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

CR 22-00048

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
KALEB JAMES KENNEDY		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE GUCCIARDO	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	19 May 2022	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 June 2022	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Kennedy	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 964	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:                Criminal Law. Sentence upon plea of guilty.  
Catchwords:         Aggravated burglary – recklessly cause injury – use a carriage service 
                             to harass - early plea of guilty during Covid-19 – evidence of remorse – 
                             borderline personality disorder and generalised anxiety disorder – severe 
                             drug use – extensive criminal history. 

Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:        DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA
                            302; Filiz v The Queen [2014] VSCA 212; Gale v The Queen [2014] 
                            VSCA 168; Anderson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 255. 

Sentence:            Total effective sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment with 
                             a non-parole period of 2 years.
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms K. Ottrey                               	Ms E. Yates	
			
For the Accused	Ms L. Ristivojevic	Ms A. Larsen
(Ondrik Larsen Lawyers)	

HIS HONOUR:
1	Kaleb James Kennedy, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary, one charge of recklessly cause injury, and one charge of using a carriage service to harass.
2	The circumstances of your offending are described in a prosecution opening for the plea and matters therein were uncontested.  I will summarise them.
3	On 31 May 2021 Jacob MacDonald, then aged 22 years, sent by social media a chat from Taylor Kennedy's phone, with whom he was in a relationship for about a month, to Ms Kennedy's contact list. That contact list included you.  You had been in a relationship with Ms Kennedy previously for about eight months.
4	The two of you, while bearing the same surname, are not otherwise related and the relationship had ended. Mr MacDonald was not aware that you had received the message. Ms Kennedy, upon learning of what had occurred, blocked you on Snapchat, the social media app designed for social chatting and the sharing of images. You sent her a reply but she did not receive it. That evening you asked a friend to send Ms Kennedy a text message on your behalf. The message in part read, 'I know about the guys before me, during me and you were not on a farm, helping your dad's mate. You were there, fucking that gronk.  I know where you are.  Tell Jacob' - this was a reference to Mr MacDonald - 'he'd wanna watch his fucking back and you wanna watch yourself, you lying little whore.  You're a skank, you're like every other girl'.
5	You then accused her of being, 'A two faced cunt', and then, 'Can't wait to run into the both of you'.  You then proceeded through the message sent on your behalf to say, 'Karma is coming, Taylor.  Hope you enjoy it, and, Jacob, I'll find you.  We're coming'.  This message and the content of telephone calls which you made during the day is the factual basis for charge 3, using a carriage service to harass.
6	On that day you then proceeded to call Ms Kenney some 45 times. She answered some of those calls and you again took the opportunity on those occasions to call her names, saying that you hope karma gets her, that you wanted to break Mr MacDonald's jaw and that you wanted to see her cry, among other insults.
7	At this time in May 2021 Mr MacDonald lived in a house in Chiltern with his mother and stepfather in a house next door.  He and Ms Kennedy went to bed around 11 pm.  Around midnight you knocked on their door and yelled out, 'Oi, you dogs.  I know you're there'.  You walked around the house a few times, trying doors and windows.  You have also called Mr Weekley, who came to the property and asked you what you were doing.  He told you to leave.  When you told him you wanted to see Mr MacDonald you got into your truck, which you had parked in the driveway, and left.  Mr MacDonald then retrieved a metal pipe from his car and put it beside his bed because he was concerned you might return.  Return you did.
8	Just before 2 am you sounded your car horn and then proceeded to kick in the front door to the premises. You entered the house, stood in the doorway to their bedroom and said, 'Knock, knock'.  Ms Kennedy told you to get out.  You asked, 'Where is he?'  Ms Kennedy pushed past you and turned the light on.  She was scared that she and/or Mr MacDonald were going to be assaulted.  You then jumped on MacDonald, trying to punch his head.  MacDonald grabbed the pipe.  You also took a hold of it.  MacDonald could see white powder under your nose.  You punched him twice to the head with a clenched fist, splitting his lip and causing pain to his left ear.  He was stunned and did not manage to hit you back with the pipe. This is the factual basis for the recklessly cause injury charge.
9	At this point in time Ms Kennedy called Mr Weekley on her phone and pushed you out of the bedroom.  A man called Jason Eddy, an associate of yours, was standing at the front door and told you to leave. You left in your truck.
Mr Weekley arrived and had taken photos of your truck and Eddy's car.  He noticed the blood on MacDonald's face.  You then drove past the house again in your truck and yelled out something which could not be clearly heard.
10	Mr MacDonald was treated that morning by a doctor at Albury Wodonga Health for a laceration of the left side of his mouth, a wound which required four stitches.
11	A little after 12 noon you went to the Wodonga police station where you were arrested and interviewed.  You admitted getting your friend, Ms Giles, to send the text message, having told her what to write. You acknowledged that text would have scared and upset Ms Kennedy.  You told the police MacDonald had invited you to fight, telling you where his house was.  He did this, you said, during one of your calls to Ms Kennedy.  You said you went to the house the first time at MacDonald's invitation.  You told police when you returned the second time that Mr MacDonald had attacked you with a pipe out the front of the house, immediately hitting you once with it and punching you.  You have then said you had punched MacDonald once, pushed and shoved him. You said you followed him inside the house and the fight continued and then you stopped and walked out. You said your own lip was split and you had bruising above your right ear. You denied any drug or alcohol use on the night of the offending and you were remanded in custody.
12	Your account to police in the interview in relation to responding to an invitation by Mr MacDonald in your account of the alteration of a fight continuing when you followed MacDonald inside and of the injuries is not credible and I act on the factual circumstances outlined in the prosecution opening.  You entered the house late at night with an intent to assault a person therein, knowing that a person was present or reckless as to whether or not a person was then so present.
13	Aggravated burglary is a form of serious criminal conduct which involves the entry into a person's home, intending to assault the victim in revenge for some perceived wrong, on many occasions.  Your entry acting in anger and perhaps fuelled by some substance, as it is suggested by the prosecution summary, although denied by you in the police interview, is in itself a terrifying experience from those in the home, irrespective of what occurred thereafter.
14	The offence's gravity is made clear by its maximum penalty declared by legislators, reflective of the community's thought. This home invasion is constituted by your entering the building as a trespasser with an intent that I have mentioned. That is the act of burglary aggravated by one of the features of aggravation.  It therefore carries 25 years as a maximum penalty.  It was offending of this kind which specifically caused the lift in maximum penalty from 15 to 25 years in 1997.  In your case the threatening and harassing nature of the message sent on your behalf was a prelude to what was to follow, but that offence makes clear that this was not a spontaneously arising event.  You had notified others of your intention to go to the premises. There was, in my view, some level of planning. The offence was committed in the dark of night and despite being told to leave earlier in the night from the premises, you again returned, at this time entering the house by kicking in the front door.
15	The community views offending of this kind as extremely serious.  It reasonably expects the court to impose appropriate sentences. These offences cause consternation here in the victims and disquiet in the community because, as in this case, this offence undermines the sense of security which people should feel in their homes. This kind of offence will not be tolerated and requires the imposition of an appropriate sentence to deter and adequately punish this kind by retributive domestic vigilantism where people take vengeance or exact punishment, taking the law into their own hands.  Such conduct has significant impact upon those who are subjected to such entries, as the victim impact statements in this case attest.
16	As was outlined in DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314, determining the sentence to be imposed will in large depend on a careful assessment of the relative seriousness.  Here from the fact as mentioned as relevant for this assessment by the Court of Appeal, it is clear that you had an intent to assault at the point of entry.  You broke down the front door, you were alone and had no weapon with you.  The time was some time around 2 am in the night.  You knew or were reckless as to whether your intended victim was present, and you were someone of whom the victim was frightened.
17	Meyers also made clear that the principle outlined in Hogarth [2012] VSCA 302, clearly applied to what was described as intimate relationship aggravated burglary that involved a former partner and was in effect a confrontational entry in that sense. However, the task of applying Hogarth does not require the classification of offences into categories.  Although the prosecution in this case in its submission on sentence stated that this offence and the others as well were examples of mid-range offending, I do not find that this categorisation assists me beyond noting the features of the offending in assessing objective gravity.
18	General deterrence is a significant sentencing factor in this case.  Offending of this nature is too often perpetrated by men who respond to a relationship breakdown of sorts by possessive and violent rage, which is utterly unacceptable.  This court must make it clear such offending will attract serious consequences. See Filiz [2014] VSCA 212; Gale [2014] VSCA 168; and Anderson [2014] VSCA 255.
19	Recklessly cause injury is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, while the Commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to harass carries a three-year maximum.  The injury offence remains a violence offence, although it is often difficult to separate the basis of punishment in cases like these, with offences which occur post-entry but are essentially committed within the ambit of a single incident or course of conduct. Nevertheless, I am conscious of avoiding double punishment in this context and will cumulate a proportion of the sentence to the injury charge, and in the case of the other offence, in recognition of the discrete nature of that offending, which relates to the infliction of violence directly upon the male victim, the seriousness of what took place after the entry cannot affect the sentence on the aggravated burglary charge, which is complete upon entry, the sentence for that offence cannot involve punishment for what happened after the entry. The sentence for recklessly cause injury will reflect appropriately the objective gravity of the conduct post-entry.
20	Victim impact statements were prepared by Mr MacDonald and Ms Kennedy.
Ms Kennedy wrote that she feels sad and frustrated by her inability to control her emotions and get beyond moments of distress and depression marked by uncontrollable tearfulness.  It often leads her to cocoon herself in her home.  She is often tired and does not sleep well.  She is in constant fear and her safety has become a serious preoccupation bordering on paranoia.  The offending has placed a significant strain on her relationship.  She feels shame and inadequacy as the cause of these events which has caused isolation from family and friends.  The effect of her partner's mental health and employment has meant financial distress, worsened by the need to equip their home with security cameras as well as an expensive guard dog to protect against anxiety.
21	She and her partner have moved residence numerous times in order to ensure some anonymity from you, which has also meant moving away from family and friends.  Additionally, she has changed employment on a number of occasions due to their relocation efforts.  She feels alone and scared.  Mr MacDonald wrote that he had experienced trouble sleeping due to nightmares with anxiety and periods of depression. He feels he failed to adequately protect Ms Kennedy, which results in anger and frustration, straining that relationship.  He has lost a significant amount of weight until he moved town in order to relieve the mounting impact of the crime committed.  His lip is still scarred, causing daily discomfort when he bites, when eating, sleeping, causing it to bleed.
22	Soon after the offending he quit his employment, causing significant financial strain and consequently had to borrow money from family to pay rent.  He and Ms Kennedy have relocated numerous times to move to more remote locations and this has caused changes of employment as well as distress and shame.  I take the contents of these statements into account.
23	I take your plea into account. You pleaded guilty at committal mention stage and therefore at a reasonably early stage in proceedings.  Your plea will reduce your sentence.  It has a utilitarian value of having avoided a criminal trial and is an acceptance of responsibility and is evidence of some remorse.  It was said in submissions on your behalf that you regret your actions and have insight as to your behaviour.  I note that in paragraph 7 of submissions there is a reference to your perception that you attended upon the victim's home and assaulted him as a result of a taunting invitation for you to confront Mr MacDonald in his home.  As I have said, I reject that surmise and note that it would seem to run counter to both a full acceptance of responsibility and fully formed remorse, nevertheless your plea has value and as I will note, you did express remorse to the psychologist who assessed you soon after the offending and to a number of people who have written on your behalf, and on balance I accept that you are remorseful.
24	The plea is made at a time when the pandemic has caused significant delays in the delivery of criminal justice outcomes and also made a time when it has impacted on the services of Corrections.  In that sense it is made with the prospects of incarcerations, which have been impacted by restricted movements, lack of in-person visits for most of your remand, cancellation of programs offered, curtailing of treatment and work opportunities, frequent recourse to isolation, lockdown and the ever-present threat in a closed and crowded environment of infection.
25	Apart from the plea being made in this period affected by an ongoing pandemic prospectively impacting your future reclusion, the situation has impacted your remand period in all of these facets.  Even though the prison authorities have credited prisoners with some benefits when subjected to extra restrictions, the remand period undertaken during this time has been clearly more burdensome than normal, and I do take that into account.  This situation too will be reflected in a palpable reduction in your sentence.
26	You were 24 years old at the time of your offending and are now 25, and although you are not a youthful offender as such as defined, you are still a young man, which is of some significance, and I take into account your personal circumstances.
27	You are an Aboriginal man born in Wangaratta and your parents separated when you were an infant. You had two older brothers from your father, each with a different mother. You remained in your mother's care and she
re-partnered when you were still a toddler. However, that relationship floundered and they also separated.  You have one sibling from that relationship and three half-siblings from your father's side.  Your mother did not, however, provide adequate care for you, often being away from home. You only reconnected with your father some years ago and since then have made efforts to have a relationship with him. You had a close relationship with an older brother, James, who committed suicide some years ago and family support and companionship has been lacking otherwise in your life.
28	After you left home at age 16 you did not have stable living arrangements.  You had a relationship in which you had a son who is now some four years old, but you separated from his mother when he was two, and the demise of this relationship caused you what was described as an emotional unravelling.  You have a civil relationship with your stepfather now.  You have not been able to have any contact with your son because his mother has not allowed it while you have been in custody.  Your best friend is a woman called Casey, who you have known for some years.  It appears she was the one who you got to send the relevant message to Ms Kennedy.
29	You left school halfway through Year 8 where you struggled with academic subjects and the social environment of school.  Since leaving school you have had a reasonable work history as a mechanic with heavy machinery and trucks.  In 2013, aged 17, you began an apprenticeship as a truck mechanic and having completed it you had employment since then in that field predominantly as a diesel mechanic, and since 2019 driving full time for woods haulage owned by Mr Rodney Woods, with whom you formed a very good relationship and friendship.  He also runs Woods Bus Lines.
30	You have generally hauled grains from depots and palms from Melbourne regional areas.  You have a heavy articulated licence and can drive road trains.  I was told that your job will be available upon your release, together through
Mr Woods with accommodation and support which includes indigenous organisations, in order for you to develop some connection with your culture, which you have not partaken in during your life so far.
31	You experienced some unemployment between 2015 and 2016 when your life effectively derailed.  You were involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 in which you were injured.  Three reports were tendered on your behalf.  The first in time was a psychological report dated 4 August 2021, obtained soon after the offending in June 2021, with which I am dealing.  It is by Sandra Cokorilo, a psychologist with the Ferrari Group. An opinion as to psychological functioning, its impact on your offending and a risk of reoffending assessment was sought.  She took a family and personal history as described above, which included details about a five-year family violence intervention order and protection of your mother in 2019 since separation from your stepfather.
32	You described an unstable family environment and traumatic life events which included witnessing a stabbing assault of a friend in 2015, the death of your brother in 2020.  You reported to her frontal lobe damage and broken shoulder from the 2014 motor vehicle accident and subsequent cognitive changes, including emotional dysregulation.  You told her of difficulties with self-control, angry outbursts and chronic suicidality.  You told the psychologist of previous mental health diagnosis and the prescribing of antipsychotic medication.  In 2017 you were engaged with Headspace on a voluntary basis briefly, that being a counselling service.
33	The psychologist sighted a 2017 report from a Dr Shavu, which contained the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, ADHD and antisocial personality disorder.  You discussed your drug use, particularly from age 20 until early 2021, the daily use of cocaine, methylamphetamine use from age 18, and from age 22 nearly daily use of amphetamine.
34	When discussing the offending here in question you told her you had become distressed at the circumstances involving Ms Kennedy, that you had used amphetamine on the morning of the offending. You told her you deeply regretted your actions, that you had exploded in anger. You did express remorse for the victim and the impact of your actions.
35	On a mental state examination you did describe a history of auditory command hallucinations, persecutory and paranoid in nature and instructing you to hurt yourself and others. You reported low mood and severe anxiety but you seemed to see the connection between substance use, deterioration of your mental state and your offending.
36	She performed psychometric testing and outlined them at length. She considered your result to be consistent with borderline personality disorder which, in Ms Cokorilo's opinion results in reckless and self-damaging behaviours characterised by impulsivity and emotional lack of control and difficulties in self-regulation.  She noted you met criteria for generalised anxiety disorder.  These conditions are further complicated by drug abuse.  As to the risk assessment you were assessed using a violence risk appraisal guide and you were placed in a risk category in which 76 per cent reoffend violently within an average of seven years.  It was said that you have your employer's support and that you display a positive attitude towards intervention and treatment.  It was noted that your mental health issues would likely be exacerbated by a further period of imprisonment and you would benefit from intensive management to promote insight and identifying triggers by targeted psychological therapy and drug supports to maintain abstinence.
37	The second report was of Dr Danny Sullivan, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, dated 23 March 2022.  Notably after a further seven months on remand.  You told him the prescribed medication of sertraline, an antidepressant, had improved your mood and stabilised your emotion.  Prozac had been prescribed before that.  Dr Sullivan provided a psychiatric history and a substance use history. During your remand you have used buprenorphine, an opiate substitute.  At Ravenhall Correctional Centre you told Dr Sullivan you were in a lodge with six others, relating well to those people and had not been placed in a management unit at any time.
38	You had been in three periods of quarantine for several weeks. You told Dr Sullivan as to the offending that you were in a rage, using speed, not thinking straight.  Dr Sullivan opined that there is no primary collateral information to support an acquired brain injury out of the 2014 accident. Your conduct in prison and ability to drive heavy vehicles would not be consistent with clinically significant traumatic brain injury.  You have a severe substance use disorder, currently in abstinence. The clinical issues of emotional dysregulation are suggestive of a borderline personality disorder and likely recurrent major depressive disorder of mild to moderate severity.  He did not consider there to be a history consistent with bipolar affective disorder or autism spectrum disorder or ADHD.  Dr Sullivan did not consider that you required any specific mental health care in the community.  If bail had been granted in March of this year, given your history of appropriate help seeking behaviour and reasonable engagement with health care professionals, which you seek if necessary.
39	The last report was a letter dated 28 March 2022 by Karly Doyle, a forensic alcohol and drug specialist. This, like Dr Sullivan's report, was prepared in anticipation of a bail application, which was refused in late March of this year.  Ms Doyle is a qualified mental health social worker.  The content of her letter tends to support Dr Sullivan's conclusions and she writes of her availability to formulate a treatment plan for you.
40	You then undertook counselling sessions with Ms Doyle and saw her four times in the last month before the plea.  You have been held currently in the Koori section of Ravenhall.  I should make clear that during the course of the plea counsel eschewed any reliance on Verdins principles specifically disavowing that any aspect of your mental health played a part in the offending and reduced your moral culpability.  Rather, it was said that despite the fact that incarceration appeared to have been a positive experience motivating you to a change in outlook, that the material pointed to the necessity for a combination sentence with a community corrections order to ensure supervision and assistance.  It was said a further period beyond that served would serve no purpose.
41	Before returning to this last point, in my view, even if the psychiatric and psychological material seems to be slightly at odds in terms of emphasis,
nevertheless  the existence of clinical problems suggesting of a borderline personality disorder and depressive disorder of variable severity, when combined with a severe substance abuse disorder, are matters in your background which can be said to have impacted on your decision making on the day in question and should be taken into consideration.
42	These factors may not be causative but are nevertheless connected to your conduct and, although they do not diminish your moral culpability, they inform and explain your reaction and sense of grievance, and unreasonable as that was, it impacts on the objective gravity of the offending committed in this case by an immature, troubled young man.  With insight developing over this period, appropriate interactions, particularly in medication in the long term, and support of the kind offered by the likes of Mr Woods, I consider that your prospect of rehabilitation, although guarded, are by no means extinguished.  In this context the report of Dr Sullivan is instructive in what a period of reclusion can achieve for you if it is proportionate.
43	I do not agree that a period of imprisonment is unnecessary.  The question for the court is whether a community corrections order upon time served can properly address all the sentencing principles to be applied.  In my submission, it cannot and I am confident that any parole period can just as well manage the transitional period to life in the community. In this context of rehabilitative prospects, I note that you have a prior criminal history with most of the offending occurring between 2014 and 2018 but not of a similar type to the offences with which I am dealing, offences which you committed both in Victoria and New South Wales.
44	Your first appearance in court is in 2014 in the Children's Court in a driving matter.  In April 2016 you appeared at the Cobram Magistrates' Court charged with a number of offences, including burglary, entering with intent to steal, intentionally destroying or damaging property and thefts, dishonesty offences, aggravated cruelty to an animal, and you were sentenced to an aggregate six months' imprisonment.
45	Then on 18 August 2016 at the Finlay Local Court in New South Wales you faced a significant number of charges related to possession of an unregistered firearm, ammunition possession, damaging property, possession of stolen property, theft of firearm, entering land without lawful excuse and breaking and entering into a house, stealing to the value of $60,000. On that occasion you were imprisoned for 14 months with a seven-month non-parole period, while subject to a number of conditions supervised by the Community Offenders Service.
46	In October 2016 you appeared at the Albury District Court on appeal from the matters that I have just mentioned.  The non-parole period was reduced to six months with additional conditions to deal with a mental health plan as well as a number of other, in effect, parole provisions.
47	In March 2017 at the Shepparton Magistrates' Court you were fined for possession of a firearm and ammunition.  In May 2017, in New South Wales, you were sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for seven months for property damage and handling stolen goods.  In September of that year at Shepparton you were fined for handling stolen goods, proceeds of crime, and in September 2018 you were placed on a community corrections order for 12 months with 150 hours' community work for theft.  In October 2019 at the Finlay Local Court you were fined for a theft of cattle and placed on another community corrections order with work hours.

48	I have set out this history not because you are to be punished again for these offences, but because they are relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation and an assessment of the need for specific deterrence.  In my view, some of these offences which relate to burglary and breaking and entering, and the number of possession of weapons offences raise issues of community protection and specific deterrence which remain considerations relevant to this sentence.
49	So I reiterate that it appears to me that the seriousness of the offending and requirements of denunciation, deterrence, general and specific and just punishment in this case must take some precedence over consideration of rehabilitation, without losing sight that that principle remains because you are of a certain age and the consider of rehabilitation is protective of the community in the long term, particularly as it should not crush your prospects upon release into the community.
50	I have taken into account the references written by Jason Eddy, who was your brother's best friend, and who writes with insight into the family dynamics and dysfunctionality that left you bereft of the solid, familiar foundation and model, mired by abandonment and isolation.  He remains supportive of you.  He also speaks of your remorse.
51	Casey Giles also wrote a letter of support, speaking of your general demeanour and past struggles, love of your son and how over the past few months.  It has been noted that a newer positive take on life and is supportive of you, your future efforts.
52	Rodney Woods wrote a reference letter.  He is your employer and friend.  He speaks of your good work ethic and positive demeanour at work.  He is prepared to continue to offer his support.  He funded the counselling sessions with Ms Doyle and the reports, as well as legal costs.  He writes of your remorse and your stability whilst in custody, now properly medicated.  He has also facilitated reconnection with your indigenous background.  He has a job for you upon your release and accommodation.
53	I also sighted certificates of completion for courses concerning ice that you have undertaken, another in relation to anger management, as well as a number of urine negative drug screens for the first four months of this year.
54	I have taken all these matters into account and have endeavoured to synthesise these factors in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence.  On the charge of aggravated burglary you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.  On the charge of recklessly cause injury you are convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.  On the Commonwealth charge of using a carriage service to harass you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment concurrent with count 1.  I order that four months on count 2 be cumulative on count 1.  That makes a total effective sentence of three years and four months.  I order a non-parole period of two years.
55	Is there agreement as to the period of pre-sentence detention?  Ms Ottrey?
56	MS OTTREY:  Yes, Your Honour, it is 384 days.
57	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you. I declare that you have served 384 days excluding today by way of pre-sentence detention and I will enter that number into the records of the court. It will no doubt be taken into account administratively by Correctional Services.
58	But for your plea, I would have sentenced you to four and a half years' imprisonment with a two-and-a-half-year non-parole period.
59	I have signed a disposal order in relation to the item, Exhibit 16.
60	MS RISTIVOJEVIC:  As Your Honour pleases.
61	MS OTTREY:  As the court pleases.
62	HIS HONOUR:  Thank you both.  Thank you.  Ms Ristivojevic, would you like an opportunity to speak to your client while the link is on or have you made other arrangements?
63	MS RISTIVOJEVIC:  My instructor - I have got a matter before His Honour Judge O'Connell at 10.30, Your Honour, so my instructor, Ashlee Larsen, who is on the link, may wish an opportunity to speak to Mr Kennedy.
64	HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  I will excuse everyone else and your instructor can have a chat to him in the meantime.  Thank you very much.
65	MS RISTIVOJEVIC:  As Your Honour pleases.
66	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you. 
- - -