaning across you, your actions were involuntary.  I do not accept that submission.
35	In sentencing for offending of this kind, the sentence must have full regard to proper application of principles of deterrence (both general and specific), denunciation, and for the need for the sentence to reflect protection of the public.  I must also have proper regard to your personal and background circumstances, and to your prospects for rehabilitation which I assess as bleak, and to the principle of totality in sentencing.  The sentence must impose just punishment.
36	You were clearly the principal offender here.  You were the driver of the vehicle and you initiated the confrontation by running back to the vehicle, assuming the driver's seat and attempted to drive away.  Ms Oliver did assist you and she did seek to prevent Senior Constable Andrews from controlling the vehicle.  But you were in charge, you were behind the wheel and you controlled the accelerator and the foot brake.  You alone could have prevented all of this by applying the brake and turning off the ignition of the vehicle, but you created, and exacerbated, the confrontation and elevated it to a dangerous level.
37	I sentenced Ms Oliver to a combination sentence of nine months' imprisonment and a Community Corrections Order for two years with many therapeutic conditions.  There are many distinguishing features between yourself and 
Ms Oliver from a sentencing perspective.  Clearly, you were the principal offender here.  Ms Oliver is younger than you, and importantly, when sentenced had no prior convictions.  You have a lengthy criminal history which I will address shortly.  More importantly, Ms Oliver pleaded guilty to what are clearly lesser charges, that is to say, conduct endangering persons, an offence that carries a lesser maximum penalty than the charges which you have pleaded guilty to, in Charges 1 and 2.
38	The following day you were charged and remanded in custody.  You have remained in custody since that time; four months of your time in custody since the offending relates to a sentence for prior unrelated offending.  It is agreed 627 days be calculated  as pre-sentence detention for this offending.
39	There was a filing hearing on 13 July 2018 and a committal mention on 
3 October 2018 which was adjourned.  There was a further committal mention on 14 November 2018 to enable the prosecution to consider a plea offer.  That offer was rejected on 16 January 2019.  On 23 January 2019 the matter was booked in for a contested committal to take place on 10 September 2019.
40	On 5 April 2019 you were sentenced in relation to unrelated prior offending to a term of imprisonment of four months.
41	On 10 September 2019, however, the matter resolved prior to any 
cross-examination of witnesses after you agreed to plead guilty to certain charges.  You were remanded in custody where you have remained.
42	You have pleaded guilty to the charges and that is to your credit.  Although you did not plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, for the purposes of sentencing, I treat you as having pleaded guilty at an early time.
43	By your pleas of guilty you have saved the time and costs of a trial and contested committal, and importantly, you have saved each of the victims, the two police officers, from being cross-examined and having to relive the very dangerous situation that you and your co-offender subjected each of them to.  Also, by your pleas of guilty you have accepted responsibility for your offending, and you have advanced the administration of justice.
44	I also treat your pleas of guilty at an early time as an indication of your remorse for your offending.
45	I admitted into evidence on the plea victim impact statements from Scott Andrews and Levina Bell, the two police officers you confronted.
46	Both have suffered greatly as a result of the conduct of both yourself and 
Ms Oliver.  They have each suffered not only physical injury but emotionally and psychologically.  As I said when sentencing Ms Oliver, I think it is fair to say that each of them will carry the effects of what can only be described as an awful encounter with you and your co-offender for the rest of their lives.  They will have it with them on each shift that they work respectively as police officers, and they will carry the awful experience with them in their usual lives as citizens who have family and loved ones to consider.  In passing sentence I have taken the contents of each of the victim impact statements into account as I must.
47	I turn to some matters relating to your background circumstances.
48	You are aged 38, and you were 36 at the time of offending.  You have a number of prior convictions from 19 previous court appearances commencing in 2001 when you were 18 years of age.  You have prior convictions for intentionally and recklessly causing injury and making threats to kill.  You have prior convictions for drug trafficking and for driving offences, including several for driving whilst your license has been suspended.  In 2009 you were convicted in this court of criminal damage by fire and making a threat to kill.
49	I received in evidence a letter from Bernard Healy a consultant psychologist dated 29 August 2017 (Exhibit 4) and a psychiatric report from Dr Alan Gallogly (Exhibit 5).  Both of those documents make it clear that you have long suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, and you have also been a long-term drug user.  Mr Chernok argued that at the time of the offending your capacity to think rationally and objectively was impaired because of the fact that you suffer from schizophrenia.  For reasons that I will shortly come to, I do not accept that submission.
50	Mr Gallogly interviewed you via WebEx on 30 January 2020.  Mr Gallogly was asked to give his opinion as to whether there were any conditions which may have affected you before, during, and after the offending. He said this relevantly:
'The history indicates that Mr Najjar suffers from a major mental illness. Specifically, he has been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (paranoid schizophrenia).  The history given by Mr Najjar indicates that when unwell he develops delusions of persecution, that he is under threat from the Illuminati.  He also develops ideas of references that the Illuminati are sending him messages through the television.  Mr Najjar has reported experiencing auditory hallucinations.  He also has reported delusional belief that his family were kidnapped by the Illuminati, but they were unable to report this to him and were forced to tell him that they were safe.  This psychiatric condition predates the alleged offending behaviour on 6 July 2018.  Mr Najjar also reports long-term use of Ice since age of 18 years.  It is well recognised in individuals with a serious mental illness such as paranoid schizophrenia are at increased use (sic) of substance use. Often this in part is self-medication as intoxication can relieve the symptoms.  Taking Mr Najjar's account of the alleged offending behaviour at face value, he had used substances including opioids (Buprenorphine), benzodiazepines (Xanax) and his antipsychotic medication (Seroquel) and the stimulant methamphetamine (Ice).  It is therefore reasonable to assume that Mr Najjar was probably intoxicated at the time of the alleged offending.  Benzodiazepines such as Xanax can result in disinhibition increasing impulsivity and reducing consequential thinking.  Taking 
Mr Najjar's account of the events of 6 July 2018 he was also, on the balance of probabilities, psychotic at the time of the offending.  In his own words, "My mental health was not good.  I was driving.  I was listening to the radio.  The Illuminati had my family".  In summary taking Mr Najjar’s account of the events at face value, he was likely intoxicated and suffering from active symptoms of psychosis at the time and immediately after the offending behaviour.  The mental state examination on this assessment indicates that he remains psychotic with ongoing delusional beliefs and auditory hallucinations'.
51	Based on this evidence and the letter of Mr Healy, Mr Chernok submitted that I should find that you were affected by psychosis caused by paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offending and that I should regard your moral culpability as having been reduced because of your mental state.  He submitted that Verdins principles were enlivened by this evidence.
52	After the plea I requested a full pre-sentence report from Forensicare and I received a report from Dr Fiona Best, a psychiatrist who met with you via video link for that purpose on 18 June.  Dr Best in her report relevantly opined as follows:
'25.  On assessment today there is no evidence of a major mental illness and Mr Najjar has been prescribed psychotropic medication in the past to manage a psychotic illness possibly in the setting of illicit drug use (Ice). He has had one admission to a psychiatric hospital as a 16 year old probably for treatment of drug-induced psychosis.  Mr Najjar was commenced on an antidepressant/anxiolytic when he was remanded on this occasion which he took for one month but ceased because he did not like the side effects.  Mr Najjar has had contact with a psychologist for one year in 2018'.
'26.  On assessment today, Mr Najjar has a long history of substance abuse.  From his reported history he has a diagnosis of amphetamine use disorder (DSM-5).  Mr Najjar would benefit from drug counselling and rehabilitation.  Mr Najjar appeared somewhat ambivalent about taking part in a drug rehabilitation program and he struggled to find a connection between his illicit drug use on the day of the alleged offending and his offending.  His insight was limited regarding cutting down or achieving abstinence from methamphetamine'.
'27.  On assessment today, Mr Najjar's presentation was suggestive of borderline or low/average IQ although this was not formally tested.  
Mr Najjar reported difficulty in basic schooling and struggled academically in high school.  His difficulties with education were compounded by his illicit drug use (which has the potential to have a deleterious effect on his cognition).  Mr Najjar would benefit from neuropsychological testing to help to delineate his specific difficulties and apply an appropriate management plan accordingly'.
'28.  At the time of the offending Mr Najjar had been using illicit drugs (abusing a Xanax and using methamphetamine).  He struggled to find a connection between his poor mental health, illicit drug use, and his offending.  Mr Najjar's substance abuse difficulties are likely to have affected his capacity to exercise appropriate judgement and make calm decisions and think clearly at the time of the alleged offending. Additionally, imprisonment may have the capacity to weigh more heavily on him than on an individual without his cognitive difficulties and these difficulties also make him more vulnerable to developing a major mental illness in the future'.
53	Dr Best was cross-examined by your counsel.  I accept her evidence and prefer her opinion to that of Dr Gallogly.  On your own admission you are a long-term user of a variety of drugs and at the time of this offending you had been taking Xanax, methamphetamine, and Seroquel; a cocktail of drugs which in my view affected your thinking at the time of this offending.  In my judgement the likelihood is this offending occurred because you were adversely affected by drugs at the time you offended and not because you were in a psychotic state because of mental illness.  I cannot find that at the time you offended you could not exercise appropriate judgement and make calm decisions and think clearly because you were psychotic caused by paranoid schizophrenia.  I accept 
Dr Best's opinion that you are of low/average intelligence and that because of your cognitive difficulties imprisonment will likely way more heavily on you.  In passing sentence I have taken all of this into account.
54	I received into evidence a reference from your sister Elizabeth (Exhibit 2).  She is a practising family lawyer and she is fully aware of your difficulties in the past with mental health and drugs and your past offending.  She and your younger sister, Humsa (reference Exhibit 3) are both fully supportive of you and you have expressed to both of them your intent to have treatment from Bernard Healy and counselling treatment for your drugs upon release.  Both of them refer to the fact that you have expressed remorse to them for your offending.  
I accept that you are at the present time remorseful.
55	I also received into evidence a number of certificates of urine analysis showing negative results to testing for drugs between February and March of this year in a prison setting (Exhibit 6), and some certificates of completion of various courses by you whilst in prison.  All that is to your credit.
56	You are still a reasonably young man and regrettably you have spent much of your life in prison.  Because of the extent of your drug abuse problem, and having regard to your prior convictions, I have formed the strong view that your prospects for rehabilitation are bleak.  Whether or not you can be rehabilitated will depend entirely upon whether you can break from your drug use outside of a prison setting.
57	I accept that your developing years were not easy for you and I accept that more recently you were assaulted, and this has had an effect upon you.  I accept you suffer from a cognitive deficit and I accept that you and all prisoners at the present time will find your time in prison more burdensome than it should be because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by the government and prison authorities to address it.  At the present time your movement within the prison would be limited and your right to visits reduced and I accept the programs normally available are now unavailable.  I have taken all of this into account.
58	Your counsel accepted that because of the seriousness of your offending and because of your fairly extensive criminal history, that I must impose a sentence being a term of imprisonment and fix a non-parole period.  He drew attention to the issue of parity, but accepted I think that your role in the offending, and your past criminal history, distinguished you for sentencing purposes from Ms Oliver.  He asked me, appropriately, to have proper regard for concurrency having regard to the fact that the principal offences occurred at the one time in the one episode of offending.  He also asked me to have regard to the principal of totality in sentencing and to avoid imposing a crushing sentence.  In arriving at an appropriate sentence I have taken all of this into account.
59	Mr Grant also filed submissions in writing.  It is common ground here that I must impose a sentence of imprisonment and fix a non-parole period.
60	On Charge 1 recklessly exposing an emergency worker on duty to risk by driving being Senior Constable Andrews you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four (4) years.
61	On Charge 2 recklessly exposing an emergency worker on duty to risk by driving being Senior Constable Bell you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four (4) years.
62	On Charge 5 recklessly causing injury to Senior Constable Bell you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.
63	On Charge 6 recklessly causing injury to Senior Constable Andrews you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one (1) year.
64	On related summary Charges 9 and 16, driving a motor vehicle whilst your license was suspended you are convicted on each charge and sentenced to a term of imprisonment on each charge of four (4) months.
65	On related summary Charge 10, driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding a prescribed concentration of drugs, being a first offence you are convicted and fined $250.00.
66	On related summary Charge 12, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two (2) months.
67	On related summary Charge 14 failing to stop a motor vehicle upon police request you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three (3) months.
68	On related summary Charge 23, failing to render assistance after an accident you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one (1) month.
69	Because you were on bail entered into two days before this offending, ss.16(1A)(e) and 16(3C) of the Sentencing Act 1991 provide, that unless I otherwise direct, the sentences I impose must be served cumulatively.  I will direct some cumulation otherwise I direct the sentences passed this day be served concurrently.
70	I direct that six (6) months of the sentence imposed on Charge 5, and the sentence imposed on related summary Charge 9, and two months of the sentence imposed on related summary Charge 14,  cumulate upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1, making a total effective sentence of five (5) years' imprisonment.
71	I direct that you serve a minimum term of three years and four months' imprisonment before being eligible for release on parole.
72	I declare that there has been 628 days of pre-sentence detention under the sentences passed this day, and direct that 628 days be reckoned as having been already served of the sentences past this day, be entered into the records of the court and be deducted administratively.
73	For the purposes of s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I state that had it not been for your pleas of guilty to the charges I would have imposed a total effective sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment and I would have fixed a non-parole period of five and a half years' imprisonment.
74	On Charges 1 and 2, pursuant to s.89(1)(c) of the Sentencing Act 1991 any license you hold to drive a motor vehicle under the Road Safety Act is cancelled and you are disqualified from holding a license for a period of three years from 6 July 2019.
75	Are there any questions arising out of that, Mr Chernok?
76	MR CHERNOK:  Just pardon me, just one moment, Your Honour.  Sorry.  Just in terms of the pre-sentence detention that Your Honour formally reckoned, I had a discussion with the learned prosecutor this morning and I understand the PSD calculation to be 648 days, not 28.
77	HIS HONOUR:  Is that right?
78	MR GRANT:  That is our calculation too, Your Honour.
79	HIS HONOUR:  Very well, I will amend it to 640 days.
80	MR GRANT:  48 days.
81	HIS HONOUR:  48 days.  648 days.
82	MR CHERNOK:  As Your Honour pleases.
83	MR GRANT:  As Your Honour pleases.
84	HIS HONOUR:  Were there any other matters?
85	MR GRANT:  No, thank you, Your Honour.
86	MR CHERNOK:  No, Your Honour.
87	HIS HONOUR:  Very well.  Thank you for that and I will have the link terminated.
88	MR GRANT:  As Your Honour pleases.
89	MR CHERNOK:  As Your Honour pleases.
---