Director of Public Prosecutions v Bolton
[2020] VCC 1856
•24 November 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 19-01629
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BRUCE BOLTON |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE CAHILL |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 29 July & 12 October 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 24 November 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bolton |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 1856 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: Aggravated carjacking, attempted aggravated burglary and others
Catchwords: guilty plea – very serious offending – no special reason to depart from mandatory minimum non-parole period – self-induced psychosis – Verdins limbs 1, 3 and 4 enlivened – excellent prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited: R v Martin (2007) 20 VR 14; Sanyasi v R [2019] VSCA 227; Marks v R [2019] VSCA 253; Abdulfatar v The Queen [2019] VSCA 262; R vVerdins 169 A Crim R 581; Farmer v R [2020] VSCA 140; Mammoliti v The Queen [2020] VSCA 52
Sentence: total effective sentence of 5 years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 3 years---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms K. Webster | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms A. Brennan | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
1Bruce Bolton, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted aggravated burglary; one charge of attempted carjacking; one charge of reckless conduct endangering life; one charge of aggravated carjacking; one charge of intentionally cause injury; one charge of assault; one charge of possess a drug of dependence; one charge of theft; one charge of damaging property; and one charge of assaulting an emergency worker.
2You have also pleaded guilty to the related summary offence of failing to stop a vehicle after an accident.
3The circumstances of your offending are set out in the summary of prosecution opening for plea (Exhibit A). They are agreed facts.
Incident 1: attempted aggravated burglary at Northcote
4On 22 March 2019 around 7:40 pm a man walked out of his home, at Northcote, leaving the front door open, to put something in his car. When he returned he saw you, shirtless and holding your 18-month-old son, standing inside the house in his bedroom. He lead you out and closed the front door. A minute later you reappeared at the front door, still holding your son, and demanded the keys to both his cars. He described you as “calm aggressive” as you threatened to “bash” down the door if he didn’t give you the keys. When he refused, you kicked the glass door panel and punched the security door with your right hand and made more demands for the car keys. When he again refused to give you his keys you ran off. He called 000. That conduct constitutes Charge 1 – attempted aggravated burglary.
Incident 2: attempted carjacking at Coburg
5About half an hour later, while you were driving along Sydney Road, Coburg, you stopped your car across the front of another car as it approached a red light. You got out of the car, again with your son, and approached the driver of the other car. You told her to get out. When she wound up her window you banged on the window with your fist and attempted to open the driver’s door. When it didn’t open you punched the window. The other motorist was able to drive around your car and drive away from you. She called 000 as well. Attempting to steal her car with the use of force constitutes charge 2 – attempted carjacking.
Incident 3: conduct endangering life, failed to stop after an accident at Brunswick
6About 5 minutes later, further along Sydney Road, you pulled up beside another car. When you started to get out of the car, the other motorist perceived you were aggressive and reversed away from you. When he did this, you remained in your car and reversed it into his front bumper. He continued reversing and you did the same, for 15 to 20 metres, before speeding off. The other motorist’s wife called 000. That conduct constitutes part of charge 3 – reckless conduct endangering life and also the summary charge of failing to stop a vehicle after an accident.
Incident 4: intentionally cause injury, assault and aggravated carjacking and Caltex service Station, Coburg
7Shortly after, you drove into the Caltex service Station at Coburg. You stopped your vehicle at a browser and got out with your son. You approached another motorist, Mahjoub Derar, who was returning to his car and said, “The police are chasing me, give me your car keys”. When he refused, you said “Give me the car keys or I will kill you”. When he tried to get away, you chased him and grabbed his shirt from behind forcing him to the ground. Another motorist, Clinton Ross, tried to help Mr Derar. As he approached, you pushed him away and punched him to the face. That conduct in relation to Mr Ross constitutes charge 5 – intentionally cause injury.
8You were holding your son all the while.
9You put your son down and pursued Mr Derar. As he was trying to get up from the ground you pushed him back down and punched him twice to the head. He threw his car keys towards your and you picked them up, with your son. Another bystander, Mr Ul-Haq, pleaded with you not to do anything stupid. You followed him around your car and tried to hit him and that conduct constitutes charge 6 – assault. He removed the keys from your car.
10As you got into Mr Derar’s car, with your son, police arrived. One of the police officers asked you to get out of the car saying, “Don’t do this, you have a kid in the car”. As he tried to open the driver’s door you drove off. Stealing the car with the use of force, while causing injury to Mr Derar, constitutes charge 4 - aggravated carjacking.
11Mr Ross suffered minor swelling to his cheeks and small abrasions to his face. His family saw you attack him.
12Mr Derar suffered a split lip, displacement of two teeth and concussion of two others. The two displaced teeth were repositioned and splintered with wire at the Royal Melbourne dental Hospital.
13The ferocity of your attack on the three innocent motorists was recorded on CCTV which was Exhibit B. I have viewed the footage.
Incident 5: reckless conduct endangering life
14When you left the petrol station you drove erratically along Sydney Road, narrowly missing other vehicles, and sped through a red light on Bell Street. You followed two sisters in their car through a number of Brunswick streets for about one and a half kilometres. When they stopped you parked behind their car, blocking them in. When their mother appeared you reversed out and sped off. A few minutes later you drove past a police officer standing on the nature strip in Travencore. She estimated you were travelling at around 90 km/h in a 60 km speed zone. Other cars had to take evasive action when you crossed onto the incorrect side of the road. That driving constitutes part of charge 3 - reckless conduct endangering life.
Incident 6: BP service station at Glenrowan
15Around 4.30 next morning you filled Mr Derar’s car with fuel at the BP service station at Glenrowan. You went into the store, picked up a packet of Burger Rings and walked towards the exit. When the doors didn’t open you demanded the store attendant open them. When he refused you climbed onto the counter. He stepped back, you climbed down and he pressed the emergency button. You picked up a metal display frame and swung it at the glass doors which shattered. That conduct constitutes charge 9 - damaging property.
16You walked barefoot through the glass and drove off without paying for the fuel or the Burger Rings. That conduct constitutes charge 8 – theft.
17Later that day, around 3.30 pm, you drove into the driveway of a dairy farm at Milawa. The farmer tried to talk to you. You were making no sense. Your son was lying between your legs. You declined his offer of help and he drove off. Concerned, he called 000.
18About half an hour later, at Whorouly, you veered off the road and were stopped against a fence. A passer-by spoke to you. You told him your son and you were okay. You appeared to him to be disoriented and confused. He was concerned and called 000.
Incident 7: assault emergency workers
19Shortly after a police officer, Sergeant Hart, arrived. He asked you to get out of the car. To him, you appeared confused and spoke incoherently. He tried to open the driver’s door but it was locked. You tried to start the engine but because the vehicle was in “drive” it would not start. Sergeant Hart reached through the open window and opened the driver’s door. When you reached for the gearstick he pulled you from the vehicle and told you you were under arrest for theft of the motor car. When he tried to restrain you you broke free and threw several punches at him. When you tried to get back into the car he grabbed you and you went to the ground. You resisted his arrest so he sprayed you with capsicum foam and hit your body and legs with his baton. You swung your fists at him and tried to get into the car. Eventually, you retreated to some trees where you yelled to him you were going to kill him.
20Soon after, two more police officers arrived to assist Sergeant Hart. You were told to get on the ground but refused. You were warned a Taser would be used to restrain you. You approached police with your fists raised. That conduct constitutes charge 10 – assaulting emergency worker on duty.
21You were acting erratically and were barely coherent. You said you needed to get your son.
22One of the police officers, Senior Constable Clayton described you as appearing to be psychotic .
23When one of the police officers Tasered you, you went to the ground and were handcuffed.
24Sergeant Hart suffered minor soreness to his left arm and right shoulder in the scuffle with you. He also strained his back when he removed you from the car.
25From the Taser application, you suffered three wounds to your left forearm, left hip and right chest. At the scene, ambulance officers sedated you with ketamine and applied dressings to your wounds.
26You were taken to Wangaratta Hospital where you were observed to be incoherent and aggressive. You were given more sedation and jewellery was removed from your rectum. Your primary diagnosis was acute behavioural disturbance with secondary diagnoses of foreign body in your rectum and drug induced psychosis.
27A sample of your blood contained methamphetamine and amphetamine.
28You were discharged into police custody and subsequently remanded.
29Police did not interview you.
30When you were assessed at the Metropolitan Remand Centre, on 4 April 2019, you appeared psychotic which was considered to be substance induced rather mental illness. By 8 May 2019 Justice Health records indicate your mental state was reported to be “stable”.
31Police had searched your home on the evening 22 March. There, they found a number of drugs of dependence including approximately 0.1 gram of MDMA and methylamphetamine, mushrooms containing psilocybin and N,N-dimethyltryptamine, alprazolam and a substance called 2C-B/Nexus, all in small quantities. Your possession of those drugs constitutes charge 7.
Victim impact statements
32I have read the victim impact statements of:
·Sgt Hart [Exhibit C]
·Clinton Ross [Exhibit D]
·Mahjoub Derar (Exhibit E]
33They tell chillingly of the violence and aggression of your conduct.
34Sergeant Hart, who is been an operational policeman for 38 years, and involved in many critical incidents, wrote he “can’t recall an individual so aggressive and impervious to defensive tactics”. He considers himself resilient and well-adjusted but he said this incident frankly scared him.
35Clinton Ross was also struck by the “sheer” violence of your unprovoked attack during the carjacking. He is been left generally anxious and fearful for the safety and wellbeing of his son, who witnessed your frenzied attack, and himself.
36Mr Derar was unable to work for two months because you had stolen his car. As well as requiring emergency dental treatment he has been seeing a psychologist for post-traumatic stress.
Criminal record
37You have admitted a criminal record of 8 convictions from 7 appearances in Queensland Magistrates' courts between 29 September 1989 and
19 December 2001. You have four convictions for drug possession, one for possession of drug utensils, one for shop theft, one for illegal consumption of liquor and one for contravening a direction. For each of the charges you were fined amounts between $60 and $1000.Personal circumstances
38You were born on 13 September 1970 and are now aged 50 years.
39Your personal circumstances are set out in the report of Dr Linda Borg who assessed you on 6 December 2019. Her report is Exhibit 2.
40You are an Aboriginal man. You were born in Brewarrina in north western New South Wales. You described your childhood as “tough”.
41You are the oldest of five. Your parents separated when you were 13. You lived with your mother initially and then your father. Your family moved Queensland where you completed year 11. Since school you have worked in landscaping and gardening as well as building.
42You have your son Bodhi. His mother and you have been together around five years.
43You have a daughter, now aged 28, from an earlier relationship.
44You have a complex medical history.
45On 20 February 1998 you were knocked from your bicycle by car and spent two days at Rockhampton Hospital for observation for head injury.
46You told Dr Borg, when you were 18 years old, you started using alcohol and smoking cannabis and taking LSD. In your mid-20s, when you started experiencing “a negative synchronistic loop”, as you described it, hearing voices you were to be castrated, beaten and raped, you stopped using LSD. Around the same time you started using speed and, when methamphetamine became more readily available, you moved onto it.
47There was an episode In October 2014, when you were delusional and your brother, Ershua, had taken you to a rural area where you he had you staying in a van. He got you to speak to a psychiatrist, Dr Mark Scurrah, at Bangalore in New South Wales. His report is Exhibit 6. You were in an agitated psychotic state when Dr Scurrah spoke to you. He recommended hospital treatment but you declined. He gave your brother antipsychotic medication, Seroquel, for you.
48You have otherwise never had any psychiatric treatment.
49On 6 December 2019, Dr Borg assessed you neuropsychologically.
50In her opinion you are of average intelligence but you do have “unreliable higher order attentional systems and mildly disorganised thought processes”. You told her about the negative synchronistic loop and your “sacred feminine”. You told her when you offended, you were trying to save your son. In her opinion, you do not suffer an intellectual disability nor any acquired brain injury. In her opinion, your cognitive problems are psychiatric.
51A psychiatrist, Dr Sam Calvin, examined you on 17 May 2019 and
11 September 2020. His reports, dated 15 June 2019 and 18 September 2020, are Exhibit 3. Dr Calvin also gave evidence in court.52You also told him of your experiences of “getting into a negative synchronistic loop” which involved a bizarre belief that you were a “sacred feminine” in a man’s body and “evil powers were trying to rape and castrate you.”
53You told him your symptoms were usually triggered by recreational drugs and tended to resolve when you were drug abstinent.
54You said, in the past, amphetamine would help “stop the loop”. You also said you had been abstinent for a few years and relapsed, using crystal methamphetamine, or ice, recently in the context of relationship, family and business stressors.
55You described experiencing a psychotic episode shortly before you offended which continued for a short time in prison.
56You told him you believed spiritual powers were using your partner to get you and your son and you fled the house with your son and started driving around Melbourne to escape.
57Somehow, the jewellery in your rectum was linked to your sacred feminine side.
58In his opinion, you have no formal mental illness but, when you offended, you were suffering a severe psychotic episode which was precipitated by stimulant and hallucinogenic drugs.
59In his opinion, you knew your conduct was wrong, but because of your psychotic beliefs, you felt compelled to act as you did to protect your son and yourself. He said, “It would have been difficult for (you) to reason with any moderate degree of sense and composure as (you) thought that your life was in danger.”
60He also said, “It has to be emphasised that this offending is out of character for Mr Bolton and if not for the psychotic episode he would not have committed these offences.”
61In evidence before me, Dr Calvin said, considering previous episodes had been relatively short lived, when you took illicit drugs before this offending, you would not have anticipated such a severe episode would occur.
62In prison, you have been drug abstinent as evidenced by drug screens, Exhibit 8, and have not displayed any psychotic signs.
63You are working in the library and have been a positive influence upon at least one other prisoner and in that regard I received his letter which is Exhibit 9.
64Dr Calvin said, “(You have) regained insight and understand the impact of drugs on your mental health.”
65He also said, in prison, once you improved, you immediately regretted your actions. He described you as “deeply ashamed and hoping to make amends.”
66As you are currently:
·drug abstinent and symptom-free,
·keen on maintaining your abstinence,
·using your time in custody productively and
·your partner remains supportive
he considers you have excellent rehabilitation prospects.
67You wrote a letter of apology which was Exhibit 4. You said you are “deeply sorry” for your crimes and “profoundly embarrassed”. You regret particularly that your actions, which you believed were protecting your son, were actually putting him in danger.
68You said you had no idea that methamphetamine would cause such a psychosis but acknowledged, “I know now that it was the drugs that pushed me over the edge, it's my fault.”
Family and friends
69I have read a large number of references from your mother, sister and daughter, longtime friends, your employer, your partner, and her mother. They are Exhibit 5. They all describe you as caring, generous and hard-working. It is clear your offending is wholly out of character with the person they know.
70Your partner is in disbelief. She remains nevertheless “100% supportive” and wants to rebuild your life together with your son when you are released from prison. While you are in prison, she can have telephone only contact with you because, due to a family safety order, you are not allowed any contact with your son.
Defence submissions
71Ms Brennan, who appeared for you, in comprehensive written submissions, which were Exhibit 1, and oral submissions, acknowledged the seriousness of your offending.
72She acknowledged, in relation to the offence of aggravated carjacking, I am required to impose a minimum non-parole period of three years unless a special reason exists.
73In her submission, there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare and justify departure from the three-year mandatory minimum.
74In that behalf she relied on:
·your lack of prior convictions in Victoria
·your psychotic state at the time you offended and the application of Verdins principles 1, 3 and 4
·your strong family support
·the offending being completely out of character for you
·the additional hardship to your partner and your son of their separation from you
in combination as constituting a special reason.
75She submitted, because you had never before behaved aggressively when psychotic, I could not be satisfied you could have anticipated, before you offended, you would behave dangerously. And, in those circumstances, relying on R v Martin (2007) 20 VR 14 and Natasha Sanyasi v R [2019] VSCA 227, she submitted your mental state lessened your culpability.
76She submitted Manodh Marks [2019] VSCA 253 and Anas Abdulfatar [2019] VSCA 262 were examples of drug–induced psychosis cases where the offender’s moral culpability was reduced in accordance with Verdins principles.
77She submitted, in your case, Verdins principles 1 (reduced moral culpability), 3 (general deterrence moderation) and 4 (specific deterrence moderation) are engaged.
78In mitigation of penalty, she additionally relied on:
1. your guilty plea – entered at an early opportunity
2. your lack of any criminal record in Victoria
3. your expressions of remorse to family and friends and the court
4. your insight into the effect of illicit drugs on your mental state
5. your positive response to your time in custody
6. your excellent prospects of rehabilitation
The prosecution submissions
79In helpful and conspicuously fair submissions, Ms Webster, who appeared for the prosecution, submitted your offending was very serious and protracted, albeit you were suffering from a drug induced psychosis at the time.
80In particular, in relation to the attempted aggravated burglary (charge 1) after you had been escorted from the property you made threats and demands for car keys and damaged the front door of a house while people, including a child, were inside the house; and in relation to the aggravated carjacking (charge 4) you made a sustained attack on Mr Derar and pursued him when he attempted to flee while responding violently to bystanders who attempted to intervene, all in the presence of your visibly upset son.
81She submitted there is no special reason to justified departure from the mandatory three-year non-parole period prescribed for aggravated carjacking; and that the Verdins principles are not engaged.
Special reason
82She submitted, referring to Andrew Farmer v R [2020] VSCA 140, considering the special reason test is a very high hurdle that will not often be surmounted, there does not exist any single fact, nor combination of factors, justifying departure from the mandatory minimum three-year non-parole period.
Verdins
83She submitted your diagnosis of a drug induced psychosis, while providing an explanation for your offending, does not attract Verdins principles.
84She submitted the cases of Marks and Abdulfatah are to be distinguished from the case because the first involved circumstances quite different to your case, where the offender had been released from a psychiatric hospital, not fully recovered from a psychotic episode, only hours before he offended and the second concerned an offender who, different to you, had an underlying mental illness.
85She submitted because you previously had suffered drug induced psychotic episodes you would have at least foreseen the consumption of drugs, prior to this offending, could have triggered another psychotic episode. And, accordingly, relying on the cases of Martin and Sanyasi, she submitted Verdins principles are not engaged.
86She submitted, because, when you offended, your ability to make calm and rational choices was impaired, it is still open to the court to moderate your sentence based on a reduction of your moral culpability but to a lesser degree than Verdins would admit.
87She submitted general deterrence is important in your case but, taking into account your good prospects of rehabilitation, some moderation of specific deterrence is appropriate.
88She accepted you made an early guilty plea which has significant utilitarian value, that you have expressed genuine remorse for your offending and your time in custody has been harder due to increased COVID-19 related isolation and anxiety for prisoners.
Analysis
89Your offending was very serious.
90In a violent and frightening 20 hour escapade, you walked uninvited into a stranger’s house where you demanded car keys from the homeowner and damaged the front door of his home, while others were inside, when he refused; you tried to force your way into a car, which you stopped at an intersection, to steal it from the driver; you drove aggressively at one motorist, in your car, reversing into his car and, later, in Mr Derar’s car, blocked another in a driveway before speeding away; you stole Mr Derar’s car, after you knocked him to the ground and attacked him and assaulted two bystanders Mr Ross and Mr El Haq who had tried to help Mr Derar; you stole fuel and a packet of Burger Rings from a petrol station and damaged the glass doors when the store attendant refused to open them and you assaulted two police officers (Hart and Clayton) after they had initially tried to assist you and then arrest you.
91As the maximum penalties clearly demonstrate, in particular, 25 years' imprisonment for attempted aggravated burglary and aggravated carjacking, your crimes were objectively very serious.
92None of your victims was a threat to you although you delusionally believed they were. They were all entitled to feel safe, in their home, in their cars, at petrol stations and in their work. They did nothing to warrant your alarming aggression.
93Subject to a factor I will refer to, below, your moral culpability is high.
94There is a statutory minimum sentence of three years for aggravated carjacking unless there is a special reason to justify departure from it.
95As the Court of Appeal explained in Andrew Farmer v the Queen [2020] VSCA 140 the exceptions are of limited scope. The test for “substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare”, which your counsel relied on, is stringent and, indeed, as the court said, “… it is a very high hurdle that will not often be surmounted”.
96Relevantly, impaired mental functioning caused by self-induced intoxication is not a special reason.
97More, in determining whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances, the court must regard general deterrence and denunciation of an offender’s conduct as having greater importance than other sentencing purposes and must give less weight to the offender’s personal circumstances than the seriousness of his offending.
98Applying the rigorous statutory test, as I must, I am not satisfied a special reason exists to depart from the mandatory minimum non-parole period of three years.
99However, it is plain you were experiencing a psychotic episode triggered by illicit drug use when you offended. You delusionally believed you were protecting your son and you from grave danger. As Dr Calvin said, when you offended, you were completely detached from reality. And, but not for the psychotic episode, you would not have committed these crimes.
100As the cases to which counsel referred establish, generally speaking, an offender’s culpability is unlikely to be reduced by a self-induced psychosis if he has a history of drug use leading to hallucinations and bizarre behaviour.
101More, self-induced psychosis may aggravate an offender’s culpability, for example, if he knew, from previous experience, drugtaking could bring on psychosis which would lead to dangerous behaviour.
102I accept, while you knew illicit drug use might trigger your delusions, you had never been violent when they occurred and you would not have anticipated you would behave so dangerously as you did.
103In the circumstances, I am satisfied your mental state moderates your moral culpability and your suitability as a vehicle for general deterrence is reduced.
104I am also satisfied there is a reduced need for specific deterrence in your case.
105Additionally, I have moderated your sentence to take into account:
·the high utilitarian value of your early guilty plea
·your remorse
·your limited criminal history and otherwise good character and
·the increased COVID-19 related anxiety and concern for prisoners
106I am also satisfied you have very good prospects of rehabilitation considering:
·your offending was entirely out of character
·you have responded positively to your time in custody by remaining drug abstinent, keeping fit and working constructively
·you have a good work history and
·you have a supportive network of family and friends
107Because you are to be sentenced for a large number of offences I must have regard to the totality principle to ensure your aggregate sentence is “a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality”.
108In Jason Mammoliti v The Queen [2020] VSCA 52 the Victorian Court of Appeal said, at [39]: “by the maximum sentence (of 25 years imprisonment) and the mandatory jail term to be served for no less than 3 years, the legislature has made it clear that aggravated carjacking is a serious offence. There is no escaping a relatively long custodial sentence. Accordingly, the mandatory minimum non-parole period must be reflected in the head sentence.”
109The court continued: “…in a single offence case, a sentence of less than 3 years and 6 months (for aggravated carjacking) would contravene s 11(3) of the Sentencing Act. Lower individual sentences for aggravated carjacking might be permitted in multiple charge cases.”
110Accordingly, while I must impose a minimum non-parole period of not less than three years, overall, I am not so constrained in the imposition of the individual sentence on the aggravated carjacking charge. I am, nevertheless, required to use the three-year non-parole period as a yardstick to measure your sentence for that charge.
111Mr Bolton, by the sentence I impose I must denounce your conduct, punish you and deter you and others from committing crimes of the same or similar kind. I must also look to your rehabilitation.
112Considering the circumstances of your offending, your personal circumstances and antecedents and endeavouring to produce a sentence which reflects and promotes the purposes of sentencing in a manner to you I sentence you as follows:
113On Charge 1, attempted aggravated burglary you are sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
114On Charge 2, attempted carjacking you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
115On Charge 3, reckless conduct endangering life, you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
116On Charge 4, aggravated carjacking, you are sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment.
117On Charge 5, intentionally cause injury to Mr Ross you were sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
118On Charge 6, assaulting Mr Ul-Haq you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
119On Charge 7, possessing drugs of dependence you are sentenced to seven days' imprisonment.
120On Charge 8, theft of the petrol and Burger Rings, you are sentenced to seven days' imprisonment.
121On Charge 9, damaging property, being the glass doors of the Glenrowan petrol station, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
122On Charge 10, assaulting emergency workers, police officers Hart and Clayton while they were on duty, you are sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
123And on the summary charge of failing to stop after an accident you are sentenced to seven days' imprisonment.
124The sentence on Charge 4, aggravated carjacking of three years and six months is your base sentence. I direct that six months of the sentence I have imposed on Charge 1, four months of the sentence I have imposed on Charge 2, three months of the sentence I have imposed on Charge 1, two months of the sentence I have imposed on Charge 5, one month of the sentence I have imposed on Charge 6, one month of the sentence that I have imposed on Charge 9 and one month of the sentence I have imposed on Charge 10 be served cumulatively with the base sentence and upon each other.
125The sentences on Charges 7 and 8, and the summary charge are to be served concurrently with all other sentences.
126Your total effective sentence is five years imprisonment and I fix a minimum non-parole release period of three years.
127I declare you have already served 612 days of your sentence by way of presentence detention.
128I declare but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of seven years' imprisonment and fix a non-parole period of four years and six months.
Ancillary Orders
129Following your conviction for attempted carjacking (Charge 2) and aggravated carjacking (Charge 4) I order that all licenses and permits you hold be cancelled and you be disqualified from obtaining a license in Victoria for 12 months. In doing so, I find that offending was committed while you were under the influence of drugs.
130I make an order for disposal of the drugs seized from your home.
- - -
0
7
0