Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of New Zealand Decisions

R v Renata HC Napier CRI-2010-041-3244 [2011] NZHC 1157 (28 September 2011)

Last Updated: 20 October 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

_{CRI-2010-041-3244}

THE QUEEN

v

MAKA RENATA

Hearing: 28 September 2011

Counsel: S B Manning for the Crown

LPF Lafferty for Mr Renata

Judgment: 28 September 2011

_{SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J}

Solicitors:

Mr S B Manning, Elvidge & Partners, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Napier

Mr LPF Lafferty, Solicitor, Napier

R V RENATA HC NAP CRI-2010-041-3244 28 September 2011

[1] Mr Renata, you may remain seated, but I am going to take a bit of time to explain the sentence that I am going to impose and also to explain, as you have already heard, why I am not imposing a sentence of preventive detention.

[2] I recognise that over the years professional people have spoken to you in different ways and for different reasons, and possibly at some length. I think it is important that you recognise that this, in considerable measure, is done to try and assist you. And I do ask you, please, to listen to what I have to say.

[3] You appear for sentence for a robbery committed on 24 December 2010.

[4] And I digress again immediately to say I am, of course, primarily talking to you to explain to you the sentence I am going to impose. But as I think you are beginning to understand, I also have to explain this to the community because your actions affect not just individual people but the community as a whole. So the explanation goes to them as well as to you.

[5] You pleaded guilty to the robbery charge on 2 February 2011. You are also to be sentenced for two breaches of conditions imposed on a sentence of intensive supervision.

[6] You appeared for sentence in the District Court on 18 March of this year. Having reviewed your record of previous offending, and the pre-sentence report, the Judge in the District Court decided that your case was one where consideration should be given to a sentence of preventive detention. Because a sentence of preventive detention can only be imposed by the High Court, the Judge declined jurisdiction to sentence and remanded you to this Court for the necessary reports to be obtained and for sentence.

[7] As you now know from the oral submissions Mr Renata, and what I have just mentioned, I do not intend to impose a sentence of preventive detention. There will be a determinate sentence – referred to often enough as a finite sentence. I will

outline the reasons why I have come to the conclusion that there should not be preventive detention and other matters relevant to the sentence I do intend to impose.

Background facts - robbery

[8] On the night of 23-24 December 2010 you were drinking with the victim at your home address in Napier. At about 1:00 am the victim decided to walk into town and you said you would go with him. The victim says he became concerned about your attitude and tried to walk away from you but you stayed with him. You then asked him for money. He handed over $4.20 and told you that was all he had together with a bank card.

[9] The victim then walked off not realising you were following him. In an alleyway in the middle of town you went up to him with your right hand in your sweatshirt pocket. You said you had a gun in your pocket. You told him to take off his hat, shoes and bag and to throw them over to you. He did this. You also persuaded him to tell you the PIN number for the bank card. You then told the victim to lie down and that if he told anyone what had happened you would hunt him down. You then ran off.

[10] In addition to the card you took an MP3 player, a mobile phone and some other items. These and the other items have been returned to the victim.

[11] At no stage did you in fact have a gun.

[12] What I have set out above comes from the police summary of facts. And you pleaded guilty, essentially, to that summary. Mr Renata, I have not overlooked the fact that you have said that the robbery occurred after you had taken the victim, at his request, to a drug dealer to get a drug for the victim. He then changed his mind, this annoyed you and you considered that some compensation was required. In some respects that may assist you in terms of the gravity of the offence; in other respects it does not. I simply note that I have not overlooked that. I also note that, although you may have been able to use physical force against the victim – and you are obviously a solid person – this did not happen.

Personal circumstances

[13] Your personal circumstances. You were born in May 1985. You are now aged 26.

[14] I have received three reports, already mentioned. One is the pre-sentence report. This was completed in March 2011 for the sentencing in the District Court. There are also two detailed reports provided pursuant to s 88 of the Sentencing Act following transfer of the sentencing to this Court. One is from a psychologist, Ms Berry. The other is from a psychiatrist, Dr Young, and Dr Young was also able to review Ms Berry’s report.

[15] Your first offences, for which you were convicted, were committed on 11

June 1999. These were very serious offences. I will describe the offences in a moment. At the date of these offences – and this is the point I am now wanting to make, and fully recognised by Mr Manning on behalf of the Crown – at the date of those offences you were aged just over 14. Your 14th birthday must have been about a month before. The reports I have referred to make clear that before this you probably had little or no positive support and guidance as a child. Your family environment was unstable and abusive. Both of your parents are reported to have condoned antisocial attitudes and behaviour. You were subject to significant influences from adults who actively encouraged you to commit crime. In addition,

you were subjected to some extreme violence, as recorded in the reports. I do not intend in open court Mr Renata to describe it. Dr Young reports that you have a diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress disorder arising from a single act of violence against you when you were about 11 years old. This led to the conviction of the perpetrator. It may also be – and Mr Lafferty referred to this – that the diagnosis of the post-traumatic stress disorder has only recently been made.

Previous convictions

[16] I come to the previous convictions.

[17] On 3 September 1999 you were sentenced to imprisonment for a total of seven years six months for eight offences all of which were committed on 11 June

1999. These included two offences of raping a female aged 16 years or more and one of aggravated wounding. These offences were committed in association with your uncle, in whose care you had been placed. He was a member of the Mongrel Mob. I have not reviewed the sentencing notes, but one of the s 88 reports records that the sentencing Judge acknowledged that your uncle instigated the offences. And I assume – and I have not looked at it further because in the present context it is not vital – that the second conviction for rape of this woman was as a party when your uncle raped this woman. As already noted, at the date of this offending you were just over 14 years of age. Both s 88 reports record that you express remorse about this offending in relation to its impact on the victim. This appears to be in contrast to your reported attitude on earlier occasions of psychological assessment. Dr Young says that it is his opinion that your expressions of remorse regarding the rape are convincing and, to quote him, “have the form of a genuine motivation to avoid similar offending in the future”.

[18] And you looked back up at me at that point, Mr Renata, and I really do hope that that is correct – and you have acknowledged that it now is. Mr Renata, it is these sorts of things – amongst others – which really are important.

[19] On 1 October 2000, while you were in youth prison, you committed an offence of unlawful sexual connection with a male aged 12 to 16 years. On 2 May

2002 you were sentenced for this offence to three years imprisonment cumulative on the existing sentences, resulting in an effective total of 10 years six months imprisonment. The victim was another prisoner of the same age as you. In earlier interviews with psychologists you denied this offending. It appears that you maintained this position in talking to Dr Young, at least to the extent that you were denying rape in the sense that that is commonly referred to. In talking to Ms Berry, however, you expressed empathy for the victim and said that if you were given the opportunity you would go back and undo your actions. And you have indicated by your response to me when I was saying that, Mr Renata, that that is something also that you genuinely mean: is it? And you have acknowledged “yes”. Ms Berry said:

It is important to note, that this continued disclosure in the context of previous psychological reports, demonstrates an increasing willingness to openly discuss his offending.

[20] You were released from prison in November 2009. You had been in custody for the full term – 10 years six months.

[21] Within approximately six weeks of your release you absconded in breach of parole conditions. You were arrested a month later and remanded in custody for approximately four months.

[22] In April 2010 you received an 18 months sentence of intensive supervision for breach of the parole conditions and breach of the Medicines Act.

[23] Following release from custody on the intensive supervision sentence you again absconded after approximately six weeks. You were arrested three weeks later. You were charged with two breaches of intensive supervision, one breach of parole and burglary. On 28 July 2010 you were sentenced to six months imprisonment.

[24] You were released in September 2010. Also in September 2010 a 10 year extended supervision order was made. This order is subject to a number of conditions requiring you to comply with various directions that may be made by Department of Corrections officers relating to your future management and support.

[25] In addition, as Mr Manning advised me this morning and because he recognised the importance of it, a further condition was imposed requiring electronic monitoring. That electronic monitoring was to come into place – as I understand it – shortly after the offence of robbery with which we are now dealing, being the offence committed on 24 December 2010. Most relevantly, in relation to preventive detention, you will be subject to electronic monitoring.

[26] In October 2010 you were remanded in custody for two further breaches of the intensive supervision sentence. You were released in December 2010.

[27] You were arrested on the robbery charge on 24 December 2010, the day it occurred, and have been remanded in custody since then – almost exactly nine

months. Since first being released in November 2009, following the lengthy imprisonment, it appears that the longest period that you have been out of custody is five weeks.

[28] Mr Lafferty advised in his written submissions that your last appearance before the Parole Board, late in 2010, focused on your returning to your whanau in Gisborne. This did not occur or could not occur for various reasons. What in fact happened, as advised by Mr Lafferty, is that you were found accommodation in Napier by the voluntary organisation, the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society. Mr Lafferty advises that you had almost no possessions and, as he put it, in effect a bare cupboard. On the basis of the advice from your counsel, it would appear that in large measure the major practical assistance provided to you at that time, after almost

11 years in prison from the age of 14, was from a voluntary organisation trying to do its best with, no doubt, very limited resources. I do say that I am not saying that by way of criticism of anybody else. I record this because it appears to be the reality at that time, however it came about. You have also talked to the report writers about your desire to get employment and the difficulties that you have had in that regard.

A determinate sentence for the robbery

[29] I come next to the determinate sentence for the robbery. I will deal with this first before noting the essence of my reasons for not imposing preventive detention.

[30] The robbery is a serious offence Mr Renata. And again, you have looked up and acknowledged that to me, and I think that is important. The maximum penalty is

10 years imprisonment, and you should reflect on that. But in the scale of things, your particular offending – the gravity of what you did on that occasion – is at the lower end of this sort of offending. Judge Rea made a similar comment when he was dealing with this in the District Court.

[31] I have been referred to some other sentences for robbery. I will simply note the names with the citations in the written copy of these comments: Mako (which

was aggravated robbery but is referred to often enough by way of comparison);1

Smeed;2 Rickard;3 Katapau;4 Prince;5 and Nukunuku.6

[32] The Crown submits that the starting point should be between 12 to 24 months imprisonment. That is the starting point. This takes account of the Crown’s submission that there was an element of pre-meditation and planning and the threat of the use of a firearm. Mr Lafferty, on your behalf, challenges the proposition that there was any significant pre-meditation. There was the threat of a firearm but, as earlier noted, you did not in fact have a firearm. There was no actual violence. And the victim’s clothing and personal belongings did get back to him soon after and, I assume, following your arrest which also occurred relatively soon after.

[33] I consider that the starting point should be 12 months imprisonment. This takes account – by way of comparison in your favour – of the other cases where there was actual violence and some other distinguishing matters. My broad conclusion – and I am simply looking at this offence at the moment, the gravity of the offence itself – my broad conclusion is that what occurred was very opportunistic in circumstances where both you and the victim had been drinking and where it appears you may also have smoked cannabis. It does not remotely excuse you, but it is relevant to the gravity of the offence.

[34] The most significant aggravating factor of a personal nature is your previous convictions. It may be noted, however, that there are no previous convictions for an offence similar to the robbery apart from a burglary in April 2010 when you had absconded and the aggravated robbery in June 1999. It would appear that the 1999 offence was an aggravated robbery because an item belonging to the victim was taken following the rape. An increase for previous offending should not be out of balance with the gravity of the offence being dealt with: and I refer to a case called

_Piper.7 _{On the other hand, the length of a determinate sentence is relevant when}

1 _{R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 (CA).}

2 _{Smeed v Police HC Whangarei, AP50/00, 24 October 2000, Chambers J.}

3_{Rickard v Police HC Auckland, CRI-2009-404-70, 30 April 2009, Harrison J.}

4 _{Katapau v Police HC Auckland, CRI-2007-404-378, 7 April 2008, Venning J.}

5 _{Prince v Police HC Auckland, CRI-2008-404-283, 16 February 2009, Lang J.}

6 _{Nukunuku v Police HC Napier, CRI-2004-441-57, 17 December 2004, France J.}

7 R v Piper CA345/05, 12 September 2006.

considering whether there should be preventive detention. The latter factor has substantially less prominence here because a lengthy determinate sentence cannot be imposed, assessing length in relation to all of the types of sentences that can be imposed for all sorts of offending. However, balancing these matters, I consider that there should be an increase of six months imprisonment. There will also need to be a further adjustment which I will come to in a moment – that is to say, an adjustment upwards.

[35] The Crown accepts that you are entitled to a reduction of around 25% for your guilty pleas which were entered at a very early stage. That would mean that the end sentence for the robbery would be 14 months imprisonment. Now that is an assessment, Mr Renata, looking at the robbery essentially in isolation and the other aggravating and mitigating factors I have referred to.

[36] There is an important – if I can call it this – practical issue in respect of your release from prison having regard to all of the difficulties you have encountered following [the earlier] release from prison. A sentence of that length, having regard to the fact that you have now been in custody for nine months, would almost certainly result in your immediate release. That is not in the best interests of the community and in my assessment it is not in your best interests. I have been advised by Mr Manning, on behalf of the Crown, that the authorities would require at least a few weeks to ensure that you have adequate accommodation on your release, and there may be other practical matters to be dealt with. Mr Lafferty, on your behalf, has accepted that the sentence of imprisonment that should ultimately be imposed of a determinate nature should be long enough to ensure that you do remain in prison for a further short period, if you are released after half of the total sentence. And for that reason I intend to impose a finite or determinate sentence of 20 months imprisonment.

[37] I record here that the practicality of that final sentence has been confirmed by both counsel and by your responsible probation officer who is present in Court today, Mr Croft. I record at this point that a prison officer responsibly intervened and said that the precise calculation will be checked. I will come back to that as necessary.

[38] I now come to the question of preventive detention. I am confident, Mr Renata, that you have, as I asked, been listening with care to what I have been saying. Can I emphasise that I do want you to listen to this because it explains, in broad terms, the nature of preventive detention and the assessments that are made in that regard – particularly, of course, as they relate to you.

[39] The purpose of preventive detention is to protect the community from people who pose a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of members of the community, for whatever reason that may have come about. The primary purpose is not to punish. In your case, therefore, the main focus is not on the robbery, but on all of the information relevant to the question whether you pose a significant and ongoing risk in relation to relevant offending. And I add there Mr Renata, that it is not simply an assessment on the basis of what might be called fault – fault on your part or fault on anybody else’s part.

[40] Preventive detention can be considered if three things specified in s 87(2) of the Sentencing Act are present. Two of those factors are present – you have been convicted of what is called a qualifying violent offence – and there are other types of qualifying offence – and you committed the offence when you were aged 18 years or more – this is the robbery. And there are a large number of qualifying offences which could lead, again, to consideration of a sentence of preventive detention. The third requirement is that I have to be satisfied that you are likely to commit what is called, and I quote, “another qualifying sexual or violent offence” if you are released at the expiry of a sentence imposed for the robbery other than a sentence of preventive detention.

[41] In assessing that question I must take into account five matters specified in s 87(4). In applying those statutory provisions I have had regard to cases referred to me by counsel and one or two other cases. Again, I will simply note these cases without discussing them: Parahi;8 Bailey;9 Burkett;10 Kahu;11 Leitch;12 R v C;13

McDonald;14 Deane;15 Mist;16 and Keepa.17 I do note that Mr Lafferty placed some

considerable emphasis on the case of Kahu, comparing the facts of that case as being substantially more serious than yours but where the Court declined to impose a sentence of preventive detention.

[42] I have taken account of the submissions that have been made in respect of the five matters listed in s 87(4). I have also considered the report from the psychologist and the report from the psychiatrist, as required by s 88 of the Sentencing Act, as well as the pre-sentence report. I do not intend to seek to summarise all of the submissions and all of the relevant matters in the reports. I simply note the following in respect of the five matters specified in the Sentencing Act, s 87(4).

Any pattern of serious offending disclosed by the offender’s history

[43] The first is whether there is any pattern of serious offending disclosed by your history – your criminal history. There has been repeated offending by you since you were released in November 2009, but in my judgment none of this discloses a continuing pattern of serious offending as referred to in the Act. It is not relevantly related to the previous and far more serious offending. And I do not consider that there is a relevant pattern of offending, as referred to in the Act, disclosed by the

_{1999 and 2000 offences.}

8 _{R v Parahi CRNZ 754 (CA).}

9 _{R v Bailey CA102/03, 22 July 2003.}

10 _{R v Burkett CA416/00, 21 February 2001.}

11 _{R v Kahu [2010] NZCA 120; CA702/209, 31 March 2010.}

12 _{R v Leitch [1998] 1 NZLR 420 (CA).}

13 _{R v C [2003] 1 NZLR 30 (CA).}

14 _{R v McDonald CA28/09, 16 June 2009.}

15 _{R v Deane CA172/03, 17 December 2004.}

16 _{R v Mist [2005] 2 NZLR 791 (CA).}

17 R v Keepa CA57/00, 30 March 2000.

[44] The second matter is the seriousness of the harm to the community caused by the offending. The harm to the community, assessed by reference to the grave harm to the victims, was very significant from the offending in 1999 and in prison in 2000. There has been harm from your further offending, but in relative terms – and I emphasise these are relative terms Mr Renata – this is substantially less serious. It remains serious, but it is substantially less serious when I make the comparison. And the nature of the harm has changed compared with 1999 and 2000.

Information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future

[45] The third matter is information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future. And I note that this is an important consideration but it is one of five factors, not the only factor – that is to say, risk. This is a major focus of the reports from Ms Berry and Dr Young. As Mr Lafferty noted, there seems to be some difference in the assessment of Ms Berry and Dr Young. Ms Berry expressed the opinion that you are, and I quote, “estimated as being at least high risk of committing further sexual or violent offending”. On the question of violent offending Dr Young said:

I am not able to give a clear and definite indication to the Court whether Maka Renata’s inclination to resort to violence in the future will increase or diminish.

[46] Dr Young said, at the conclusion of his report by way of summary, and I

quote:

In my opinion, there is a realistic and significant risk of further qualifying offences occurring in the future, but ... these risks may be reduced by therapy. Whilst there have been attempts to provide therapy in the past, for a variety of reasons these have not been successful. However, Maka Renata is motivated to engage in therapy at this time and in my opinion it would be premature to dismiss the possible gains and consequent reduction in risk that he may be able to make through doing this therapy.

[47] Now Mr Renata, that is what Dr Young said: that you are now willing – and I

add, fully – to engage in therapy. And do you confirm to me in Court today that in

fact you are willing to do that? And you have confirmed this to me. And I keep emphasising the real importance of this and the need for you fully to engage and not be impatient with it.

[48] Both reports refer to matters indicating changes which point away from preventive detention. These include – and this is not comprehensive: relevant changes in your responses to questioning relating to previous offending; what appears to be substantially greater appreciation now of the serious harm caused by your actions; indications of remorse for the first time; some empathy for victims; acceptance of responsibility; and a realisation that unless you make a real commitment to make the most of therapy and other support made available to you, and to change, you face a very bleak future indeed.

[49] I also note that you have apparently ended gang affiliations or associations which you have had in the past. You do have a serious problem with cannabis but I note advice that you have now essentially freed yourself of other and, what I think I can describe as, substantially more harmful drugs and perhaps also alcohol.

The absence of, or failure of, efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offending

[50] The next factor in the Sentencing Act is the absence of or failure of efforts by the offender – by you Mr Renata – to address the cause or causes of the offending. In the past there has been either an absence of effort by you, or failure of efforts that have been made, to address the cause or causes of the offending. Efforts that now seem to be being made by you have just been noted and I consider that this is of importance – as I have kept saying. Also, the failure of efforts in the past needs to be put into context. One major contextual matter is your age when you were first sent to prison and where you then remained for over 10 years. Another is contained in the following observation of Dr Young:

My impression from talking to Maka Renata is that he is motivated to engage in therapy and may benefit from it, but that his confidence in the process has been undermined by over-exposure to professionals and the lack of enduring, productive therapeutic relationships.

Also of significance in this context is that, following release on the determinate sentence I am about to impose, you will be subject to the 10 year extended supervision order. You must, in your own interests, comply with these conditions. You must understand that, I would have thought Mr Renata, and you acknowledge that you do understand it. You then have to have the motivation to comply. The state should, in turn, provide the necessary resources, so far as possible, to give practical substance to the conditions that arise from legislation. And I have earlier noted the electronic monitoring that will now apply.

The principle of a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for the society

[51] The final consideration is the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for the society. I have indicated the determinate sentence I intend to impose. This is not a factor that weighs against preventive detention to any significant extent. On the other hand, the substantially less serious nature of the offence which gives rise to that determinate sentence cannot be ignored.

Overall

[52] In the end, having taken account of the matters stipulated in the Sentencing Act, and weighing all other relevant considerations, I am bound to exercise a discretion to decide whether or not there should be a sentence of preventive detention. I am firmly of the view that my discretion should be exercised against the imposition of such a sentence on you when I apply the statutory criteria to the information put before me.

[53] In recording that conclusion there are two further things I want to say to you Mr Renata, or to emphasise to you. One is that, although a further sentence of imprisonment is being imposed on you, you are being given a real chance. It is for you to make the most of this. You have to do it. You will get the support but at the end it has to come from you. The second thing is that, unless you make a real commitment to make the most of the help that is available to you, and to change with

that help – this is not a criticism in this respect – to change with that help, you face a real risk that a sentence of preventive detention will be imposed if there is further offending. I have read your letter to the Court. You have said, in as many words, that the possibility of preventive detention really opened your eyes. You must keep your eyes open, and I think you understand.

Sentence

[54] I come now to the formal sentence. I have been advised by one of the officers, following reference to the precise dates, that a sentence of imprisonment of

20 months would result in release, in statutory terms, on 20 November 2011. In the unusual circumstances of this case, I paused at that point, having received that advice, to discuss the matter in particular with Mr Lafferty. Mr Lafferty did not need to take formal further instructions from Mr Renata although Mr Renata, of course, has heard this discussion. Mr Lafferty advised that a finite or determinate sentence of 20 months imprisonment – which would mean that the release date is approximately two months from now – would not be challenged and is, more importantly, regarded as of positive value. This is unusual, but for all of the reasons which I have covered, to an extent expressly, and which are otherwise implicit in everything I have referred to, I intend to impose a determinate sentence of 20 months imprisonment.

[55] Mr Renata, you should now stand.

[56] For the robbery offence you are sentenced to imprisonment for 20 months. [57] For the two breaches of the intensive supervision order you are sentenced to

imprisonment for one month for each offence. Those are to be served concurrently, so the total remains 20 months.

Warning

[58] I am advised that you have received no warning about further offending. And there is a statutory requirement, in addition to everything else I have said, to read to you a warning. And you will be given a written copy of this.

[59] Mr Renata, you have been convicted of robbery. Robbery is one of a list of serious violent offences which is set out in the Sentencing Act. The Court is required to warn you of the consequences if you are convicted of any other serious violent offence in the future. And this is a warning, Mr Renata, in addition to what I have said about the real risk of preventive detention in the future.

[60] If you are convicted of any one of the 40 serious violent offences which are listed in the Act at any stage in the future, and if the Court sentences you to serve a period of imprisonment, you will serve the full length of that prison sentence: that is, you will not be eligible for parole in the case of a sentence of more than two years, or early release in the case of a sentence of less than two years. The Court will also give you a final warning.

[61] I am bound to read the rest of this, but you will get an opportunity to look at it.

[62] Special rules apply if you commit murder after receiving this warning. If you are convicted of murder the Court will give you a final warning and jail you for life, which will be served without parole unless the Court decides it will be manifestly unjust to do so. If you are sentenced to preventive detention or life in prison for manslaughter after this warning, the normal non-parole period will apply. If, after being given a final warning, you commit any other serious violent offence then the Court must sentence you to serve the maximum period of imprisonment which is available. By way of example, if the offence you are now being sentenced on was committed by you when you have received a final warning, the sentence would be the maximum period which is 10 years. The Court will also order that you serve that entire prison sentence without parole unless it is satisfied it would be manifestly unjust to do so.

[63] Mr Renata, it is important that you understand that this regime applies to any of the 40 serious violent offences that you may be convicted of in the future, not only the offence for which you have been sentenced today.

[64] I am sure Mr Renata that Mr Lafferty will further explain this to you. Those are very important warnings required to be given by the act of Parliament.

Special conditions

[65] There is one further comment I wish to make. I do not intend to impose any special conditions to apply following your release from prison. It is unnecessary to do so having regard to the conditions already applying under the 10 year extended supervision order. However – and coming back to something I have touched on obliquely at least – in that regard, I do urge the Department of Corrections to give all necessary attention to the need for your release – for Mr Renata’s release – not only to be monitored but to be fully supported. And I do urge the Department to have full regard to the recommendations relating to therapy contained in the report from Dr Young dated 16 September 2011.

[66] I ask that a copy of these sentencing notes be forwarded to the Department having regard to these observations.

[67] That completes the sentencing Mr Renata. You should stand down.

ADDENDUM

[68] Following completion of the sentencing I was advised that a re-calculation of the statutory release date for a sentence of 20 months shows that the statutory release date will be 28 October 2011, not 20 November 2011. I have been advised that both counsel have discussed this and neither counsel considers that any difficulty arises having regard to the matters that were discussed by me in open Court. I am also satisfied, having regard to the discussions that I had in Court with counsel, that a statutory release date of 28 October 2011 is appropriate.

[69] Accordingly, no further steps are required in relation to the formal sentence imposed in Court in Mr Renata’s presence. Out of an abundance of caution I nevertheless reserve leave to either counsel to file a memorandum if there is in fact a

_problem.

Peter Woodhouse J