Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title: R v Catanzariti

Citation: [2014] ACTSC 333

Hearing Date: 16 October 2014

Decision Date: 23 October 2014

Before: Penfold ACJ

Decision: See [69] to [74] below

Category: Sentence

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – offender to be sentenced for forcible confinement, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, threat to inflict grievous bodily harm, sexual intercourse without consent and acts of indecency without consent – offences committed in connection with drug debt owed by principal victim to offender – significance of interest in obtaining sexual gratification in assessing seriousness of sexual offences – early pleas of guilty to non-sexual offence charges – later pleas of guilty to four sexual offence charges sought to be withdrawn – pleas rejected after hearing – trial on sexual offence charges began – guilty pleas entered after beginning of trial to three charges, two being less serious than earlier sexual offence charges – parity with co-offender previously sentenced – offender already serving sentence for unrelated offence for which parole period had expired – totality – some concurrency with current sentence – new non-parole period set for total sentence – need for extended period of supervision after release on parole.

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 31, 34, 54(1), 59 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s45A

Parties: The Queen (Crown) Anthony Catanzariti (Offender)

Representation: Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Mr R Livingston (Offender)

Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Lynch (Offender)

File Number: SCC 208 of 2012

Publication Restriction: Name of victim of sexual offences, and any identifying features. 1. Anthony Catanzariti has pleaded guilty to seven charges, being:

(a) one of forcible confinement;

(b) two of assault occasioning actual bodily harm;

(c) one of threatening to inflict grievous bodily harm;

(d) one of sexual intercourse without consent; and

(e) two representative counts of act of indecency without consent.

2. The offences all arise under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carry maximum terms of imprisonment as follows:

(a) for sexual intercourse without consent – 12 years;

(b) for forcible confinement – 10 years;

(c) for the acts of indecency – 7 years; and

(d) for the assault and threat offences – 5 years.

3. The following description of the circumstances of the offences is taken largely from the agreed Statement of Facts.

4. The complainant in respect of most of the offences, P, had been dealing drugs for Mr Catanzariti and owed him about $2,500. P had left Canberra for some months but returned intending to pay his debt. Mr Catanzariti approached him in May 2012 and they agreed on a payment plan under which P would pay in instalments from his Centrelink payments.

5. The forcible confinement offence was initiated when early in July 2012, P agreed to help Mr Catanzariti’s co-offender with a stencil project. The co-offender picked him up and took him to Mr Catanzariti’s house in Watson. At the house, Mr Catanzariti ordered P to strip. Fearing for his safety and believing Mr Catanzariti to have ready access to a gun, P did as he was told. Mr Catanzariti then allowed him to get dressed again.

6. Mr Catanzariti asked P how he intended to pay off the drug debt. P said that he was getting paid next Thursday and could pay Mr Catanzariti then. Mr Catanzariti then placed a packet of biscuits and a can of Diet Coke in front of P and told him that would be the last thing he was going to have to eat for a while. Mr Catanzariti and the co- offender then had a conversation in front of P about what they thought they should do with him. The co-offender suggested that they tie P up in the shed and cut his toes off, knee-cap him or pull his toenails off. Mr Catanzariti and the co-offender then agreed that they would tie P up and leave him in the bush somewhere.

7. Mr Catanzariti handed P a jumper and told him to put it on under his own sweater, saying it was going to be cold where he was going and he was going to be out all night. Mr Catanzariti then went into his bedroom and returned carrying a number of phone charger cables. He and the co-offender escorted P outside and ordered him to get into the back seat of the car being used by the co-offender. P got in the car. The co- offender drove and Mr Catanzariti sat in the passenger seat.

2 8. P was told not to look suspicious or to try to communicate with anyone else, particularly police. The co-offender drove to the dirt carpark at the base of Mt Majura and parked. Mr Catanzariti ordered P out of the car and said “Don’t say anything to any of the bush walkers or I’ll shoot you”. P did not know if Mr Catanzariti had a firearm with him but was compliant regardless.

9. The sun was setting and it was cold and getting dark. Mr Catanzariti and the co-offender walked P up Mt Majura, Mr Catanzariti saying “If you survive this, you’ll be a big man”. P was very distressed and feared for his life.

10. About a third of the way up the mountain, Mr Catanzariti directed P further into the bush and to lie down in a ditch. P was then bound in a “hog-tied” fashion with the phone charger cables, and his mouth taped with some tape the co-offender had taken from the car.

11. Mr Catanzariti then directed the co-offender to move a nearby log and place it over P to hide him from view. Mr Catanzariti and the co-offender left, returning about five minutes later. Mr Catanzariti bent down and removed the tape from P’s mouth saying “I like you mate”. Mr Catanzariti and the co-offender then left P.

12. After about 20 minutes of struggling, P was able to free himself from the constraints. He ran down Mt Majura and tried to return to a house where he had been staying with a friend, NK. He got lost several times in the dark but managed to get to NK’s house about 45 minutes later.

13. Present at NK’s house when P arrived were NK and a friend of his, ME. NK saw that P appeared distressed and had red marks around his wrist. He asked what had happened. As P began to tell them what had happened, the co-offender walked into the unit, saw P and said “Oh, you’ve made it, you’re free”. The co-offender then shook P’s hand and had a beer with P and the two other men.

14. Later in the evening, P spoke with another friend, ML, and told her the extent of what had happened to him earlier. She noticed P had bruising to his wrists where he had been bound. At about 12.15 pm the following day, 9 July 2012, P went to the Watson shops with ML in her car. As they pulled up in the Watson shops carpark, Mr Catanzariti pulled up beside them. He saw P and said “What the fuck are you doing? So you got out of it?” P had a brief conversation with Mr Catanzariti before going into the shops with ML.

15. The next incident began at about 10.00 pm on Wednesday, 11 July 2012. P was at NK’s house together with NK, ML and MH, who were NK’s neighbours. They were sitting in the lounge smoking cannabis and drinking beer when they heard a loud bang at the front door quickly followed by a second loud bang. NK went to open the door, however, before he could the door opened violently.

16. Mr Catanzariti walked in with the co-offender and Mr Catanzariti’s then girlfriend and said “That’s how you kick open a door bro”. The group sat down. Although P, NK and his two neighbours were not comfortable with Mr Catanzariti being there, they sat down with them and continued to drink beer and smoke marijuana together. While they were doing so, Mr Catanzariti and the co-offender were ordering P about, telling him to change the music and fetch beer.

17. The next stage involved assaults on P and on NK. The co-offender challenged P to a game of knuckles. As the co-offender and P were playing knuckles, Mr Catanzariti

3 walked up to P and suddenly started slapping, punching and elbowing him to the face and head area. While he was doing this, NK turned to the co-offender and said “This shit can’t go on in my house”.

18. Mr Catanzariti then approached NK and punched him in the face and head repeatedly. NK’s nose began to bleed heavily. While Mr Catanzariti beat NK, the co-offender moved to P and continued to beat him by punching, kicking and elbowing him. Mr Catanzariti told NK to go and get something sharp to pierce P’s ears with. NK produced a piece of metal bent into the shape of an egg cup holder. Mr Catanzariti took the piece of metal and said “This is how we did it in the old days”.

19. Mr Catanzariti heated up the tip of the metal with a cigarette lighter and then drove it into P’s earlobe. His ear began to bleed heavily. Mr Catanzariti went into the kitchen and returned with some salt. He poured the salt over P’s injuries, saying it would sterilise the wound. Mr Catanzariti then told P to go and have a shower and clean up.

20. P went into the bathroom, had a shower and changed clothes. When he returned to the living room, Mr Catanzariti said “So you like boxing, huh?” Both Mr Catanzariti and the co-offender then punched and elbowed P with multiple strikes connecting mainly with his head. During this series of assaults, the co-offender punched P so hard he injured his own hand. The co-offender told P that now he would beat him harder. Mr Catanzariti stood up on a nearby weight bench and began to stomp on P while the co- offender resumed elbowing and kicking him.

21. Next there was an act of indecency. About an hour or so after having arrived at NK’s house, Mr Catanzariti got P to pull down his pants and show everyone present his penis. MH had been trying to ignore what had been going on and looked away as Mr Catanzariti approached her with P. Mr Catanzariti took P into the kitchen where NK and ML were and made him show them his genitals. ML turned away once she realised what Mr Catanzariti was doing.

22. MH became insistent with ML that she wanted to go. ML announced that she and MH were leaving. Mr Catanzariti said “You’re not going anywhere. You didn’t see anything”. The two remained present, feeling too afraid to leave. About 10 minutes later, Mr Catanzariti permitted the two women to go. As they were leaving, Mr Catanzariti said to ML “What goes on in this house stays in this house”. The two women went downstairs and returned to their unit below.

23. The next offence is of sexual intercourse without consent. While P was naked, Mr Catanzariti told him to bend over. When he did, Mr Catanzariti inserted the end of a beer bottle into P’s anus. P felt about an inch of the neck of the beer bottle inside his anus. NK heard Mr Catanzariti say “P just copped a beer bottle in the arse”. Mr Catanzariti tried to insert a pencil into P’s anus. He prodded the pencil around P’s buttocks causing discomfort, pain and soreness. Mr Catanzariti then attempted to insert a screwdriver into P’s anus but was again unsuccessful.

24. P had urinated himself and had blood flowing from his nose and ears. Mr Catanzariti told P to go and have another shower. He had another shower and later returned to the living room.

25. There is then a second act of indecency. Mr Catanzariti got P to take down his pants again. Mr Catanzariti switched the vacuum cleaner on and told P to suck himself off. P then put the nozzle of the vacuum cleaner over his penis for a short while.

4 26. At some point in time while P was still exposed, Mr Catanzariti used NK’s dog and got it to lick P’s genitals and encouraged the dog to hump P from behind.

27. Finally, there was the threat of grievous bodily harm. At one point later in time, Mr Catanzariti picked up a cricket bat and stood over P readying to strike him with the bat. He then said “I’m going to break your fucking legs”. Mr Catanzariti did not hit P but then placed the bat with the co-offender.

28. Mr Catanzariti asked his co-offender if he had a weapon other than the cricket bat in order to keep P at the unit. The co-offender said that he did. Mr Catanzariti and his girlfriend left. The co-offender instructed NK to go to his mother’s unit and retrieve a spear gun hidden in the backyard. He told NK that if he was stopped by police to tell them the spear gun belonged to P.

29. NK left and soon after returned to the unit with the spear gun. He gave the spear gun to the co-offender who sat down on the couch with the spear gun at his feet. The co- offender made an icepack using a towel and some ice and handed it to P. He told P to go to bed. P went to bed and the co-offender remained in the unit.

30. At about 9.30 am on Thursday, 12 July 2012 the co-offender woke P. He could hear voices in the living room. P went out and saw two of his friends in the living room. They asked P what had happened to his face. He said he had been in a fight. The co- offender permitted P to leave the unit on the basis that he would be going to Hackett shops and buying the co-offender some beer.

31. One of P’s friends accompanied him to Hackett shops. On the way, P told his friend a little of what had been happening that night. P returned to the unit with beer and told the co-offender that he had an appointment with Centrelink in order to have his payments re-instated. The co-offender allowed P to again leave the unit. P’s friends drove him into Civic where he then walked to the City Police Station.

32. At 3.15 pm on 12 July 2012, P was examined by Dr Vanita Parekh in relation to the injuries he sustained as a result of the assaults on him. Dr Parekh authored a report dated 23 August 2012 outlining her findings. She reported numerous abrasions, lacerations and bruises to P’s head, bruises his jaw, mouth, hand, arms and legs, and a subconjunctival haemorrhage to his right eye as well as the wound to his earlobe.

33. The doctor stated that:

1. There were at least 27 individually identifiable injuries on [P]. These injuries were of a variety of types of injury, across a variety of anatomical planes which indicate multiple applications of force. 2. [P] had a number of injuries to his head; these have the potential to be very serious and potentially life-threatening. 3. [P] had a laceration to his anus. Lacerations are caused by the application of blunt force. 34. Dr Parekh took a number of photographs of some of the injuries to P. They are in evidence before me, and are very confronting.

35. On 20 July 2012, Mr Catanzariti was charged with a large number of offences arising out of this incident; he has been in custody ever since.

36. All these offences seem to me to be of around mid-range seriousness. No mitigating factors have been identified, although I note that alcohol and drug use might provide

5 some kind of explanation of the level of violence and sheer nastiness, as well as the ongoing nature, of the offending.

37. Aggravating factors of the forcible confinement offence were the preliminary conversations between the two offenders about what to do with P and the suggestion that he might not survive the forthcoming ordeal. I do not overlook, however, the provision of an extra jumper and the untaping of P’s mouth.

38. The assault on P was an extremely serious example of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, producing what Dr Parekh identified as potentially life-threatening injuries. The assault on NK was aggravated by being committed in his own home and by the fact that it was committed when NK attempted to intervene in defence of P.

39. Both assaults were aggravated by the presence in the house of MH who was only 16 at the time.

40. The two acts of indecency and of course the sexual intercourse were degrading, humiliating, frightening and, with the possible exception of part of the first act of indecency, no doubt painful. I accept the prosecutor’s submission that in this case anal penetration was more serious than some other forms of non-consensual sexual intercourse might have been.

41. Mr Catanzariti has repeatedly asserted that he received no sexual gratification from performing these acts, and told Dr Danny Sullivan, a psychiatrist who provided a report tendered by the defence, that they were “amusing”, although conceding that they had got out of hand. The absence of sexual gratification may be true, and it may make Mr Catanzariti feel better, but it does not seem to me to mitigate the offences in any way. If anything, sexual acts for the purpose of ordinary sexual gratification, even without consent, may be less offensive than the equivalent sexual acts committed deliberately to humiliate and degrade. A desire for sexual gratification is a normal human desire and unobjectionable when pursued in appropriate ways – the same cannot be said of a desire to humiliate and degrade, although I do accept that achieving sexual gratification through humiliation and degradation could have been an aggravating factor.

42. The prosecutor concedes that the threat to break P’s legs was not as serious as the other offences, but I accept her submission that, in the circumstances, P had every reason to expect that the threat might be carried out.

43. P provided a Victim Impact Statement which was very brief, but striking in its simplicity. It said:

The events have changed my life forever. There is nothing that will be the same now. I have to [accept] the events that have taken place but I didn’t know anyone could be so cruel. 44. It seems that the conduct involved in these offences was in general premeditated, but that many of the specific offences, including the sexual assaults, were committed on the spur of the moment as developments of the basic plan to threaten, harm, humiliate and frighten P.

45. I note that most of the offences were committed during the same series of events on 11 and 12 July 2012, but do not accept that this necessarily requires any particular degree of concurrency between the sentences. The second group of offences took place over a period of about 10 hours, and appear to have involved several unrelated ideas for frightening and humiliating P that occurred to Mr Catanzariti and his co-

6 offender in the course of that period. At any point, P’s ordeal could have been brought to an end by the offenders. However, as will appear, a degree of concurrency among many of the sentences has turned out to be necessary in order to avoid an excessive total sentence.

46. Mr Catanzariti is now 24. His criminal history includes two assault offences dealt with by non-conviction orders, a number of traffic offences, and several other relatively minor offences.

47. Although Mr Catanzariti was some years younger than his co-offender, he was the person to whom the drug debt was owed and he appears to have been the instigator of the offences. However, in sentencing the co-offender, I noted that he had participated “willingly and at times enthusiastically”.

48. Mr Catanzariti has expressed little remorse in the two years since the offences, but the most recent Pre-Sentence Report, prepared in June this year, reports:

Mr Catanzariti agreed with the Statement of Facts, although stated he had not received any sexual pleasure from his actions. He reported he wanted to humiliate the victim due to an unresolved financial debt and had acted impulsively. [Mr Catanzariti] minimised his actions and claimed he had used illicit substances prior to the offence and noted his co-accused had influenced his behaviour. However, he did acknowledge he was responsible for his own actions and believed his level of anger had contributed to the offences. Mr Catanzariti understood his actions would have serious long term [effects] on the victim and expressed shame for his behaviour. [He] advised he could not correct what occurred; instead expressed his intention to move forward and ensure he would not act this way again. 49. Dr Sullivan, who saw Mr Catanzariti in August this year, reported his comments as follows:

At the time of the alleged offences, Mr Catanzariti reported that he was intoxicated with alcohol. He reported that he had known [the co-offender] for some time and he was a much older person who had alcohol use problems. He stated that the complainant in the matter had significant heroin problems and owed him around $10 000. He described the alleged offences as not as significant as described in the Statement of Facts, although acknowledged that he was pleading guilty. Mr Catanzariti denied that his girlfriend had a weapon or that he generally used weapons. He stated that he had tied the victim [P] to a tree to detoxify him from heroin. He indicated that he was drunk at the time, did not break into the flat because [the co-offender] lived there and at the time considered that the sexual assaults were amusing, although “getting a bit out of hand”. He noted there was no sexual arousal associated with the sexualised offences. 50. As already indicated, several Pre-Sentence Reports were available to me, one prepared in anticipation of Mr Catanzariti’s sentencing hearing in December 2013, an updated one prepared in March 2014 for his sentencing on unrelated matters, and a final one for the current sentencing process.

51. As well as the report from Dr Sullivan, Mr Catanzariti’s mother gave oral evidence on his behalf.

52. Mr Catanzariti is the middle child in a family of three. He grew up in Canberra in a family affected by his father’s alcoholism and violence, and from adolescence experienced regular conflict with his father. His father left the family home some four or

7 five years ago and there has been little contact since. Mr Catanzariti maintains a good relationship with his mother, who has visited him regularly in prison and who expects him to return to the family home when he is released. Mr Catanzariti was in a relationship for several years, which has recently ended.

53. Mr Catanzariti attended school in Canberra, and finished Year 10, although it seems that during his high school years there was considerable truancy and bad behaviour. He began but failed to complete an apprenticeship in bricklaying, and has a very limited employment history apart from that.

54. Starting possibly as early as the age of 14, Mr Catanzariti has abused alcohol, methamphetamines and cannabis and, briefly, methadone, benzodiazepines and anabolic steroids. He claims that despite dealing in heroin, he has never used that drug.

55. There is a suggestion that his heroin dealing was engaged in to finance an increasing involvement in gambling.

56. The Statement of Facts mentions Mr Catanzariti’s use of cannabis immediately before some of the offences, and he told Dr Sullivan that he was intoxicated with alcohol at the time. Counsel made submissions on the basis of instructions that Mr Catanzariti was affected by amphetamines during the offences.

57. Mr Catanzariti’s mother gave evidence that in the last couple of years she has seen a change in Mr Catanzariti, and that he has done a lot of growing up while in prison, but she conceded in cross-examination that except on a couple of occasions during the 12 months before the offences, when he was often affected by drugs, Mr Catanzariti had always behaved well around her.

58. Apart from that, Mr Catanzariti has made few rehabilitation efforts in his more than two years in custody. This may relate partly to his extended period as a remand prisoner, but he has been a sentenced prisoner since April this year. He is now receiving gambling counselling and attending regular sessions with the Corrections psychologist in relation to anger management, change management and anxiety management. He does not appear to have undertaken any alcohol or drug counselling since these offences.

59. On the other hand I note counsel’s instructions that Mr Catanzariti has given up the use of methamphetamines (while continuing to use cannabis within the AMC); both these claims seem to be supported by a drug test conducted in February 2014 which was positive for cannabis but, by implication at least, for no other drug.

60. Before being charged, Mr Catanzariti was reliant on Centrelink benefits and, presumably, the proceeds of his drug dealing. I am not aware that he has any plans or even a wish to take up any kind of employment on his release, although in fairness this may simply reflect the uncertainty about when that release might happen.

61. Dr Sullivan concluded that Mr Catanzariti would satisfy a diagnosis of Anti-social Personality Disorder, and notes Mr Catanzariti’s report of past anxiety and depression, without concluding that these were of clinical significance. However, he found no evidence of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, psychosis, Bi-polar Affective Disorder or significant cognitive impairment.

8 62. Dr Sullivan considers that Mr Catanzariti does not warrant formal mental health service intervention but needs to address his substance abuse and his tendency to anger and violence, and to improve his capacity for consequential thinking.

63. Mr Catanzariti had originally rejected the idea of undertaking any form of residential drug or alcohol rehabilitation. However, counsel is now instructed that Mr Catanzariti has recently made inquiries about his eligibility for the Solaris Therapeutic Community within the AMC but has been told that he is not yet eligible for this program. This may change after he is sentenced for offences partly attributed to substance abuse.

64. There is no doubt that general deterrence is important for offences of these kinds. The use of violence and sexual humiliation by drug dealers to manage their recalcitrant or failed subcontractors cannot be ignored in a civilised community. I am also in no doubt that Mr Catanzariti needs ongoing personal deterrence.

65. Mr Catanzariti initially pleaded not guilty to all charges and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial, but after some negotiations and revisions of the charges, he entered guilty pleas to eight charges on 14 October 2013.

66. At the sentencing hearing in December 2013, it became apparent that a disputed facts hearing would be needed, and court listing arrangements meant that this could not be held before April 2014.

67. In February this year, Mr Catanzariti applied to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the four charges alleging sexual offences. After hearing submissions, I decided that I should reject those pleas of guilty, and adjourned the matter into the Pilot Central Criminal Listing. A trial on the four sexual offence charges finally began on 14 April this year, one day before the disputed facts hearing had been listed to start. On 16 April, after further negotiations, Mr Catanzariti was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to three counts, being sexual intercourse without consent and two acts of indecency without consent. This reflected the dropping of an attempted sexual intercourse charge and the downgrading of the act of indecency charges from acts of indecency in the third degree.

68. As noted, Mr Catanzariti’s pleas of guilty took a long time and a lot of effort on the part of both the lawyers involved, and this court, before they were finalised. The prosecutor pointed out that the pleas of guilty to the sexual offences only came finally after P had given evidence in a pre-trial hearing, and that therefore those pleas of guilty were of significantly reduced utilitarian value. On the other hand, they still eliminated several days of trial time which would have occupied not only court and legal resources but also the time of jury members, and they saved several other witnesses from having to give evidence. Furthermore, as already noted, the pleas were eventually entered to a slightly less serious set of offences than those originally charged. I shall also accept those pleas of guilty as a further, albeit minor, indication of remorse. The earlier pleas of guilty to the non-sexual offences will be recognised by somewhat more substantial sentencing discounts.

69. In April this year, Burns J sentenced Mr Catanzariti for the theft of jewellery worth over $14,000, taking into account an associated assault. Those offences were committed in late 2011, and are unrelated to the current offences. The sentence imposed was 28 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 months. It was backdated to take account of the period since Mr Catanzariti was taken into custody on the current offences, as well as roughly two weeks during which he was presumably in custody

9 some time earlier in relation to the theft. Although that earlier incident was unrelated to the current offences, I consider that there needs to be some concurrency between that earlier sentence and the new sentences, especially since Mr Catanzariti’s non-parole period on the earlier sentence expired in February this year and he would have been eligible to apply for parole on that sentence from the point when he was sentenced by Burns J.

70. In August this year, I sentenced Mr Catanzariti’s co-offender, Brian Walters, after deferring sentence for a year during which Mr Walters maintained a previously indicated commitment to rehabilitation and was identified by his rehabilitation provider as a remarkable success. For his role in the incident involving P, Mr Walters was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the unlawful confinement, reduced from four years for his early guilty plea, and a concurrent sentence of 22 months reduced from 30 months for his assault of P occasioning actual bodily harm.

71. Mr Catanzariti’s lead role in this incident is reflected in the several other offences for which I must also sentence him. However, for Mr Catanzariti’s two equivalent offences, I propose to apply equivalent starting sentences to those used in sentencing Mr Walters, although the discounts will be somewhat less having regard to the much later guilty pleas.

72. Mr Catanzariti, please stand. I record convictions on one charge each of forcible confinement, threatening to inflict grievous bodily harm, and sexual intercourse without consent, and two charges each of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and acts of indecency without consent.

73. I now sentence you to imprisonment on each of those charges, as follows:

(a) for the forcible confinement offence – to three years and two months imprisonment, reduced from four years for your plea of guilty, backdated to 5 September 2013 and ending on 4 November 2016. That sentence is accordingly concurrent with the sentence previously imposed by Burns J as to 14 months;

(b) for the assault on P – to two years imprisonment, reduced from two and a half years, and also running from 5 September 2013 and finishing on 4 September 2015, and therefore entirely concurrent with the forcible confinement sentence;.

(c) for the assault on NK – to 15 months imprisonment reduced from 18 months, running from 5 February 2016 until 4 May 2017 and therefore adding six months to the total sentence;

(d) for threatening to inflict grievous bodily harm on P – to nine months imprisonment reduced from 12 months, running from 5 November 2016 until 4 August 2017 and therefore adding three months to the total sentence;

(e) for sexual intercourse without consent – to three years and six months imprisonment reduced from four years, running from 5 February 2016 until 4 August 2019 and therefore adding two years to the total sentence;

(f) for the first act of indecency without consent – to 22 months imprisonment reduced from 24 months, running from 5 March 2018 until 4 January 2020 and therefore adding five months to the total sentence; and

10 (g) for the second act of indecency without consent – to 27 months imprisonment reduced from 30 months, running from 5 May 2018 until 4 August 2020 and therefore adding seven months to the total sentence.

74. That gives a total sentence, for the offences for which I am sentencing you, of six years and 11 months imprisonment (5 September 2013 until 4 August 2020).

75. As noted, the sentence is backdated to 5 September 2013, providing 14 months concurrency with the earlier sentence imposed by Burns J for the unrelated theft.

76. I note that the non-parole period for the sentence you are currently serving has already expired, but I am obliged to set a new non-parole period for the total sentence of eight years and one month, that is from 5 July 2012 to 4 August 2020.

77. That non-parole period will be four years and nine months starting on 5 July 2012 (when Burns J’s sentence started) and therefore expiring on 4 April 2017. That is, it will be just under two and a half years before you become eligible to apply for parole.

78. I have set a relatively low non-parole period in recognition of your youth but also having regard to your limited rehabilitation progress so far and indeed what seems to be your limited recognition that there is any need for any particular rehabilitation. This means, in my view, that you will need an extended period of supervision in the community after you are released on parole. If you are released on parole in April 2017, you need to bear in mind that there will still be roughly three years and four months that you could be liable to spend in full-time custody if you do not comply with your parole conditions, and especially if you re-offend after that release.

79. Mr Catanzariti, unless you are satisfied with the prospect of spending the rest of your life in and out of prison, you will need to do some very hard thinking, and you will need to take advantage of all the rehabilitation opportunities available to you in the prison, in the next two and a half years. The future does not look good for you unless in that time you manage to beat both your inclination to use illicit drugs and your tendency towards anger and violence.

80. You may sit down.

I certify that the preceding eighty [80] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Chief Justice Penfold.

Associate: