Director of Public Prosecutions v Acikoglu
[2020] VCC 848
•12 June 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 19-02396
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| EKREM ACIKOGLU |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LYON |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 5 June 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 12 June 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Acikoglu |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 848 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms J. Warren | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Thomson | Doogue & George |
HIS HONOUR:
1Ekrem Acikoglu, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences which carry the following maximum penalties:
Charge Nos.
Charge
Max Penalty
1, 3
Criminal Damage
10 years
2
Burglary
10 years
4
Causing Serious Injury Intentionally
20 years
Summary Charge 4
Possess a Prohibited Weapon without Exemption/Approval
2 years / 240 penalty units
2Charge 4, intentionally causing serious injury, is a Category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act. As such, the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment (excluding a combination sentence with a community corrections order) for a Category 2 offence, unless you establish on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of the offending, you had an impaired mental functioning that was causally linked to the commission of the offence and substantially reduced your culpability.
3Mr Thomson, who appeared on your behalf, submitted that this exception had been established on the evidence and that you should benefit from the imposition of a combination sentence of imprisonment with a community corrections order. It will be necessary to return to this submission in considerable detail later in these sentencing remarks.
4You have no prior convictions and no matters outstanding.
5The Crown tendered the prosecution summary for plea as Exhibit A.
A summary of your offending is as follows.6In May 2019, you were living with your father, Oktay Acikoglu, in Craigieburn and working in his cabinet-making business, Oktay Cabinets. In the weeks prior to your offending, you had fought numerous times with your father and you were taking some time away from work following these arguments.
7On Friday 10 May 2019 you woke up in the afternoon, describing yourself as being in a 'bad mood', to find several messages from clients of Oktay Cabinets who were unhappy in relation to their orders. At this point, you described that you just 'snapped' and proceeded to trash the inside of the house and its belongings. You then went outside of the house and smashed the windscreen and left-hand side mirror of your father's work van. That together constitutes Charge 1 of criminal damage.
8At approximately 7 pm on the same day, you drove to Oktay Cabinets' factory in Campbellfield. You arrived at 7.16 pm to find the factory closed and locked. As you did not have keys, you used the butt of a large knife to smash the glass entry door and gain access to the factory. That is Charge 2 of burglary.
9Once inside the factory, you proceeded to smash holes in the walls before you located a forklift. Using the forklift, you rammed stock and machinery, lifted items and dropped them onto the floor, rammed the roller door of the factory and rendered it inoperable.
10In total, you used the forklift for eight minutes, your actions being recorded on CCTV footage. Overall, you caused damage to the value of around $500,000. That is Charge 3 criminal damage.
11At around 7.40 pm, you left the factory and drove to Meadow Heights, where you had a short sleep which was, you said, to 'clear [your] mind.' Upon waking, you called several friends, one of which was Okan Topcu, your friend of
11 years.12Mr Topcu ignored a number of calls and messages from you. However, after a while, he sent you a text. At 9.48 pm, you called again and Mr Topcu answered. You told him that he owed you $35 and told him to come over and pay you. You state that Mr Topcu told you to 'get fucked, cunt', which sent you into a rage.
13You drove to Mr Topcu's house in Meadow Heights, arriving at about 9.55 pm. You got out of the car, leaving it running in the driveway, and had at the time a large flick knife under your jumper which was open and ready. That is summary Charge 5 of possess a prohibited weapon without exemption of approval.
14After hearing a bang and seeing you outside in the driveway, Mr Topcu came downstairs and out the front door, closing the door behind him. You repeatedly yelled at him that he owed you money, which he angrily denied.
15In your interview with police, you stated that Mr Topcu came at you in an aggressive manner. Mr Topcu states that when you pulled out the knife, he was only a metre from the front door. I am loathe to conclude that he was 'aggressive and angry', as you describe, especially if it is sought to justify the production of the knife. Mr Topcu was unarmed and defenceless by comparison.
16You then produced the flick knife from under your jumper and, as Mr Topcu attempted to open the door and escape into his house, you stabbed him in the back of his left shoulder. Mr Topcu turned to defend himself and, during a scuffle, you stabbed the victim again to his chest, under his left arm, and on his left arm. As you tried to stab Mr Topcu to the stomach, he blocked you and was instead stabbed to the left hand.
17During the incident, Mr Topcu was yelling out for help. His parents, Turgut and Mubarra, heard the yelling. Mubarra opened the door to find you holding the victim with one hand on his neck and the other on his stomach. She saw you were holding a knife, which she tried to take from you. As she asked you to let Mr Topcu go, you reiterated that he owed you money.
18Turgut arrived at the front after Mubarra and twisted your right hand which was holding the knife, causing you to drop the knife. You hit Turgut - however, he was then able to wrestle you to the ground and tie your hands with rope provided by his next-door neighbours.
19At some point in the incident, you received a laceration to your left cheek, a superficial wound to your forehead and a deep laceration to your left inside forearm. You told police that the victim's father inflicted these wounds on you after he took the knife from you.
20Police arrived at approximately 10.05 pm, followed by paramedics. Mr Topcu was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, with the ambulance having to stop twice to allow a MICA unit to assist as his condition deteriorated. You were transported to the Royal Melbourne Hospital as well, with the slash wound to your face and the other wound to your arm.
21Mr Topcu required immediate intubation, and a tube was placed in his chest. Between 11 May and 24 May 2019, Mr Topcu underwent three bouts of surgery to address his injuries. The injuries received by Mr Topcu were:
· First, a collapsed lung along with internal bleeding, an incision to the lung caused a tension hemopneumothorax;
· Second, an incised wound to the left chest wall, approximately 10 centimetres in length, extending deep into the shoulder blade;
· Third, an incised wound to the upper lobe of his left lung with accompanying small bruising;
· Fourth, an incised wound to the back of his left arm, approximately 2 centimetres in length;
· Fifth, an incised wound to his left shoulder, approximately 5 centimetres in length ; and
· Sixth, an incised wound over the middle and tip of his left middle finger.
Your conduct, and these injuries, constitute Charge 4 of intentionally cause serious injury.
22Dr Alex Marceglia is a forensic physician at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. Dr Marceglia describes a tension pneumothorax as occurring:
‘when the collection of gas is constantly enlarging with the resulting compression of midline structures. A one-way valve forms, allowing air into the pleural space and prohibiting air outflow. Blood clot and cut tissue from the chest wall can cover a stabbing wound, converting an open pneumothorax into a tension pneumothorax. Diagnosis of a tension pneumothorax may pose difficulties as the “classic signs” such as a tracheal deviation and distended neck veins are not consistently present. The outcome of a tension pneumothorax is fatal if left untreated.’
23Dr Marceglia concluded that the stab wound to Mr Topcu's chest, which punctured his left lung, caused a tension pneumothorax, and that a tension pneumothorax is a life-threatening emergency.
24Accordingly, the Crown case for serious injury is that the injury you caused to Mr Topcu when you stabbed him in the chest was life-endangering. By your plea of guilty to Charge 4, you accept that to be the case.
25Mr Topcu remained in hospital for 17 days and required continued therapy to regain mobility in his left hand.
26In her victim impact statement dated 3 June 2020, the victim's mother, Mubarra Topcu, speaks of the effects of this crime on herself and on her son.
She describes how Okan spent two weeks in the ICU, during which time it was not known whether he was going to survive. Okan now has scars all over his body. Ms Topcu has watched Okan suffer with depression and extreme stress following this crime, leading him to suffer from hair loss despite being only 21 years old. Given his physical injuries, Okan has not been able to work, he says, for the past 12 months, which has added to his own and to the family's financial hardships. Ms Topcu describes being constantly worried about her son's mental health and not knowing how to support him through this time.27After the plea hearing, and with your consent, I received into evidence an email from family member Sanja Malenic, dated 4 June 2020. The email states that a recent X-ray has confirmed that Mr Topcu's lung has now healed, and that he no longer experiences regular pain and breathing difficulties which were common for the first nine months after the stabbing. It further states that Mr Topcu has not returned to work yet because of psychological issues and a weakness in his injured hand. Mr Topcu worked as a carpenter, and is now undertaking strengthening exercises in that hand. The family remain worried about his psychological state. However, Mr Topcu does not want to undergo further counselling as he does not want to relive the experience again.
28It is apparent that 13 months on, he is still feeling the adverse consequences of your attack on him.
29You spent two nights in hospital as a consequence of the injury to your arm, and on 12 May you were released and taken to Broadmeadows police station. During your record of interview, you provided a detailed account of your offending. You admitted to: destruction of the house and factory; contacting the victim; going to the victim's house with a knife open and ready to use; and knowing you were going to fight the victim when you got to his address.
You indicated you only recalled stabbing Mr Topcu once, stating the other stab injuries must have occurred during the fight.30The matter was ready to proceed to committal hearing, however, it resolved on the listed date of committal, being 28 November 2019.
31You have been on remand since 10 May 2019 when you were held under guard and effectively in police custody at hospital, and then taken into custody at Broadmeadows on 12 May. I take your custody date as commencing on 10 May 2019. You have now served 399 days by way of pre-sentence detention, excluding today.
32I turn now to consider your personal circumstances.
33You are 22 years of age and were born on 5 September 1997.
34You are the oldest of four children. Your father migrated to Australia from Turkey when he was 26. He returned to Turkey in 1994 when he married your mother and returned to Australia.
35Your father has worked hard in Australia as a cabinetmaker. It appears that you have always known and always felt destined that you would work with your father as a cabinetmaker. You lived in the Meadow Heights area.
36Despite this bond and very obvious dominant influence your father has had on your life, your relationship with him and his with your family has been marked by constant conflict and anger.
37Your parents separated when you were in Year 10. You were attending Roxburgh College. You failed Year 10 as you had no real interest in school.
It was then that you went to work full time with your father.38Your parents remained separated, but in the same house, until 2018, when your mother took out an intervention order against your father. It appears that he has had a longstanding habit of smashing things when he gets angry.
He smashed up the house. After he left, he lived in the cabinetmaking factory for a short period of time and then bought a house where you and he lived. Notwithstanding the separation, he continued to support his family from his and your earnings.39From your evidence before me and the character references provided to me, since you commenced work at your father's cabinetmaking business, you have been instrumental in the success of the business. Not only have you been a dedicated and hard worker, you have implemented profound changes which have had a tremendous effect on productivity and the reliability of the business. Essentially, you introduced and operated a number of computerised machines which precision-cut large volumes of your cabinetmaking material. On top of that, you worked long hours, often six days a week and usually very late into the night.
40Since you were remanded in custody on 10 May 2019, the business has been in decline, if not having stopped altogether. It is clear that your father is a craftsman, used to working by hand rather than by machinery. He simply cannot operate the machines in the factory. Moreover, his limited English language skills presented further problems when he tried to learn the operation procedures of the machines. Efforts to employ staff who were capable of operating these machines appear to have been futile.
41I was told that the factory had operated for only 'a couple of months' since you were remanded in custody. Your father has been unwell. He is now $17,000 behind in payments on the mortgage on his home, and he is likely to go into bankruptcy unless you are soon given your liberty and allowed to return to the business.
42The character references provided to me speak of you personally, and also of your dedication to the cabinetmaking business. Your sisters both speak of you as a selfless, dependable, loving brother and family member. They speak of your expression of remorse for your actions on that night. Your father speaks of the fact that you are not just integral to the business; you were the business. It is apparent that almost the entire running of the operation, the administration and customer contact, was done by you. The business references all speak of the quality of your work and your reliability in dealings with your clients.
43Moreover, you have undertaken a number of courses since you have been on remand. It is reassuring to see the courses you have undertaken largely focus on personal development and relationship-building.
44You have also been working as an induction billet. As Mr Thomson pointed out, this is a job of considerable responsibility and trust within the prison system because you are required to introduce the new inductees to, familiarise them with, and put them at ease (as best you can) in, the prison environment.
45I was provided with a report and then evidence before me of Dr Nina Zimmerman, forensic psychiatrist. Dr Zimmerman reported that you have no history of mental health problems and no drug or alcohol issues.
46Dr Zimmerman concludes from her assessment of you and the materials provided to her that in the period leading up to your offending, you were suffering from major depressive disorder. Major Depressive Disorder is a mental illness as defined by the DSM. The disorder was in remission at the time she interviewed you in October 2019. Essentially, however, in the weeks leading up to 10 May 2019, after a sustained bout of fighting with your father, you suffered from a low mood, suicidal ideation and hyper sleep patterns. Your mood became so low that you stopped going to work. You ruminated on your relationship with your father. There was a deterioration in your mood. You had isolated yourself, staying at home and not eating, and you had low energy.
47Dr Zimmerman related your illness as causally linked to your behaviour because your conduct was chaotic. It came on the background of no prior convictions, and there was a sudden assault perpetrated on a friend against whom there was no previous history of animosity. Your conduct was impulsive and purportedly over a questionable debt of $35 which was met with an extreme act of violence.
48When she examined your history, Dr Zimmerman concluded that you had learned behaviour from your father of poor impulse control and anger management, and that you had on occasion smashed things yourself when in a rage. Dr Zimmerman considered that your illness and decreased control over your anger were 'acting in concert' at the time you destroyed so much property and then stabbed your friend.
49Nevertheless, Dr Zimmerman concluded that you did not have a mental impairment defence available to you. Dr Zimmerman concludes that you understood the nature and quality of your acts, and the wrongfulness of your conduct. So much was clear from your answers in the record of interview - although, as I have noted, you did somewhat try to deflect onto the victim, stating that he came at you aggressively.
50Ultimately, Dr Zimmerman concluded that there was a direct relationship between your depressed mental state and the offending behaviour. As such, your ability to make calm decisions, think through the consequences of your actions, and control your emotions would have been impaired as a result of your depression on the day of offending. Notwithstanding this, as I have already stated, Dr Zimmerman also concluded that your behaviour in part stemmed from your lack of self-control, and she was unable to put a percentage contribution of illness over impulse on your behaviour.
51Although your illness is in remission and has been, it seems, for a considerable period of time, Dr Zimmerman stated in evidence that there is always a risk of relapse.
52I turn now to consider the objective gravity of your offending, your moral culpability for your offending, and to determine whether an exception to the prima facie requirement for Category 2 offending has been established; namely, that you had an impaired mental functioning that was causally linked to the commission of the offence, and that it substantially reduced your culpability.
53I consider the burglary and criminal damage charges to be relatively serious examples of both types of these offending. Nevertheless, I agree with the Crown's submission that as you had a personal interest in the damaged assets, and as your father declined to make a statement on the matter, the seriousness of these three offences is somewhat moderated. Moreover, your father not only wants you back in the business, but has implored me in a character reference filed on your behalf to moderate my sentence so that you can return to the business that you so wantonly smashed up.
54The real focus on the objective gravity of offending must, of course, be on the offence of intentionally causing serious injury. In this instance, you:
· First, sought out your victim, a childhood friend with whom there is no history of animosity, and manufactured a fight over an entirely inconsequential matter. That fight was entirely unprovoked;
· Second, you went to him at his home and then took a knife with you that you were prepared to use. It is not clear how you came to have the knife, why you went there, and why you took a knife there in the first place, or why you had it open, unsheathed, available and ready to use;
· Third, you inflicted multiple, serious stab injuries. The first was in his back; that is, he was attempting to flee you. He was unarmed and defenceless from the outset and taken entirely by surprise when you pulled out that knife. On his account, Mr Topcu was lapsing in and out of consciousness as you attacked him. In other words, he offered no resistance whatsoever to the extreme level of violence you exerted. Nothing had occurred between you to justify such an attack;
· Fourth, your attack on the victim stopped only because of the forceful intervention of his mother and father, who took the brave step of disarming you; and
· Fifth, as I have already outlined, the wound to the victim's lung was life-endangering. Without medical intervention, he would certainly have died.
55In all, your attack was brutal, sustained and cowardly. Given Dr Zimmerman's finding, your decision-making on the night was indeed compromised.
Your appreciation of the nature, quality and wrongfulness of what you did was not.56The Crown submits that your offending for this charge is in the high range of seriousness. Your counsel conceded that your offending was serious, and that it was life-threatening, but submitted that there was no evidence that the victim suffered from any long-term harm as a result. I disagree. The information that I received from Sanja Malinek indicates the long-term disabling effect and protracted nature of the injuries Mr Topcu has suffered. In my view, this can only be viewed as very serious offending. On any view of it, but for his parents' intervention and the intervention of paramedics, and the medical emergency team, your friend would almost certainly or certainly would have died.
57The question of assessing your moral culpability is more than a little complex.
58Both the Crown and defence submitted that the evidence establishes that you were suffering a mental illness at the time of your offending - that of depression.
59Dr Zimmerman concludes that your illness was a contributor to your conduct on that day, and, as I have said, that you were not making calm and rational decisions in relation to your offending, but that nevertheless you were aware of the nature and quality of your actions and you did appreciate the wrongfulness of your actions. But, as I already said, Dr Zimmerman stated your illness was mixed with your learned behaviour of lack of control.
60It is appropriate at this point to consider also the submissions as to the application of the Verdins principles. The circumstances in which impaired mental functioning is relevant to sentencing was restated in Verdins as follows:
i.it may reduce an offender's moral culpability and so effect what is considered to be a just punishment, and lessens the need for denunciation;
ii.it may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions under which it should be served;
iii.general deterrence may be moderated or eliminated as a consideration, depending on the nature and severity of the offender's symptoms, and the effect of the impairment at the time of the offender's sentencing, or both;
iv.specific deterrence may be similarly moderated or eliminated in the same circumstances;
v.the existence of an impairment at the time of sentencing or its foreseeable recurrence may mean that a specific sentence may weigh more heavily on an offender than it would on a person in normal health; and
vi.if there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significantly adverse impact on the offender's mental health, this will be a mitigating factor.
61Given Dr Zimmerman's conclusion that your illness is now in remission, I do not consider that limbs 5 and 6 have any present application. My conclusions as to the application of the first four principles will become apparent through the following observations.
62In my view, your moral culpability must be somewhat reduced to take account of your illness. This will lead to a reduction in the sentences that I impose upon you because the law says that persons who act with reduced moral culpability are not appropriate vehicles for the expression of general deterrence.
63However, although I consider that your mental illness contributed to your offending, I do not consider that it substantially reduces your culpability. This is because the mixture of illness with a lack of impulse control cannot be disentangled. As Dr Zimmerman stated in cross-examination, she cannot put a 'percentage of contribution' on one or the other. In these circumstances, I cannot conclude on the balance of probabilities that the depression operated to substantially reduce your culpability. It will, as I have said, however, have a mitigating effect on the sentence I impose.
64Mr Thomson submitted that the following matters should operate to mitigate the sentences that I impose
· First, there is an early plea of guilty. I accept that the plea of guilty has a significant utilitarian benefit, and should operate to mitigate your sentence;
· Second, it is submitted you have exhibited remorse. I appreciate that your sisters and others have stated that you have expressed remorse to them. It was submitted that you expressed remorse through your admissions in the record of interview. As I have already observed, your admissions were somewhat qualified. In your evidence before me, you said sorry to the victim. When I look at the character references and your letter that I received in evidence, it seems, however, that your greater emphasis is not on the life-changing and devastating consequences of your actions on your childhood friend, but more upon your desire to get back to work and to save your family business. In the end, I consider remorse is present, but I consider that you have a considerable amount of work to do before you demonstrate true empathy for your victim;
· Third, Mr Thomson submitted that you are a youthful offender. You were 21 at the time of your offending, and you are only 22 now. Your youth does have some role to play, notwithstanding the seriousness of your offending. Ordinarily, youth would take a backseat as a sentencing principle where such serious offending has occurred. In my view, however, particularly as you have no prior convictions and no matters outstanding, it must still have a reasonable role to play. The role it plays is this: the law presumes that young offenders, with the right mix of punishment and opportunity, can be rehabilitated. In light of your lack of prior convictions and the fact that you have nothing outstanding, and this is a single, but very significant, black mark against you, your youth should provide you with the opportunity to rehabilitate. I intend to provide you with some credit for your youth;
· Fourth, Mr Thomson submitted that you have actual, not simply presumed, prospects for your rehabilitation. Notwithstanding Dr Zimmerman's conclusion that you suffered a mental illness in May 2019, she noted that you have no prior history of mental illness and your condition was in remission when she assessed you in October 2019. It appears that you have not had any relapses since. Further, you have no history of drug or alcohol abuse. You have used your time on remand constructively, and you hold a trusted position. You have a commendable work history, and you have solid family support. You have reconciled with your father, and he has indicated his full support for you. In my view, you have very good prospects for your rehabilitation;
· Fifth, Next, Mr Thomson submitted that imprisonment has been a jolt for you. I accept that it must have been a confronting experience for a young man with no prior criminal history;
· Sixth, Mr Thomson submitted that you demonstrated exceptional family hardship. Essentially, Mr Thomson submitted that I should take into account the likelihood that the cabinet-making business will soon be lost if your father goes into bankruptcy, and that the mortgage arrears may lead to your father's house being repossessed. Mr Thomson submitted that, together, these amounted to exceptional family hardship. Whilst I read with sympathy the sentiments expressed by your father and your sisters, and their character references, I do not have anything close to enough information or evidence to conclude that there is exceptional family hardship. I was given next to no information about either. I certainly was not provided with a single document or shred of evidence other than a statement by you in your evidence that the mortgage was $17,000 in arrears. Now, I am prepared to take the general statements into account in the broad mix in the matters raised in mitigation, but I do not consider that these matters have been anywhere near sufficiently raised to enable me to be satisfied that family hardship has been established;
· Seventh, Mr Thomson submitted that I should take into account extra curial punishment. I have no doubt that you will have a daily reminder each time you look in the mirror and see the scars to your face, and feels those on your hand. I note the remarks of the court in Barci and Aisling that these scars themselves may serve as a form of punishment. In your case, however, I will give only very limited weight to this submission.
· Finally, Mr Thomson submitted that COVID-19 has caused hardship and a lockdown. Now, there is absolutely no doubt that the lockdown experienced by prisoners across Victoria over the course of the last two-and-a-half to three months has caused significant hardship. Visits have been suspended, restrictions have been placed on prisoner movements around the prison to which they are confined, and there has been a widespread stoppage of educational and work programs. In the last couple of months, your own work as an induction billet has taken place by video conference. I accept that these hardships and the myriad of other difficulties that must follow from living in confinement, and in circumstances where sharing a close proximity to others is inevitable, have made your time in custody more difficult over the last couple of months.
65Ultimately, Mr Thomson submitted that you should be released immediately or nearly immediately upon an aggregate combination sentence with a community corrections order.
66Even taking into account your depression at the time of your offending,
I do not consider that a combination sentence of imprisonment with a CCO is anywhere near appropriate or adequate for this offending. Even in the circumstances where general deterrence is somewhat moderated, your offending on this occasion is so serious, it must be met by a substantial head sentence and a non-parole period.67Further, I do not consider that an aggregate sentence is appropriate across the range of your offending, given the time and distance over which the offending occurred and the fundamentally different nature of the different acts you committed.
68This has been a very difficult sentencing exercise. I have considered the Sentencing Advisory Council Sentencing Snapshot for Causing Serious Injury Intentionally of April 2020, and some of the cases which consider sentences imposed in this court, and Court of Appeal cases which set out principles relating to sentencing for this offence. For the large part, the circumstances in which the offence may be committed are so wide and various that the comparison of sentences in different cases and circumstances makes it impossible if not outright dangerous to take one case and use it, as people say, as a precedent. I have had some regard to the Court of Appeal decision of Consedine from 2007. Whilst it provides some parallels to your own situation, it is not on all fours with your case. I am also mindful that at best, I may have regard to sentencing practices, but I should not be unduly swayed or influenced by them, and in the end, I have to formulate the sentence which I consider appropriate, taking into account the objective circumstances of your offending and the circumstances personal to you.
69So I emphasise again: my considerations must balance the objective principles of sentencing, and I must take into account the matters personal to you, and the overlay of your mental illness at the time. In the end, I have not been able to accede to your counsel's submissions.
70The sentence I impose has been mitigated by the combination of all the factors that I have outlined and considered in these remarks. I intend to provide a shorter than usual non-parole period. The slightly longer than parole period will allow you, if parole is to be granted, to return to and reintegrate back into your family, work, and the community, with the structure and supervision of a parole order.
71Now, the sentences that I impose are as follows.
| Charge | Charge | Max Penalty | Cumulation |
| 1 | Criminal Damage | 3 months | concurrent |
| 2 | Burglary | 3 months | concurrent |
| 3 | Criminal Damage | 7 months | concurrent |
| 4 | Causing Serious Injury Intentionally | 60 months | Base |
| Summ charge 4 | Possess a Prohibited Weapon w/out exempt. | 3 months | concurrent |
72The total effective period of imprisonment is therefore 60 months (five years).
73The non-parole period I set is a period of 33 months.
74I declare the period of 399 days, excluding today, reckoned as already served.
75The 6AAA declaration is that but for the plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of six years and nine months with a period of four years and six months to serve.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
0
0