Director of Public Prosecutions v Bambalis
[2018] VCC 2075
•11 December 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-17-02300
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| THEODOROS BAMBALIS |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HOGAN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 November 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 11 December 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bambalis | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 2075 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: One charge of stalking, one charge of persistent contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order, one charge of cultivating a narcotic plant, and one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice – total effective sentence 4.5 years with non-parole period of 3 years
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms S. Clancy | Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms H. Bate | Patrick W. Dwyer |
HER HONOUR:
1 Theodoros Bambalis, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of stalking, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; one charge of persistent contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order, which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment; one charge of cultivating a narcotic plant (which the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities was not committed for the purpose of trafficking), which carries a maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or 20 penalty units or both; and one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.
2 The circumstances of your offending are detailed in the Summary of Prosecution Opening (Exhibit “A”).
3 The victim in relation to Charge 1, stalking, and Charge 2, persistent contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order, was your former de facto partner. On Charge 4, attempting to pervert the course of justice, although the conduct comprised calls to your son seeking to have him pressure your victim into withdrawing her complaint to police, the ultimate victim is the system of administrating justice, which you attempted to pervert.
4 You had been in a relationship spanning some 19 years with your victim, and you together have a son, who was born in November 1997 and, at the time of offending, was aged 19 years. On 3 June 2016, your victim had obtained a Family Violence Intervention Order against you, prohibiting you from contacting or communicating with her and from committing family violence against her. This was served upon you on 28 June 2016 and was to remain in force until a further order of the Court. You have a criminal history which is quite significant. It involves, amongst other things, convictions for having assaulted your victim and contravened a Family Violence Intervention Order twice before, namely on 25 August 2010 and 8 August 2016. On the second occasion, you served a period of six months’ imprisonment for the offence, as well as threatening to inflict serious injury and driving whilst disqualified. You were released from prison on 24 February 2017.
5 Your conduct comprising the stalking and persistent contravention of the Family Violence Intervention Order occurred between 14 May and 29 July 2017. During this time, you contacted the victim by telephone calls and text messages which were abusive, menacing, denigrating and contained explicit threats to harm, sexually assault or kill your victim and her male partner. Between 14 May and 1 June 2017, you sent 107 text messages of a vile nature to your victim, threatening sexual violence to her of a most depraved kind. You also threatened to go to her male partner’s house, as well as your victim’s mother’s house. You claimed that you had a mate watching your victim and that he had a silencer on his gun. You also stated that you and two mates would come by your victim’s home while she is there on her own. Also, you published abusive material relating to your victim and her male partner on Facebook, alleging that he was a paedophile and heroin addict, and giving your victim’s name and address and mobile telephone number, along with deeply offensive and revolting suggestions of a sexual nature.
6 After putting up with your appalling conduct for two weeks and becoming increasingly frightened and concerned about whether you or one of your associates would harm her or her family, your victim went to police on 1 June 2017. Police took photographs of the text messages on your victim’s phone.
7 Between 15 May and 1 June 2017, you called your victim’s mobile phone 282 times, with 104 calls being made to her on a single day. Often the calls were late at night or in the early hours of the morning. You would ring repeatedly throughout the early hours of the morning and threaten to have that continue every day.
8 Between 2 and 8 June 2017, you called your victim’s mobile phone a further 99 times.
9 All of these contacts were in breach of an Intervention Order which had been obtained on 14 May 2017, the first date upon which you contacted your victim after you were released from prison. Hence, you were in continuing and persistent breach of the Family Violence Intervention Order by reason of your abusive communications and general menacing conduct, and various explicit threats to assault, sexually assault or kill your victim.
10 On 8 June 2017, police attended your address and executed a search warrant. You were arrested and charged with stalking and contravention of the Intervention Order. You told police that “if I get out, I’m going to knock that cunt”, referring to your victim. Police also found 10 small cannabis plants which were growing under a light shroud, with a total weight of 11.9 grams. This comprises the conduct on Charge 3. You told police that they were for personal use. It was not contended by the prosecution that the plants were being cultivated for the purpose of trafficking.
11 You had been remanded in custody between 7 and 22 July 2017. Even then, your harassment and threats against your victim did not cease. You made persistent calls to your son, requesting that he pass on your violent threats to your victim about what you would do to her if she did not withdraw the charges which had been laid against you. You denigrated your son’s mother in front of him and got him to do your vile bidding, and encouraged him to assault your victim so that she would ring up your solicitor and withdraw the allegations against you. You would demand that your son put the phone on loudspeaker so that your victim could hear you yelling out your depraved abuse and threats. These calls made to your son between 7 and 22 July 2017 comprise Charge 4, attempting to pervert the course of justice.
12 After those calls, you made two further calls, namely, on 28 and 29 July 2017 to your son. These form part of Charge 1, stalking, in that you conveyed abuse and threats to your victim via your son, without mentioning that she should withdraw the charges. On 29 July 2017, you insisted that your son put his phone on loudspeaker so that your victim could hear you screaming foul abuse and threats in a very intimidating, angry and depraved fashion.
13 It is deeply concerning that you continued to breach the Intervention Order with such regularity. Clearly, you have very little regard for the law and this is shown by the fact that, even once you were remanded into custody, you did not desist.
14 Prior to being remanded, on 8 June 2017 you had been interviewed by police in relation to your conduct between 14 May and 1 June 2017. In that record of interview, you lied to police, stating that you thought you could still contact your victim because she was ringing you, and claimed that you did not understand the effect of the Intervention Order. You claimed that you had been just trying to talk some sense into her and, although you had said some bad things on the phone, you were only trying to scare her in the sense of getting her to “wake up”. You claimed the threats were just words and you would not hurt her for the world and you did not think she would be frightened by your text messages. You admitted making the Facebook posts about your victim and her male companion and made it clear that you did not want him to be with the victim. You admitted to cultivating the cannabis, stating that you intended to smoke it yourself when the plants had matured.
15 You are presently aged 50 years, having been born on 2 December 1968. You come before the Court with a criminal history dating back some 31 years to 1987. Up until your appearance at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 4 December 1997, you had been before a court for many offences of dishonesty, criminal damage and drug offences. You had received a variety of dispositions including a Community-based Order, which you breached, and suspended sentences of imprisonment, which you breached, and several actual custodial sentences of 3 months’ imprisonment or less. From 4 December 1997 you continued to be dealt with for drug-related and dishonesty offences, but offences of violence, such as making threats to kill and carrying or possessing regulated weapons, appear in your criminal record over the ensuing years and, by 18 July 2001, you were before the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on charges of intentionally and recklessly causing injury, unlawful assault, assault by kicking, as well as more controlled weapon charges, for which you received an aggregate sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. On 28 February 2003, you appeared before the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on a charge of aggravated burglary and on 29 April 2004, you appeared before Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on two charges of aggravated burglary, two charges of robbery, unlawful assault and other dishonesty and drug offences, for which you received a total effective sentence of 2 ½ years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. In June 2007, you appeared at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for dishonesty offences and were again sentenced to a term of imprisonment, this time 12 months with a non-parole period of 6 months. On 9 October 2008, you appeared before Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on further dishonesty offences and were given another sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment.
16 Thereafter, you appeared on 4 December 2008 at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on charges of recklessly causing injury, intentionally destroying property and unlawful assault, for which you were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment. Your de facto partner was apparently the victim of this offending which involved you grabbing her around the throat and attempting to punch her. On 25 August 2010, you appeared at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on charges of unlawful assault and contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order for which you were sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. A summary of this offending was tendered as Exhibit “E”. It involved you breaching the Intervention Order made on 9 September 2008 in favour of your de facto partner. Whilst you were driving her as a passenger in a car, you leaned over her and were slapping the window while screaming and slapped her twice to the side of the face. You breached that Intensive Correction Order.
17 Thereafter you have repeated driving offences including refusing a preliminary breath test, driving in excess of the prescribed concentration of alcohol, refusing a breath test and multiple offences of driving whilst disqualified.
18 On 8 August 2016, you appeared at Ringwood Magistrates’ Court for persistent contravention of a Family Violence Order, threatening to inflict serious injury, unlawful assault and driving whilst disqualified and using an unregistered motor vehicle. You were sentenced to an aggregate term of 6 months’ imprisonment. The persistent contravention of the Family Violence Order, the threat to inflict serious injury and unlawful assault all involved your former de facto partner as the victim. Exhibit “F” is the summary of that offending. It involved you becoming aware of your victim’s address through your son and engaging in stalking-like behaviour to follow your victim when she went to visit her mother. You unexpectedly appeared at a bus stop when your victim alighted from public transport and accosted her and struck her to the head three times. This came on top of multiple abusive and threatening calls and text messages to your victim in breach of the Intervention Order. You were sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment by way of an aggregate sentence.
19 The evidence in support of Charge 1 (stalking), is essentially the same as that which supports Charge 2 (persistent contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order), although there are two further telephone calls on 28 and 29 July 2017, which you made from prison, that relate only to Charge 1. Your conduct is very serious for a number of reasons. You knew that there was an Intervention Order in place and, indeed, you had breached Intervention Orders in favour of your victim in the past. The disgraceful lack of respect for your victim, whom you refer to in repulsive, dehumanising, sexually abusive terms is cause for grave concern. It was not only insulting, but it was seriously threatening towards your victim and, also, her mother and her male partner. In her Victim Impact Statement made on 20 June 2017 (Exhibit “B”), your victim speaks of the anxiety and grief that your appalling conduct has caused to her, your son and her mother. She refers to the anxiety of not knowing whether are you simply being manipulative and trying to scare them, or whether you would actually carry out the serious threats that you utter. In my view, she aptly describes your behaviour as demonstrating a relentless determination to disturb the peace of mind of herself and her family. No person should have to live in this state of fear. A message needs to go out to all those who think that they can stalk, intimidate, harass and threaten their current or former intimate partners, that this bullying, menacing and overbearing conduct simply will not be tolerated. Victims must be protected and vindicated. Perpetrators need to be made aware that they do not own those with whom they have had intimate relationships no matter how long-term they may have been, they have no right to control them or possess them or demean them in the way that you have done by your vile insults, threats and persistent menacing behaviour. The number of women in Australia who are subjected to stalking and threats and breach of Intervention Orders is very alarming. Family violence is a serious problem in our community and courts must play a crucial role by responding to offending like yours and persistent breach of court orders so that others who are minded to behave in the way you have done, will know that they will not get away with it. Accordingly, in sentencing for both Charge 1 and Charge 2, the Court must strongly denounce your conduct and emphasise general deterrence, as well as imposing just punishment. In your case there is also a need for emphasis upon specific deterrence in the light of your repeated history of assaults and breaching intervention orders put in place to protect your victim.
20 Not only have you shown yourself to be someone who shows a complete disregard for the law whilst you are living in the community, but, even once taken into custody, you continued to offend. This is after you had conducted a record of interview in which your counsel would ask the Court to believe that you were remorseful. In fact, in your record of interview, you minimised your behaviour by claiming that the threats were “just words” and they were directed towards your victim’s male partner and you claimed that you “wouldn’t hurt her for the word”[1] and denied that she would be frightened by your threatening text messages.[2]
[1]Questions 96 to 99 and Answers
[2]Question 213 and Answer
21 Charge 4, attempting to pervert the course of justice, is very serious indeed. You had been arrested and remanded in custody because of your stalking and breach of the Intervention Order, and even then, from prison used your own 19 year old son as a conduit, trying to pressure your victim into withdrawing Charges 1 and 2. The repulsive content of your angry, abusive, intimidating phone calls which were recorded at the prison show a frightening intensity of purpose in which you even encourage your son to violently physically assault his own mother in order to achieve your end. Your tone was very frightening and you were very insistent. It is evident that your son is distressed by your intimidating importuning and demeaning description of his mother. You even at one stage, stated “I don’t give a fuck about breaching the Intervention Order”.[3] You should be deeply ashamed of your conduct on multiple levels. You behaviour towards both your victim and your son is that of a bully and a menace. However, the real gravity of this charge is that you attempted to intimidate your victim into not proceeding with the charges against you. Thus, you have offended against the administration of justice, itself, which is a vital part of our community structure and our democracy. You made five calls between 7 and 22 July 2017 to try to pervert the course of justice. The aggravating features of this offending are that it was not simply an isolated attempt, but persistent in nature. Each of the calls, itself, breached the Intervention Order. You used your 19 year old son in a most shameful way to try to convey your threats and all of these calls were made after you had already been taken into custody for both the stalking and contravention of the Family Violence Intervention Order. Your conduct strikes at the very heart of the criminal justice system. Again, denunciation of your conduct, general and specific deterrence and just punishment must be the guiding sentencing principles.
[3]Exhibit “D”
22 In a plea on your behalf by Ms Bate, there were psychological reports tendered from Mr Jeffrey Cummins dated 23 June 2014 (Exhibit “3”) and Ms Gina Cidoni dated 22 March 2018 (Exhibit “2”).
23 Mr Cummins’ report is now somewhat dated. However, he noted a history of you having left school at Year 10 after having already been smoking cannabis from age 15 and then going on to become addicted to heroin by age eighteen. He also took a history that when you were aged 25 or 26, you worked at a shoe business for a day and spent the entire day sniffing the glue gun. Then in either 1993 or 1994, shortly after you had been released from serving time in custody, you consumed an excessive quantity of scotch whisky laced with Rohypnol and then administered heroin and apparently collapsed into a coma and were not found utnil a couple of days later, when you were transported by ambulance to hospital. You told Mr Cummins that you remained in the life-threatening coma for three months and had to have “dead tissue” cut out of your right lower leg and right forearm, leaving significant scarring, and to have been on a disability support pension ever since. Mr Cummins assessed you as suffering a chronic Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, which had probably dated back to your teenage years or early twenties. Although he noted that you had lived a reckless, drug-using and antisocial lifestyle, and he considered you may have a borderline personality disorder, he stated that, at interview, you did not acknowledge sufficient characteristics for him to be able to make that diagnosis.
24 Ms Cidoni in her report noted antisocial personality traits of aggression, irritability, rage, resentment, temper outbursts and urges to break or smash things, along with arguing frequently. She considered that you showed impulsivity and a tendency to seek gratification and had low frustration tolerance. She noted that you presented with borderline intellectual functioning as well as significant acquired brain injury risk factors associated with heavy substance abuse and the previously mentioned fall whilst intoxicated resulting in an extended coma. She noted your extensive history of imprisonment and thought that you may show signs of institutionalisation. However, although you demonstrated antisocial traits indicative of an antisocial personality disorder, she did not consider that you met the full criteria according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM-5”). She noted your symptoms included: “a pervasive and persisting disregard for morals, social norms, and the rights and feelings of others. There is evidence of manipulative and deceptive behaviours in the current offending through intimidation and threats of violence. He displays arrogance and he can think negatively of others. There are also traits of irresponsibility, disregulated temper and impulsive behaviours, also recklessness with failing to consider or disregarding the consequences of actions. There is a tendency to abuse substances, resulting in conflicts with the law. There are work and relationship problems and interpersonal relationships often revolve around the manipulation, blaming and abuse of others and there are difficulties in sustaining and maintaining relationships, including relationships with family members.”
25 She noted that these symptoms and behaviours were observed in cases of excessive substance abuse and can also occur in cases of acquired brain injury and that these symptoms are disabling and prevent you from leading a stable and contented life. She thought a combination of psychological therapy and certain medications could assist you to modify your behaviour.
26 A report from Mr Martin Jackson, consultant clinical neuropsychologist, dated 16 July 2018 was tendered as Exhibit “1”. I also had the benefit of hearing oral evidence from Mr Jackson. He noted a similar history of substance abuse to that which I have already referred and also the overdose on whisky, heroin and Rohypnol back in 1993, although he took a history that you were in a coma for some six months and had major issues with your right arm and right leg since this and had spent significant time in Royal Talbot Rehabilitation Centre. He agreed that you were an unreliable historian and it was difficult to get a clear psychiatric history from you.
27 Mr Jackson agreed with the assessments of Mr Cummins and Ms Cidoni that you have significant borderline personality traits. He agreed that their observations were consistent with what he observed in consultation with you and also with your history. He stated that these traits were longstanding and were evidenced in your earliest offending and that such personality traits are very difficult to treat. He considered that, superimposed upon these antisocial personality traits, you have an acquired brain injury from the incident in about 1993 or 1994 relating to the ingestion of heroin, Scotch whisky and Rohypnol resulting in a coma. He noted that prior to that date, you had managed to work in unskilled labouring positions, but had not worked since then. In addition, you had ongoing substance abuse issues with alcohol, cannabis and heroin.
28 Mr Jackson stated that he would rank your antisocial personality traits as the most significant of your issues because they were already present and had contributed to you coming before the criminal justice system on a regular basis prior to the coma incident. He stated that these traits meant that you had problems with impulse control and, when you suffered an acquired brain injury, this made it more difficult for you to control your impulses. Further, the brain injury would mean that you would feel the effects of your abuse of substances more than someone without a brain injury and this, in turn, would meant that you exhibit more enhanced behavioural issues by way of disinhibition. He noted that you are now in gaol for the thirteenth time in your life and have trouble stopping yourself from reoffending because of this multiplicity of issues. He did note that, prior to the 1993/1994 coma and brain injury, your offending comprised drug-related and dishonesty offences, whereas later on, by 1997, you came to the attention of the criminal justice system also for violent offending. He stated that he was not suggesting that the brain injury was the predominant cause, but that it added a layer of contribution to your offending because it exacerbates your poor impulse control. He considered that you clearly had frontal lobe damage which could be from substance abuse, but also from your acquired brain injury.
29 In particular, Mr Jackson’s testing noted that you performed in the extremely low range for reading of irregular words, attention to visual detail, mental arithmetic, new learning and delayed recall of unstructured information, and multiple task processing. You had borderline range skills in reading more regular words (Grade 5 level), planning, organisation, verbal abstract reasoning and letter fluency, delayed recall of logically structured information, verbal recognition memory for logically structured tasks and processing speed on some tasks.
30 Mr Jackson stated that your cognitive impairment and mild disorder of impulse control are permanent. He was unable to say to what extent these cognitive deficits, as distinct from your antisocial personality traits had contributed to your offending. He stated that your 30 year history of offending behaviour was not likely to change without mandated treatment and supervision. He opined that your antisocial or Cluster-B personality traits are very difficult to treat because you have a concrete and inflexible way of thinking. He stated that people like you with these traits believe you have been wronged and, once you get to the point of believing that you have been wronged, you can become really nasty and have difficulties with controlling your impulses and, so, you resort to antisocial behaviour, which is enhanced by your brain injury. He described the acquired brain injury as contributory rather than causative. The primary operative factor he considered to be your antisocial personality traits and then alcohol would make your more disinhibited. He stated that you understood that you were not supposed to contact your victim and, notwithstanding your acquired brain injury, you were intending to scare her. He stated that, even knowing that your telephone calls made from within the prison were being recorded, your antisocial traits meant that you would not be able to cease doing it. Once triggered, your impulse control is difficult. He considered that your prognosis “not great”, as the antisocial personality traits with cognitive impairment layered upon them had been going on for a long time. He considered that the most treatable aspect of your presentation was to try to help you to stay off alcohol and drugs. He stated that the acquired brain injury was essentially not treatable and the personality traits are very difficult to treat. The latter can often take years of intensive therapy. He considered it would require you to find someone with whom you could have a therapeutic relationship and there may be potential for change, but he was not optimistic.
31 After Mr Jackson gave his oral evidence expanding upon his written report, your counsel abandoned reliance on the principles of R v Verdins,[4] which she had initially included in her written submissions. She acknowledged that it could not be submitted that your offending was necessarily causally related to your acquired brain injury. She, nevertheless urged the Court to take into account your cognitive deficits as part of your personal circumstances when determining sentence. I do take these matters into account. It is plain that your psychological presentation is a complex one and I consider that the combination of your antisocial personality traits and cognitive deficits are likely to make your time in prison more burdensome than for someone who did not have this complex combination of factors. You are prone to anger easily and be vengeful and have trouble controlling your impulses and you have a concrete way of thinking and an inability at times to process verbal material, particularly if there are multiple tasks involved. I consider that this is likely to lead you into conflict with other prisoners and prison staff. Indeed, I am told that whilst on remand you have been held in protection because of issues that you had had with some other prisoners.
[4] (2007) 16 VR 269
32 In sentencing you, I also take into account that you entered an early plea of guilty. I am not able to determine that this is remorseful, but it does hold significant utilitarian value in that you have spared your victim and your son from having to go through the ordeal of giving evidence about your vile conduct.
33 Further, I take into account that there has been delay between your being charged for all offences and ultimately being sentenced for them today. Your plea hearing had initially been listed on 6 April 2018, but was not reached on that day and was adjourned to 3 August 2018. On the adjourned date, an issue was raised by the prosecution in that the prosecutor wished to cross-examine Mr Jackson on the applicability of limbs one to four in Verdins’ case. Ultimately the matter came on for plea hearing before me on 1 November 2018. Due to my Court commitments, the original date for sentencing hearing had to be adjourned from 20 November 2018 until today. I take into account that it has been stressful for you waiting to know the outcome and, indeed, on each occasion that you have been brought to Court, you have lost your accommodation at Ararat where you were being held and that this has been very disruptive for you.
34 In your favour, I have been asked by Ms Bate to take into account that you have a stable relationship with your son, who chose to live with you after you and your partner separated, when he was aged approximately 13 years. I must say that I have some misgivings about your parenting of your son. In particular, it seems that your son is fortunate that your mother has stepped in to support him because the Department of Health and Human Services apparently had concerns about your ongoing drug abuse as detailed in Ms Cidoni’s report. Moreover, there have been substantial periods of time where you have been unable to care for your son as you have been imprisoned. In particular, on 3 July 2014, you were sentenced to serve 3 months’ imprisonment. Again, on 12 February 2015, you were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment; and again on 11 April 2016, you were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment; and again on 8 August 2016, you were sentenced to another term of imprisonment, this time 6 months. You son is now aged 20 years and is employed as a second year apprentice. You have been far from a model father to him. However, you apparently speak with him on a weekly basis and I understand that you worry about him now living in your Taylors Lakes home on his own and trying to survive on a second year apprentice’s wage.
35 Mr Bambalis, I have already referred to the seriousness of your offending. You are now 50 years of age and I consider that your prospects of rehabilitation are poor. Unhappily, your abuse of substances has caused you to suffer some cognitive problems on top of antisocial personality traits and time and time again, you have shown yourself to be incapable of obeying court orders. It is bad enough to stalk and terrorise your victim and persistently breach a Family Violence Intervention Order in a protracted way. It must have been alarming for your victim that she could not feel free of your attempts to psychologically control her and threaten harm even once you were in prison. Your attempting to pervert the course of justice in the way that you did has brought a very disturbing added seriousness to your offending. There can be no doubt that the only appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. If and when you are given the benefit of parole, it is imperative that you abide by directions to try to steer clear of alcohol and drug abuse. Otherwise you will find yourself very quickly in trouble with the criminal justice system and returned to prison and you will go on being a menace to society and your life will be a miserable one.
36 I have already referred to the fact that I do not consider that total concurrency in relation to Charges 1 and 2 is appropriate although, given that there is a substantial commonality in the factual matrix for each charge, there should be a substantial degree of concurrency. I have already referred to the fact that Charge 4 is in a different category altogether. It is the most serious of the offences. There must be some cumulation of the sentences on charges 1 and 2 on the sentence on Charge 4. However, I must be aware of the principle of totality so that the overall sentence is a just and proportionate one and not a crushing one.
37 On Charge 1, stalking, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 2 ½ years.
38 On Charge 2, persistent contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 2 ½ years.
39 On Charge 3, cultivation of a narcotic plant, cannabis L, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 2 months.
40 On Charge 4, attempting to pervert the course of justice, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 3 years.
41 The base sentence is that imposed on Charge 4. I direct that 1 year of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and 6 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 4 and upon each other. Save for such cumulation, I direct that all sentences be served concurrently.
42 The total effective sentence imposed is 4 ½ years’ imprisonment. I direct that you serve a period of three years’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
43 I declare a period of 551 days pre‑sentence detention to be reckoned as time already served under the sentences imposed this day.
44 Pursuant to 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I state that had it not been for your pleas of guilty, the total effective sentence imposed would have been 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 ½ years.
45 On Charge 3, cultivation of a narcotic plant, I order pursuant to s78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997 that 10 cannabis plants and one notebook be forfeited to the State. I further direct that they be placed in the custody of the Chief Commissioner of Police and be held by him until 28 days from this date or the conclusion of any appeal proceedings where they may be tested and/or analysed and then destroyed.
- - -
0