Sentencing Trends for Sexual Penetration of a Child under Care in the Higher Courts of Victoria 2007-08 to 2011-12

Sentencing Snapshot 151
Date of Publication: 
27 June 2013

Sentencing Snapshot no. 151 describes sentencing outcomes for the offence of sexual penetration of a child under care in the County Court of Victoria between 2007-08 and 2011-12.

The most recent Sentencing Snapshot for this offence is Snapshot no. 182.

You can also find statistics for this offence on SACStat.

Authored and published by the Sentencing Advisory Council
© Copyright State of Victoria, Sentencing Advisory Council, 2013

Introduction

This Sentencing Snapshot describes sentencing outcomes[1] for the offence of sexual penetration of a child under care and details the age and gender[2] of people sentenced for this offence in the County Court of Victoria between 2007–08 and 2011–12.[3] Except where otherwise noted, the data represent sentences imposed at first instance.

A person who takes part in an act of sexual penetration[4] with a child who at the time was aged between 12 and 16 and was under the care, supervision or authority of the person is guilty of an offence.[5] Sexual penetration of a child under care, supervision or authority is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment[6] and/or a fine of 1,800 penalty units.[7] Indictable offences are more serious offences triable before a judge and jury in the County or Supreme Court.

Sexual penetration of a child under care was the principal offence[8] in 0.4% of cases sentenced in the higher courts between 2007–08 and 2011–12.

People sentenced

From 2007–08 to 2011–12, 38 people were sentenced in the higher courts for a principal offence of sexual penetration of a child under care.[9]

Figure 1 shows the number of people sentenced for the principal offence of sexual penetration of a child under care by gender. Over the five years depicted, the majority of those sentenced were men (92.1% or 35 of 38 people), including all 3 people sentenced in 2011–12.

Figure 1: The number of people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care by gender, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Financial year Gender    
  Male Female Total
2007–08 9 1 10
2008–09 9 0 9
2009–10 7 0 7
2010–11 7 2 9
2011–12 3 0 3
Total 35 3 38

Sentence types and trends

Figure 2 shows the total number of people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care and the number who received an immediate custodial sentence. An immediate custodial sentence is one that involves at least some element of immediate (as opposed to wholly suspended) imprisonment or detention.[10] Over the five-year period, 84% of people were given an immediate custodial sentence. This peaked at 100% (9 of 9) in 2010–11 before decreasing to 33% (1 of 3) in 2011–12.

Figure 2: The number of people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care and the number who received an immediate custodial sentence, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Financial year Sentence type    
  Custodial Non-custodial Total
2007–08 8 2 10
2008–09 8 1 9
2009–10 6 1 7
2010–11 9 0 9
2011–12 1 2 3
Total 32 6 38

Table 1 shows the number of people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care from 2007–08 to 2011–12 by the types of sentences imposed.

Over the five-year period, the majority of the people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care received a period of imprisonment (76% or 29 of 38 people). The number and percentage of people receiving imprisonment were lowest in 2011–12 (33% or 1 of 3 people) and highest in 2008–09 (89% or 8 of 9 people).

Table 1: The number and percentage of people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care by sentence type, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Sentence type 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 Total
Imprisonment 7 (70%) 8 (89%) 6 (86%) 7 (78%) 1 (33%) 29 (76%)
Wholly suspended sentence 2 (20%) 0 (–) 1 (14%) 0 (–) 2 (67%) 5 (13%)
Partially suspended sentence 1 (10%) 0 (–) 0 (–) 1 (11%) 0 (–) 2 (5%)
Residential treatment order 0 (–) 0 (–) 0 (–) 1 (11%) 0 (–) 1 (3%)
Community-based order 0 (–) 1 (11%) 0 (–) 0 (–) 0 (–) 1 (3%)
People sentenced 10 9 7 9 3 38

Age and gender of people sentenced

Figure 3 shows the gender of people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care grouped by their age[11] between 2007–08 and 2011–12. The average age of people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care was 40 years and 1 month. There were no juveniles sentenced over this period.[12]

Figure 3: The number of people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care by gender and age, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Age group (years) Gender  
  Male Female
21 to 24 4 0
25 to 29 5 0
30 to 34 6 1
35 to 39 3 1
40 to 44 4 1
45 to 49 4 0
50 to 54 5 0
55 to 59 0 0
60 to 64 1 0
65 or older 3 0

Sentence types by gender

Table 2 shows the types of sentences imposed for sexual penetration of a child under care grouped by gender. As shown, a higher percentage of men received a period of imprisonment (77.1% compared with 66.7% of women) and a partially suspended sentence of imprisonment (5.7% compared with no women). Conversely, a higher percentage of women received a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment (33.3% compared with 11.4% of men).

Table 2: The number and percentage of people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care by sentence type and gender, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Sentence type Male Female
Imprisonment 27 (77%) 2 (67%)
Wholly suspended sentence 4 (11%) 1 (33%)
Partially suspended sentence 2 (6%) 0 (–)
Residential treatment order 1 (3%) 0 (–)
Community-based order 1 (3%) 0 (–)
People sentenced 35 3

Sentence types by age

As shown in Table 1, the most common sentence type was imprisonment. The following analysis examines this sentence type by the offender’s age group.

Imprisonment

As shown in Figure 4, sentences of imprisonment were most likely to be given to people aged 35–39 years (100% or all of the 4 people in this age group).

Conversely, sentences of imprisonment were least common for those aged younger than 30 (56% or 5 of the 9 people in this age group).

Figure 4: The percentage of people who received a period of imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care by age group, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Age group (years) Percentage
Younger than 30 55.6
30 to 34 71.4
35 to 39 100.0
40 to 44 80.0
45 to 49 75.0
50 or older 88.9

Principal and total effective sentences

Two methods for describing sentence types and lengths are examined in this section. One relates to the principal sentence and examines sentences for the offence at a charge level. The other relates to the total effective sentence and examines sentences for the offence at a case level.

The principal sentence is the individual sentence imposed for the charge that is the principal offence.[13]

The total effective sentence in a case with a single charge is the principal sentence. The total effective sentence in a case with multiple charges is the sentence that results from the court ordering the individual sentences for each charge to be served concurrently (at the same time) or wholly or partially cumulatively (one after the other).

In many cases, the total effective sentence imposed on a person will be longer than the principal sentence. Principal sentences for sexual penetration of a child under care must be considered in this broader context. The following sections analyse the use of imprisonment for the offence of sexual penetration of a child under care from 2007–08 to 2011–12.

Principal sentence of imprisonment

A total of 29 people received a principal sentence of imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care between 2007–08 and 2011–12.

Figure 5 shows these people by the length of their imprisonment term. Imprisonment terms ranged from 1 year and 6 months to 7 years (6 years after successful appeals are incorporated), while the median length of imprisonment was 3 years (meaning that half of the imprisonment terms were shorter than 3 years and half were longer).

The most common length of imprisonment imposed was 3 to less than 4 years (16 people).

Figure 5: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care by length of imprisonment term, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Imprisonment length Number
1 to less than 2 years 1
2 to less than 3 years 7
3 to less than 4 years 16
4 to less than 5 years 2
5 to less than 6 years 0
6 to less than 7 years 2
7 to less than 8 years 1

Due to data quality issues, imprisonment lengths for charges of sexual penetration of a child aged between 12 and 16 under care, supervision or authority that were not the principal offence are not presented.[14]

As shown in Figure 6, the average length of imprisonment term imposed on people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care ranged from 2 years and 9 months in 2008–09 to 3 years and 11 months in 2007–08.

From 2007–08 to 2011–12, the majority of people who received a term of imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care were men (27 people or 93.1%). Over the five-year period, men received a longer average term of imprisonment (3 years and 4 months compared with 2 years and 3 months for women).

Figure 6: The average length of imprisonment term imposed on people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Financial year Average length of imprisonment
2007–08 3 years, 11 months
2008–09 2 years, 9 months
2009–10 3 years, 5 months
2010–11 3 years, 1 month
2011–12 3 years

Other offences finalised at the same hearing

Often people prosecuted for sexual penetration of a child under care face multiple charges, which are finalised at the same hearing. This section looks at the range of offences for which offenders have been sentenced at the same time as being sentenced for the principal offence of sexual penetration of a child under care.

Figure 7 shows the number of people sentenced for the principal offence of sexual penetration of a child under care by the total number of offences for which sentences were set. The number of sentenced offences per person ranged from 1 to 21, while the median was 5 offences. There were 3 people (7.9%) sentenced for the single offence of sexual penetration of a child under care. The average number of offences per person sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care was 6.32.

Figure 7: The number of people sentenced for the principal offence of sexual penetration of a child under care by the number of sentenced offences per person, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Number of offences Number of people
1 3
2 5
3 5
4 4
5 to 9 14
10 to 19 6
20 or more 1

While Figure 7 presents the number of sentenced offences for those sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care, Table 3 shows what the accompanying offences were. It shows the number and percentage of people sentenced for the 10 most common offences. The last column sets out the average number of offences sentenced per person. For example, 27 of the total 38 people (71.1%) also received sentences for indecent act with a child under 16. On average, they were sentenced for 3.41 counts of indecent act with a child under 16.

Table 3: The number and percentage of people sentenced for the principal offence of sexual penetration of a child under care by the most common offences that were sentenced and the average number of those offences that were sentenced, 2007–08 to 2011–12

  Offence No. % Avg.
1 Sexual penetration of a child aged 12 to 16 – under care, supervision or authority 38 100.0 2.74
2 Indecent act with a child under 16 27 71.1 3.41
3 Sexual penetration of a child aged 12 to 16 7 18.4 2.00
4 Indecent assault 3 7.9 1.67
5 Attempted sexual penetration of a child aged 12 to 16 – under care, supervision or authority 2 5.3 2.50
6 Sexual penetration of a child aged 16 to 17 – under care, supervision or authority 1 2.6 3.00
7 Indecent assault on female 1 2.6 2.00
8 Fraudulently use vehicle registration label 1 2.6 1.00
9 Use an unregistered vehicle 1 2.6 1.00
10 At/exceed pca – within 3 hours after driving/being in charge of a motor vehicle – breath test 1 2.6 1.00
  People sentenced 38 100.0 6.32

Total effective sentence of imprisonment

There were 29 people given a total effective sentence of imprisonment.[15] Figure 8 shows the number of people sentenced to imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care between 2007–08 and 2011–12 by length of total effective sentence.

The length of total effective sentences ranged from 2 years and 2 months to 12 years and 4 months (12 years after successful appeals are incorporated), while the median total effective length of imprisonment was 5 years (meaning that half of the total effective sentence lengths were below 5 years and half were above).

The most common total effective imprisonment length was 4 to less than 5 years (6 people).

Figure 8: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care by length of total effective imprisonment term, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Total effective imprisonment length Number of people
2 to less than 3 years 1
3 to less than 4 years 5
4 to less than 5 years 6
5 to less than 6 years 5
6 to less than 7 years 5
7 to less than 8 years 0
8 to less than 9 years 1
9 to less than 10 years 3
10 to less than 11 years 1
11 to less than 12 years 0
12 to less than 13 years 2

Non-parole period

When a person is sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment of one year or more, the court has the discretion to fix a non-parole period. Where a non-parole period is fixed, the person must serve that period before becoming eligible for parole. Where no non-parole period is set by the court, the person must serve the entirety of the imprisonment term.

Under section 11(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), if a court sentences an offender to imprisonment in respect of more than one offence, the non-parole period set by the court must be in respect of the total effective sentence of imprisonment that the offender is liable to serve under all the sentences imposed. In many cases, the non-parole period will be longer than the individual principal sentence for sexual penetration of a child under care. Sentences and non-parole periods must be considered in this broader context.

Of the 29 people who were sentenced to imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care, all were eligible to have a non-parole period fixed. Of these people, 28 were given a non-parole period (97%).[16] Figure 9 shows the number of people sentenced to imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care between 2007–08 and 2011–12 by length of non-parole period. Non-parole periods ranged from 1 year to 10 years (8 years and 6 months after successful appeals are incorporated), while the median length of the non-parole period was 3 years (meaning that half of the non-parole periods were below 3 years and half were above).

The most common non-parole period imposed was 3 to less than 4 years (9 people).

Figure 9: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care by length of non-parole period, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Non-parole period Number of people
1 to less than 2 years 4
2 to less than 3 years 5
3 to less than 4 years 9
4 to less than 5 years 2
5 to less than 6 years 2
6 to less than 7 years 1
7 to less than 8 years 3
8 to less than 9 years 1
9 to less than 10 years 0
10 to less than 11 years 1

Total effective sentences of imprisonment and non-parole periods

Figure 10 presents the average length of total effective sentences of imprisonment compared with the average length of non-parole periods for all people from 2007–08 to 2011–12.

From 2007–08 to 2011–12, the average length of total effective sentences for all people ranged from 4 years in 2011–12 to 6 years and 10 months in 2007–08. Over the same period, the average length of non-parole periods ranged from 1 year and 2 months in 2011–12 to 4 years and 10 months in 2007–08.

Figure 10: The average total effective sentence and the average non-parole period imposed on people sentenced to imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Financial year Total effective sentence length Non-parole period
2007–08 6 years, 10 months 4 years, 10 months
2008–09 5 years, 6 months 3 years, 7 months
2009–10 6 years, 1 month 4 years, 7 months
2010–11 5 years, 3 months 3 years, 4 months
2011–12 4 years 1 year, 2 months

Total effective sentence of imprisonment by non-parole period

While Figures 8 and 9 present the lengths of the total effective sentences and non-parole periods separately, Figure 11 combines the two methods of describing sentence lengths in the one diagram. It shows the total effective sentence and non-parole period for sexual penetration of a child under care for each individual person.

The centre of each ‘bubble’ on the chart represents a combination of imprisonment length and non-parole period, while the size of the bubble reflects the number of people who received that particular combination. Sentence lengths and non-parole periods that are longer than one year are rounded down to the nearest year of imprisonment, while sentence lengths and non-parole periods of less than one year are grouped into the ‘<1 year’ category. For example, a sentence length of 2 years and 6 months would be included as a sentence length of 2 years for the purposes of Figure 11.

As shown, the most common combination of imprisonment length and non-parole period imposed was 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years (4 people – as represented by the largest bubble on the chart). The length of imprisonment ranged from 2 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 1 year to 12 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 10 years.[17] After incorporating successful appeals, the longest length of imprisonment decreased slightly to 12 years, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months.

Figure 11: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for sexual penetration of a child under care by the total effective sentence and the non-parole period imposed, 2007–08 to 2011–12

Total effective sentence category Non-parole period category Total
2 to less than 3 years 1 to less than 2 years 1
3 to less than 4 years 1 to less than 2 years 2
3 to less than 4 years 2 to less than 3 years 3
4 to less than 5 years 1 to less than 2 years 1
4 to less than 5 years 2 to less than 3 years 1
4 to less than 5 years 3 to less than 4 years 3
5 to less than 6 years 2 to less than 3 years 1
5 to less than 6 years 3 to less than 4 years 4
6 to less than 7 years 3 to less than 4 years 2
6 to less than 7 years 4 to less than 5 years 2
6 to less than 7 years 5 to less than 6 years 1
8 to less than 9 years 5 to less than 6 years 1
9 to less than 10 years 6 to less than 7 years 1
9 to less than 10 years 7 to less than 8 years 2
10 to less than 11 years 7 to less than 8 years 1
12 to less than 13 years 8 to less than 9 years 1
12 to less than 13 years 10 to less than 11 years 1
Total 28

Appeals

A sentence imposed on a person may be appealed[18] by that person or by the Crown. A person sentenced may also appeal against their conviction. All appeals made in relation to people sentenced in the higher courts are determined by the Court of Appeal.

Up to June 2012, 2 people sentenced for a principal offence of sexual penetration of a child under care in the period from 2007–08 to 2011–12 successfully appealed their convictions and were granted retrials. One of the cases granted a retrial had originally been given the longest total effective sentence (12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years) during this time period.[19] Thus, the number of people sentenced from 2007–08 to 2011–12 for a principal offence of sexual penetration of a child under care is reduced to 36 people once appeals are considered.

As a result of successful appeals against sentence, the total effective sentence and/or the non-parole period changed for 3 people. All of these appeals were made by the person sentenced and resulted in a sentence reduction. The longest total effective imprisonment term to be reduced was a sentence of 9 years and 3 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months, which decreased to 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months.

The principal sentence changed for 2 people as a result of a successful appeal. The longest principal sentence of imprisonment reduced was 7 years, which decreased to 6 years.

With the original sentencing data revised to incorporate appeal outcomes, the adjusted longest total effective imprisonment term was changed from 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years, to 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months.

The adjusted longest principal sentence of imprisonment was also changed from 7 years to 6 years.

Summary

Between 2007–08 and 2011–12, 38 people were sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care in the higher courts. Over this period, the majority of people sentenced were men (92%), while 89% were between the ages of 21 and 54.

The majority of the people sentenced for sexual penetration of a child under care received a period of imprisonment (76%).

Imprisonment was more likely to be given to people aged 30 or older, including all of the people aged between 35 and 39, and less likely to be given to people aged younger than 30 years.

Each of the 38 people was sentenced for an average of 6.32 offences, including 2.74 offences of sexual penetration of a child under care. The most common offence finalised in conjunction with sexual penetration of a child under care was indecent act with a child under 16 (71.1% of all cases). The number and range of offences for which people with a principal offence of sexual penetration of a child under care were sentenced help explain why imprisonment sentence lengths were longer for the total effective sentence than for the principal sentence. The median total effective imprisonment length was 5 years, while the median principal imprisonment length was 3 years.

Total effective imprisonment lengths ranged from 2 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 1 year to 12 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 10 years. The most common sentence of imprisonment was 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years.

A small number of people were able to successfully appeal against their sentences. When the results of the appeal outcomes are incorporated into the original sentencing data, the longest total effective imprisonment length was changed from 12 years and 4 months’ with a non-parole period of 10 years to 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months. The longest principal imprisonment sentence length was also changed from 7 years to 6 years.

Endnotes

[1] This series of reports includes custodial and non-custodial supervision orders imposed under Part 5 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) as sentencing orders and in the count of people sentenced. These orders are not sentencing orders, as they are imposed in cases where the defendant is not guilty because of mental impairment. However, they are included in this report as they are an important form of disposition of criminal charges.

This Sentencing Snapshot is an update of Sentencing Snapshot no. 118, which describes sentencing trends for sexual penetration of a child under care between 2005–06 and 2009–10. The offence of sexual penetration of a child under care was amended in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) on 17 March 2010 so that the child had to be between the ages of 12 and 16 to fall under this offence. Prior to this amendment the child could be between the ages of 10 and 16. This edition of the Snapshot includes both the offences of sexual penetration of a child under care aged 10 to 16 and 12 to 16 that were sentenced in the County Court of Victoria from 2007–08 to 2011–12.

[2] The information source for sentencing outcomes for sexual penetration of a child under care only contains information on age and gender characteristics. No other demographic analysis is possible using this data source.

[3] The source data for the statistical information presented in this Snapshot were provided by the Business Intelligence area of the Courts and Tribunals unit within the Department of Justice (Vic). The Sentencing Advisory Council regularly undertakes extensive quality control measures for current and historical data. While every effort is made to ensure that the data analysed in this report are accurate, the data are subject to revision.

The sentencing database used for this analysis was compiled using conviction returns. Due to incomplete offence information regarding sexual penetration offences on the conviction returns, a further classification exercise was undertaken to determine the specific offence types. This involved reading the sentencing remarks of the particular cases and determining whether the offence fell under section 45(2)(a), 45(2)(b) or 45(2)(c) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

In total, there were 523 people sentenced for the principal proven offence of sexual penetration of a child over the five-year period from 2007–08 to 2011–12. Sentencing remarks were located for 458 offences. There were 6 cases of the 458 that were excluded from analysis because an examination of the sentencing remarks found that they consisted of offences that were inadequately described or out of scope for these Snapshots. The remaining 65 cases for which remarks could not be located were also excluded because the offence could not be categorised adequately.

[4] Sexual penetration includes oral, anal and vaginal penetration (Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 35).

[5] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 45(1), 45(2)(b). On 17 March 2010, section 45 (2)(b), was amended so that the minimum age of victims of this offence increased from 10 to 12 years (sexual penetration with a child aged under 12 is a separate offence). The new age range of 12 to 16 years applies for offences committed on or after 17 March 2010. The cases discussed in this Snapshot include the version of the offence both before and after 17 March 2010. There was one case in this Snapshot that was sentenced under the new version of the legislation and 2 cases that had sexual penetration offences occurring both before and after the new legislation.

[6] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 45(2)(b). Separate penalties apply if the child is aged under 12 or if the child is aged between 12 and 16 but not under the care, supervision or authority of the accused (see Sentencing Snapshot nos 149 and 150).

[7] The value of a penalty unit changes each year and can be found in the Victorian Government Gazette and on the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel website (link to external site opens in a new window).

[8] If a person is sentenced for a case with a single charge, the offence for that charge is the principal offence. If a person is sentenced for more than one charge in a single case, the principal offence is the offence for the charge that attracted the most serious sentence according to the sentencing hierarchy.

[9] Sufficient information was not available to determine the number and type of non-principal sexual penetration offences, under sections 45(2)(a), 45(2)(b), and 45(2)(c), that were sentenced from 2007–08 to 2011–12.

[10] Immediate custodial sentence includes imprisonment, partially suspended sentence and residential treatment order.

[11] Age is at the time of sentencing.

[12] Some defendants who were under the age of 18 at the time of committing the alleged offence and who were not 19 years or older at the time proceedings commenced may have been dealt with in the Children’s Court of Victoria.

[13] Refer to endnote 8.

[14] Refer to endnote 9.

[15] All of the 29 people who were sentenced to imprisonment as the principal sentence were also given imprisonment as the total effective sentence.

[16] One person was not given a non-parole period relating to that case alone, but a non-parole period that also related to other cases. It is not possible to determine the length of the non-parole period that relates to this case. The non-parole period for this person is excluded from the analysis.

[17] In 2009–10, a 27 year old man was given a total effective sentence of imprisonment for 12 years and 4 months, with a non-parole period of 10 years for a series of sexual penetration and indecent acts committed against a child under his care. The judge remarked that ‘[t]hese offences were committed solely for your sexual gratification … they were very cowardly offences as at the time you knew he felt intimidated by you, an older male … and you were a young male whom his grandmother clearly trusted implicitly to look after him’.

[18] Appeals data were collected by the Sentencing Advisory Council from transcripts of sentencing remarks of criminal appeals on the Australasian Legal Information Institute’s website (link to external site opens in a new window).

[19] Refer to endnote 17.