R v H[2007] QSC 178

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. H has pleaded guilty to three offences; L to two.

2. Two are common: attempting to kill Miss L’s step-father, and conspiring to murder her mother.

3. Mr H has also admitted, by guilty plea, that, while pretending to be armed with a dangerous weapon, and using personal violence, he robbed SB.

4. Early last year, Mr and Mrs L lived in Brisbane with their daughter K.

5. Born in September 1990, she is Mrs L’s only child. Mr L is her step-father. The three of them began living as a family in mid-1995. Mr L, who has no other children, has accepted K as his daughter. He has played an active role in her life: reading bedtime stories when she was young, helping with homework, attending school functions, sharing celebrations and holidays, and in other ways. He characterises his relationship with her as loving. Mrs L considers them to be a close family.

6. Both her parents had worked as professionals for many years in a tertiary environment; and Miss L grew up in comfortable circumstances in a protective household.

7. In childhood, Miss L presented, as one referee puts it, as happy and easygoing, if reserved. She did not want for material things. When she was 8, for example, a pony was bought for her. Her mother got a horse so that the two of them could go riding together. With her mother’s encouragement, she engaged in social and sporting activities, including equestrian events.

8. Onset of adolescence presented challenges. When she was 13, Miss L had counselling at her private school for “relationship with her peers, and some issues relating to her relationship with her parents”. Details of these difficulties have not been revealed, but the counsellor does speak of “dysfunction in her relationship with her mother and father”. Others who knew her were left with the impression that Miss L began to resent her mother’s close protection as she sought more independence in her first teenage year.

9. In early 2004, Miss L struck up a friendship with a boy. She was in contact with him through a computer and text messaging, as well as in person. One day, when the two of them were alone at Miss L’s home, he raped her. According to the forensic psychiatrist, Dr Curtis, a hospital report shows that Miss L was “virginal at the time and that there was traumatic tearing of the vaginal entrance indicating aggressive/rough physical penetration”. A complaint of rape was made to the police but later withdrawn.

10. This assault and its aftermath had significant effects. Soon after, Miss L hurt herself by cutting her arms. She has told the psychiatrist who now treats her, Dr Bell, that the rape generated “a great deal of tension in the household”. She felt that her mother did not believe her story about the event. She has claimed that, about a month afterwards, her father called her a slut, following which she took an overdose of multiple medications. This suicidal gesture was treated in a private psychiatric hospital.

11. A psychologist who had known the family for years noted a marked change in behaviour after the rape. Miss L became more withdrawn. Her confidence and self-esteem suffered. The school counsellor began working through the incident with her. She found Miss L at times to be “very troubled” and “emotionally immature”. Miss L herself has told Dr Bell that she felt estranged from her parents after the rape, speaking of a “numbness” towards them. She withdrew from some social activity. The school counsellor formed the view that she was easily led by others.

12. Miss L’s parents took her to counsellors, without much success. At home, what Dr Curtis calls “family friction and communication problems” persisted. A nurse with an honours degree in Psychology, who has known Miss L since she was 4, thinks that she found her mother’s highly protective, controlling approach “claustrophobic”. She observed family tension starting to flare at the same time as Miss L looked for more independence. This coincided with the added emotional strain of the rape and the consequent upheavals to family life.

13. The material about adolescent problems is patchy. Information concerning these troubles is to be found in character references, in reports of Dr Bell, Dr Curtis, and in Ms Arnold’s pre-sentence report. Mr and Mrs L have spoken to the two psychiatrists and to Ms Arnold. And they have supplied statements asking for a sentence other than detention. But those statements do not discuss the facts pertinent to their daughter’s plans to kill them.

14. In 2005, her grade 10 year, Miss L felt more engaged with her friends. However, she “remained ambivalent”, Dr Bell says, about her parents. She was also unsure about her own sexuality, as well as about her future, and had the sense that she had little direction in life. She felt compelled to continue in competitive activities involving horse dressage because of her mother’s pressure. She had few of her own outlets. But she continued at school, and her academic achievement was satisfactory.

15. However, things were more serious than they appeared. In the two years following the rape, through the psychological trauma of that episode and its sequelae, Miss L developed a major depressive disorder that complicated her post-trauma syndrome.

16. Throughout 2005, Miss L remained in what Dr Curtis characterises as a “psychological phase of quiescence of overt symtomotology despite underlying, ongoing consequent severe psychopathology”.

17. By her fifteenth birthday, she had tried alcohol and experimented with illicit drugs, though her exposure to them was “only very limited”, according to Dr Bell. Even so there were no incidents of serious misbehaviour at home or at school.

18. In September 2005, Miss L encountered H on the Internet. Born in late April 1987, he was almost two and a half years older.

19. His was a troubled past. H’s mother was 16 when he was born. She was a heavy alcohol drinker and cannabis user. After a court battle, he was placed in the custody of his maternal grandmother. He has not known his biological father. As a child, he had little contact with his mother.

20. At the age of 6, he was seen for emotional aggressive outbursts and hyperactivity. He had great difficulty in concentration. And he was impulsive, with a tendency to tantrums. He recalls being disruptive as a young child, almost being expelled from school.

21. He took Ritalin from no later than the age of 6 until he was 12. He was then given Dexamphetamine. He used that drug until he was 17.

22. Behavioural problems occurred throughout his primary school years and into high school years.

23. Between 12 and 17, he was seeing a medical practitioner at a child and mental youth service.

24. His has used illicit drugs, starting with cannabis when 14. Anti-social behaviour was already apparent in early adolescence.

25. At 15, his best friend was killed in a motor vehicle accident. This depressed him. He was in hospital for a fortnight after he tried to kill himself by stabbing a knife into his wrist.

26. He began drinking alcohol at 17. He was a binge drinker.

27. He completed year 12 but did not obtain an OP score. On leaving school, he worked for about seven months. He told a psychologist, Dr Beech, that he dabbled in drug use and selling drugs for months, and then worked at a restaurant.

28. Dr Beech considers that:

“Mr H has had a lifetime history of impulsivity and destructibility consistent with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in a young man of average intelligence. It has been associated with silly behaviours, oppositionality and probably a tendency to exaggerate his exploits and to inflate accounts of himself to impress others.

The disorder is severe and continued into adolescence … he is also anti-social in nature …”

29. It seems that Mr H and Miss L met in mid-January 2006. They first went out on 21 January. He told her tall tales: for example, about having been in the air force, and that he was a “hit man”. On more than one occasion, in another effort to impress her, H showed her his handgun. It was a replica but he did not tell her that.

30. Mr H was obviously unsuitable. But, astonishingly, Miss L was attracted to him. Soon she started seeing him at least every second day. She would sneak into the city to be with him or he would come to her house late at night and she would let him inside. The relationship quickly became sexual and intense, Miss L felt loved by him. And she saw her time with him as an exciting break from an otherwise dull and structured life.

31. In her interview with the police on 18 February, Miss L gave this account of events in the fortnight preceding the attack.

32. On Friday, 10 February, she ran away from home to be with H. She had taken $1,000 from her mother’s account and $500 of her own. She gave H $450.

33. Her parents, who were unaware of the liaison with H, tracked her down at a friend’s place and took her home. A few hours later, her parents first met H. Concerned by what they made of him, they took the girl’s mobile phone from her; and restrictions were placed on her ability to go out.^[1]

34. Miss L, who remained fascinated by Mr H, bitterly resented these interventions. For his part, Mr H was keen to maintain the relationship. He also wanted to please Miss L.

35. What was to be done so that they could be together?

36. Besotted, these disturbed teenagers decided on murder.

37. On the following Monday or Tuesday, she telephoned him to say that she wanted to be with him but that running away had not worked. She suggested possibly knocking out her parents. Mr H felt that something else had to be done. “What do you mean?” she asked him, “Something like killing or like getting rid of them?” She did not want to be a part of that. But if she did not help in the plan, nothing would happen, and that would have meant that she and Mr H would not be able to be together.

38. On Tuesday, Miss L telephoned Mr H from school, asking him if he had any money to give to her parents. He answered no, adding that he had been looking at stores that he could rob. Encouragingly, she suggested that it “better be a store with enough money”. He spoke of robbing a computer store in the city. She confessed to the police that she did not care how he did it, “just get it [the money] before the due date”. They also arranged to meet after school the next day.

39. On the Wednesday, she asked him how the hold up had gone. Lying again, he said that he did not get money because there were plain clothed detectives in the store, adding something about being under “house arrest”. Then he identified another store he might rob.

40. On the Wednesday or Thursday, together they decided to kill her parents, but “we were still working out how exactly”. Mr H spun some yarn about not wanting to use his gun, saying that it did not have a silencer. After some discussion about the noise that a stabbing might involve, he proposed cutting throats. She agreed, as long as she did not have to wield the knife.

41. On Thursday, he told her that he was going to hold up a liquor store that night. She encouraged him to be careful and not to get caught.

42. I digress to mention Mr H’s armed robbery.

43. At 8.55 pm on Thursday, 16 February, he entered a liquor store. A 19 year old male was there, working by himself.

44. Mr H selected an item from the fridge at the rear of the shop. Approaching the sales counter, he told the shop assistant that he would take the liquor. Then he pulled his handgun from his pants, saying “and all of the money in your till”, adding that he was sorry for what he was doing.

45. The shop assistant removed notes from the till. But then he said he was calling security and went to pick up the phone. Mr H pressed the muzzle of the weapon against his ribs saying, “Don’t you dare”, as he grabbed for the money.

46. The shop assistant pulled money from Mr H’s grip as he fled the shop. The magazine and bullets fell from the weapon as he ran away. The gun was later recovered by police and found to be a replica. Mr H got $20.

47. They met again on Friday morning before school to discuss details of the murders.

48. Miss L had proposed that the killings take place on the Saturday morning. She told Mr H that that would be “the best time to do it” because her parents were going out the night before and were likely to be affected by alcohol when they arrived home. The plan they formulated was that Mr H would come to the house at about 5.30 – 6.00 am. She would let him in.

49. The two of them planned to stay indefinitely at the house of one of Mr H’s friends. Miss L anticipated funding their life together with the money she would take from her parents’ bank account. She knew the pin numbers and expected to extract about $10,000-$20,000 from the accounts.

50. Either that Friday morning or shortly after H arrived at the L residence at about 5.40 am next day, the final details of the plan were agreed.

51. Mr H suggested her bedroom as the venue. She thought the bathroom better, partly because, as she told Mr H, her parents got up every couple of hours or so to go to there. Mr H was to wait behind the bathroom door, put his hand over the mouth of Mr or Mrs L – whoever first entered – then slash the throat, using a knife he had brought with him.

52. On the Saturday morning, Miss L unlocked the back door of the house to let Mr H in. She gave him a black shirt to replace the white one he had left outside and a black balaclava to disguise his features.

53. Taking his knife, he went into the bathroom, and waited.

54. Her father went to the bathroom a few minutes later.^[2] When Mr L got inside, Mr H tried to cut his throat. She heard noise from the bathroom. Then her mother came and asked if she had anyone in the house. Her mother called out to her father and told him she was calling the police. Mr L and Mr H then emerged from the bathroom. They all gathered in the lounge room.

55. Mr H’s account to the police of events in the month or so before the attack differs appreciably from Miss L’s. As he would have it, her role in their deciding to overcome the opposition of her parents by murdering them was more calculated and more influential than she will admit. Details of these differences need not, however, be explored. It is not suggested for Mr H that they matter. In any event, he is so given to falsehood and fantasy that, absent compelling corroboration, any story he tells must be approached sceptically.

56. Mr H is the source of the detail of the encounter in the bathroom. His version is supported by injuries Mr L sustained in the attack.

57. Mr H claimed that Miss L had told him to wait in the bathroom for one or other of her parents to come in. While he waited, he kept thinking about how he had to kill her parents – “do this for her” – so that he could be with her. His thoughts were focused on her.

58. His plan was to attack from behind, intending to slit the throat with the knife. This, he thought, would be the cleanest and quietest way to kill. He then planned to kill the other parent, in no particular order. He intended to kill the first entrant, whoever that was.

59. When Mr L walked into the bathroom, Mr H approached him. Mr L turned around. Mr H tried to put his hand over Mr L’s mouth. Mr L yelled out. The two began struggling. “I raised the knife I had and tried to slice his throat,” Mr H told the police.

60. Mr H slipped on a mat on the floor. Mr L got enough pressure on the knife to deflect it away. It struck Mr H in the leg.

61. Mr H confessed that, during the struggle, he was trying to get the knife near Mr L’s throat to kill him. He kept pushing the knife towards Mr L because, as he told the police, “I was trying to kill him.”

62. This violent episode came to an end after Mr H had been struck with a knife. Saying “I can’t do this”, the knife was dropped or taken from his grasp by Mr L.

63. Mr L removed the balaclava and manhandled Mr H into the lounge room where they were soon joined by Mr L’s wife and daughter. They all waited for the police to attend in response to a 000 call.

64. Asked if he had considered the consequences of killing the parents, Mr H told the police:

“I didn’t care … I thought at least I’d be able to be with [Miss L] just that little bit longer than I would if her parents were still around … for at least a month or so and then maybe we would be caught.”

65. With an awareness, but scarcely a realistic comprehension of what she had done, Miss L had this exchange in her police interview:

“How did you know it was wrong? - - attempted murder … that’s one of the worst crimes you can do …

What did you think would be the consequences?- - Gaol or something, Yeah, I don’t know, I didn’t really think about it. Yeah, [H] just kept on saying that we wouldn’t get caught, so I was like, ‘Oh, okay.’”

66. The police asked her whether there were any issues at home between her and her parents. She answered:

“The only real issues we have is that I am not usually allowed out as much as I want to … I’m only allowed out maybe once every two weeks … and sometimes I want to go over to a friend’s place … and I can’t … and I do horse riding as well and I don’t want to do it but my mum makes me … and just in general we don’t really get along or talk a lot.”

67. Asked if she felt “forced” by Mr H to kill her parents, she answered:

“May be like at one time I did but not all the time… not completely but a little bit.”

68. In both cases, there are significant mitigating factors.

69. The two of them amply co-operated in the police investigation, participating in recorded interviews on the day of the attack and providing written statements. Some remorse is also apparent in the content of the interviews.

70. The guilty pleas were timely. They attract a significant discount on the sentence that would have been imposed had there been a trial. The pleas evidence a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. They have also resulted in substantial resource savings through sparing the community of the trouble and expense of a trial.

71. Both were young – H about two months short of his 19^th birthday; L almost 15½; and neither has any prior convictions. These are powerful factors favouring leniency. Community protection is enhanced by rehabilitation of young offenders.

72. Both have references attesting to otherwise good character.

73. Totality considerations intrude. They have been an influence in my decision to fix concurrent sentences for the attempted and conspiracy to murder offences, and in imposing a light sentence in respect of the armed robbery.

74. One other matter concerning the comparability of the sentences should be mentioned. The different sentencing regimes for adults and juveniles matter to parity considerations. Nonetheless, Mr H could justifiably feel aggrieved were the effect of his punishment to be inappropriately grossly disproportionate to Miss L’s.^[3]

75. There are important differences in the considerations that affect the sentences in the two cases.

76. First, as a juvenile, Miss L falls to be punished under a different legislative regime.

77. The available maximum penalties differ. Mr H’s attempted murder conviction exposes him to life imprisonment; for the conspiracy to murder, to a maximum penalty of 14 years. Under s 176 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, however, Miss L may not be detained for more than 10 years for the attempted murder; nor more than 7 for the conspiracy.

78. Moreover, the principles the Parliament has enacted for juvenile sentencing include these special considerations (see s 150(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992):

• A non-custodial order is better than detention in promoting a child’s ability to reintegrate into the community.

• The rehabilitation of a child found guilty of an offence is greatly assisted by –

1. opportunities to the child’s family; and

2. opportunities to engage in educational programs and employment.

• a detention order should be imposed only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period.

Or, as the Schedule 1 Charter of Juvenile Justice Principles puts it, a child should be detained in custody for an offence, whether on arrest or sentence, only as a last resort and for the least time that is justified in the circumstances.

• a child who commits and offence should be … dealt with in a way that will give a child the opportunity to develop in a responsible, beneficial and socially acceptable way; and dealt with in a way that strengthens the child’s family.

• A child should be dealt with under this Act in a way that allows the child to be reintegrated into the community.

79. And by s 208 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992:

“208 Detention must be only appropriate sentence

A court may make a detention order against a child only if the court, after-

(a) considering all other available sentences; and

(b) taking into account the desirability of not holding a child in detention;

is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.”

80. Next, H committed another, also serious, offence: the armed robbery. Miss L has not been charged in respect of it. It must be ignored in her case.

81. Thirdly, her parents have already suffered considerably through her offending and what it set in train. For them – the victims – her incarceration would be devastating.

82. Miss L’s mental illness matters. It contributed to the severely impaired judgment that led her to decide to try to kill her parents. And that she is still afflicted by symptomotogy has significance for her future: in particular, it means that incarceration would be more difficult.

83. The last two points need elaboration.

84. Her parents have forgiven Miss L. And they are desperately concerned for her future should she be detained.

85. She has reunited with her parents and is now living with them. She is uncomfortable about the environment but the three of them are coping. She attends a local high school where she is in her final year. She is achieving academically. There is no suggestion of significant behavioural problems, at home or at school. She has taken up previously shared family interests: for example, equestrian competition.

86. Mr L has furnished a thoughtful description of his suffering and that of his wife to this time. The inevitable intrusions of the police investigation have proved distressing. Mr L feels humiliated by intrusive media attention. A deal of money has been spent on lawyers. The pressures became so intense that the family had to move house. And now it is feared that detention would destroy the family, which is “barely coping” at the moment.

87. Mr L’s evaluation of the awful consequences of their daughter’s incarceration is carefully considered.

88. He is sure that detention would cause life-long problems for Miss L and the whole family. She now approaches completion of year 12 and the prospect of achieving an OP grade high enough to secure her future through tertiary studies. Detention risks her future. And, believing that they already suffered enough, he asks that his daughter be given an opportunity to be rehabilitated in the family, with professional assistance.

89. Where a sentence would aggravate a victim’s distress, it “may be moderated to some degree”.^[4] But a concern for the impact on a victim of a sentence cannot be allowed to overwhelm the sentencing process.^[5] “A serious crime is a wrong committed against the community at large and the community is itself entitled to retribution”.^[6]

90. For Miss L, incarceration will be more than usually harsh.

91. In her valuable pre-sentence report Ms Arnold writes that, in view of Miss L’s life experiences and personal history, for her “the transition from the community to a custodial environment would be particularly challenging”.

92. Her recent psychiatric treatment has resulted in substantial improvement in mental well-being. Much of her depressive symtomotology is, Dr Bell says, “resolving”. But “she still has considerable symptoms and issues” and needs professional support for at least two years to maintain progress.

93. Detention would put her effective therapeutic relationship with Dr Bell in serious jeopardy. For that reason alone, detention would spell deleterious consequences for her mental health and, therefore, for her long-term rehabilitation.

94. Dr Curtis thinks that there has been “exceptional progress of psychotherapy with rehabilitation” but that Miss L “remains at risk and is still highly vulnerable”. Dr Curtis also considers, and I accept, that there is clear potential for detrimental consequences arising from separation from her family for her current psychotherapy.

95. She confronts another highly adverse potential consequence related to her “physicality” – as Dr Curtis describes her attraction – and to her impaired mental state. He identifies Miss L as someone at “great risk of sexual, emotional and physical abuse in an institutional setting”.

96. In adolescents, particularly children under 16, the pre-frontal cortex that is important in moderating impulses and behaviour is incompletely developed. Even, in adolescents who are not mentally ill, judgment is often astray and behaviour less controlled. And Dr Curtis’s report supports the idea that the pre-frontal cortex is one of the primary areas of the brain affected by psychological trauma.

97. The medical evidence here indicates that Miss L’s impaired mental state adversely affected her capacity for judgment.

98. The intense romantic attachment she quickly formed with Mr H indicates impaired judgment. More to the point, that relationship, and her determination to maintain it against parental opposition, powerfully affected her decision-making.

99. Mental illness reduces the moral culpability of the offender, at least where, as in Miss L’s case, it plays a part in the offences.^[7]  But it is not easy to assess the extent to which Miss L’s medical condition has contributed to her offending. The killings were not some spur of the moment decision.

100. Dr Curtis’s diagnosis is of post-rape psychological trauma and consequential major depressive disorder. He thinks that Miss L’s offending was “based in the mental illness and psychological trauma” she suffered in connection with the rape.

101. Her treating psychiatrist says:

“Her mother has been quite controlling of [K]’s life in the most well-meaning of ways. This included sending [K] to the best schools and manoeuvring into the sport she herself had aspired to, for which [K] held ambivalence.

The rape which occurred in 2004 occurred in the context of important developmental stage where an adolescent strives for individual identity, often with rebellion against their parents … [K] suffered with a post-trauma syndrome following the rape which was characterised by her altered behaviour, emotional numbing, distrust and confusion … Her condition became further complicated by a major depressive episode. In a disturbed search for her identity, it seems she has identified with her co-accused … and acted out of character …”

102. Relevantly, Dr Bell summarises his opinion in this way:

“[K] suffered a Post trauma syndrome as a consequence of being raped in 2004. This event also had a profound impact on her identity and her relationship with her parents.

Despite seeing two psychologists and a psychiatrist there was a failure to engage in treatment and her condition became complicated by a major depressive episode.

She became involved in a relationship which distorted her sense of identity and gave her some relief from her symptoms. She became entangled in the relationship …

Her distorted thinking culminated in actions towards her parents resulting in the charges.”

103. In her pre-sentence report, Ms Arnold puts it this way:

“[K] has demonstrated a pattern of behaviour … where she goes along with decisions that other people have made about her life, even if she disagrees with the decisions that are being made … She developed a relationship with her co-accused who she perceived would assist her to escape her parent’s control. Given her perception of powerlessness over her life, [K] became involved in a plan to murder her parents, as she believed this was the only way she would be able to continue her relationship with the co-accused.”

104. Then there is the related consideration that less weight is usually accorded to general deterrence in the sentencing of a mentally abnormal offender.

105. In Vardouniotis, the President of the Victorian Court of Appeal said:

“[27]In Matthews, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (Wood CJ at CL, Sperling and Hislop JJ) said that the reason for giving less weight to general deterrence in the case of an offender suffering from a mental disorder or abnormality –

‘lies in the circumstance that the community will readily understand that the offender who suffers from a mental disorder or abnormality is less in control of his or her cognitive facilities or emotional restraints, and in some instances lacks the ability to make reasoned or ordered judgments. Almost invariably there is a limited appreciation of the wrongfulness of the act, or of its moral culpability, which although falling short of avoiding criminal responsibility does justify special consideration upon sentencing. Moreover, such a condition is inherent and its presence does not depend upon any element of choice.’  ((2004) 145 A Crim R 445 at [22], citing Henry supra at [254] per Wood CJ at CL).”

106. The extent to which a sentence is to be moderated in recognition of mental illness is necessarily influenced by considerations such as the extent to which the offender appreciated the gravity of the conduct and the degree to which the illness is shown to have materially contributed to the commission of the offences.^[8]

107. The crimes were grave.

108. Mr L was not badly injured: he sustained cuts to his hands and a cut to his neck. But it was sheer good fortune that the attack was not fatal. The killings were not impulsive. There was a deal of premeditation: they were planned in several conversations over five days or so. The means chosen – slitting the throats of unsuspecting victims with a sharp knife – was adapted to the task. That weapon was chosen because it was thought that cutting the first victim’s throat would kill quietly so that the second victim could also be taken by surprise. And, if it matters, the motivation for the killings was so pathetically weak: to remove her parents as an obstacle to their being together.

109. Of the many considerations influencing the sentences, many favour leniency; but not all – especially not the seriousness of the attempted murder and conspiracy to murder offences.

110. Mr H should serve sentences aggregating 10 years imprisonment. Effect will be given to the mitigating matters in fixing the length of the head sentences. On this basis, the attempted murder attracts a sentence of nine years.

111. The facts of this attempted murder do not take the case beyond the “norm” for attempted murder offences. In these circumstances, decisions of the Court of Appeal such as R v McDougall; R v Collas (2006) 166 A Crim R 191, QCA 365, [18]-[19] mean that no serious violent offence declaration may be made.  See also R v Sauvao [2006] QCA 331, at p 9.

112. The conspiracy to murder Mrs L is also a grave offence. The plot was in an advanced stage, indeed, it was on the point of execution.

113. In all the circumstances, including that the armed robbery involved a different victim on a different occasion, that offence will attract a cumulative sentence. For reasons mentioned earlier associated with totality,^[9] that sentence must be substantially less than the crime would have called for were it considered in isolation.

114. Many of the factors favouring leniency for Miss L constitute “special circumstances” within s 227(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992. Although they are reflected in her head sentence, all considered her case is a proper one for ordering that she be released after serving 50 percent rather than the usual 70 percent, of her detention.

115. There will be the usual orders for the return of exhibits.

116. H,

in respect of your attempted murder of Mr L, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years.

117. In respect of the conspiracy to murder, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years.

118. Those sentences are to be served concurrently.

119. In respect of the armed robbery, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year.

120. Pursuant to s 156(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, it is directed that the imprisonment for armed robbery start from the end of the period of imprisonment the offender has been sentenced to serve in respect of the other offences. 

121. Pursuant to s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, I declare the 62 days spent in pre-sentence custody from the 18 February to the 10 April 2006 and from 11 July 2007 until today to be imprisonment already served under those three sentences.

122. L,

for the attempted murder, you are sentenced to be detained for four years.

123. For the conspiracy to murder, you are sentenced to be detained for two years.

124. Those sentences are to be served concurrently.

125. The two convictions will be recorded.

126. Pursuant to s 227(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, it is ordered that you be released after serving two years of that detention.

127. I declare the 11 days spent in pre-sentence custody from 18 to 20 February 2006 and from 12 July 2007 until today to be imprisonment already served under those sentences.