Director of Public Prosecutions v Bragagnolo
[2020] VCC 1507
•21 September 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No CR 20-00467
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PETER BRAGAGNOLO |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE WRAIGHT | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 9 – 10 September 2020 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 September 2020 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bragagnolo | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 1507 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – One charge of aggravated reckless exposure of a police officer to risk by driving – Offender reversed van into the front of a police vehicle with two officers inside – Offender experiencing PTSD symptoms at time of offending – Offence at lower end – Category 2 offence – Offender suffered from impaired mental functioning arising from PTSD – s 5(2H)(c)(i) and s 5(2H)(c)(ii) tests met – Genuine remorse – Verdins principles applied – Very good prospects of rehabilitation – Circumstances surrounding COVID-19 taken into account.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958; Summary Offences Act 1966; Sentencing Act 1991.
Sentence: Community Correction Order for a period of 2 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms J Croxford | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr P J Smallwood | Greg Thomas Barrister & Solicitor |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
Peter Bragagnolo, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated reckless exposure of a police officer to risk by driving contrary to s 317AF(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
You have also pleaded guilty to a related summary charge of aggravated assault contrary to s 24(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1966, which, in this case, carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.
You have admitted your prior criminal history.
Circumstances of the offending
At the time of this offending you were living at 14 Falcon Street, Thomastown, with your wife, Elisabete Bragagnolo, your two children, Rachelle and Christopher Bragagnolo, and Christopher’s fiancé, Carolina Vieira. On
4 August 2019 you had been self-medicating with various prescription medication. At some point you picked up a kitchen knife and told your family to leave the home. At 9.11 pm, Ms Bragagnolo called 000. You initially refused to cooperate with police and barricaded yourself in the house.
After about an hour you surrendered to police and were arrested pursuant to the Mental Health Act 2014 and were taken to the Northern Hospital. You were assessed by emergency mental health clinicians and later discharged with a referral to follow up with community clinicians.
On the evening of 7 August 2019, you and Ms Bragagnolo met with occupational therapist Tania Whittleton and psychiatric nurse Larina Liang at your home as a follow up for your attendance at the Northern Hospital. Your children and Ms Vieira were at home at the time.
Ms Whittleton made the following observation of you:
Mr Bragagnolo appeared calm and engaged. His mental state was assessed as mildly deteriorated due to misuse of over the counter medications, with mild instability of emotion and poor sleep patterns, but there were no acute mood issues and no evidence of psychotic features. He was observed to be dismissive of suggestions to address emotional pain and misuse of over the counter medications (which he acknowledged during the assessment). There was no acute suicidal risk evidence, but ongoing occasional impulsivity with non-suicidal risk evidence, but ongoing occasional impulsivity with non-suicidal harming activity. He had worked the previous two days.
Ms Liang stated that you reported poor memory of events that led to your admission to the hospital and could not identify a trigger for your behaviour. You said your actions were impulsive.
During the meeting you became increasingly agitated and irritable, continually asking, 'What more can I change? Haven’t I done enough?' After Ms Bragagnolo commented about the difficulties with your behaviour you yelled at her, left the meeting and stormed outside. You returned about 15 minutes later and went into the bedroom and did not return to the meeting. The mental health team left soon after.
When you came out of the bedroom you started yelling at Ms Bragagnolo, ‘Things have got to change. Haven’t things changed in the last five years?’ You went into the kitchen, threw pizzas that were on the bench into a wall and onto the floor, slammed a cupboard shut before returning to the bedroom. You again came out of the bedroom and continued yelling at Ms Bragagnolo before taking her handbag, and your daughter Rachelle’s handbag, into the bedroom and tipping the contents onto the bed.
Ms Bragagnolo followed you and stood in the doorway. You continued to yell at her, and she told you that if you continued, she would call the police. You said to not involve the police then rushed at Ms Bragagnolo, pushing her from the doorway with one hand. According to Ms Bragagnolo the push was ‘really hard and aggressive.’ You then threw a glasses case and wallet at Ms Bragagnolo, breaking the glasses case. Ms Bragagnolo told you she was going to call the police and called 000. It is these facts that relate to Summary Charge 10, aggravated assault.
Your daughter, Rachelle, was screaming at you to stop and started to walk towards her room. You came out and walked past her and said, ‘if I was you I would fuck off.’ Rachelle went into the room and picked up a number of car keys to try to prevent you from taking any of the cars.
Ms Bragagnolo and Rachelle decided to leave the house. As they left, you smashed a glass bottle into the kitchen sink and Rachelle heard you opening a cutlery drawer and popping medication out of the packets. Ms Bragagnolo went to a neighbour’s house and Rachelle went across the road and sat in a friend’s car. While she was sitting in the car you sent Rachelle a text messaging saying, ‘Just remind ya mum things have got to change’. At 7.28pm Rachelle called 000.
Soon after you came outside and asked Christopher where his mother was.
Ms Bragagnolo was hiding behind a neighbour’s fence so you could not find her. You yelled out 'things have got to change’ before getting into the white work van parked in the driveway and driving away. Ms Bragagnolo called the police again to update them.
Two police cars were called to the address. Sergeant Lehmann and Constable Lennon were in the first car and Senior Constable McAuley and Constable Hogg were in the second.
The first police car turned into Falcon Street from Victoria Street and drove towards Tilbury Street. The second police car, already in Falcon Street, ahead of the first police car, performed a U-turn and pulled up alongside the first police car. The officers spoke for a few minutes before Sergeant Lehmann noticed a white van driving towards them.
When the van got closer, Sergeant Lehmann realised it was your van and drove forward slowly. You pulled up alongside the police car in your van and started shouting aggressively at Sergeant Lehmann.
Sergeant Lehmann said to you, ‘What’s going? Get out of the car and we can have a talk’. You said, ‘Fuck off. I’m not getting out. Don’t try to fucking stop me or I will take you out. Don’t even fucking try, you won’t like what happens. You are going to get hurt’. According to Constable Lennon your speech sounded slurred and you were extremely angry.
You continued to drive west along Falcon Street towards Victoria Drive. By this stage the second police car had performed a U-turn and was behind the first police car.
When you passed the second police car you stopped briefly. Senior Constable McAuley asked you to pull over and you said, ‘I reiterate what I said to your other members. Go speak to them’.
Sergeant Lehmann radioed for another car to block you in from the other direction and turned around in the first police car to follow your van.
You stopped your van at a distance in front of the police van. At this stage the police turned on their lights. You revved the van and reversed straight into the front of the police van, continuing to accelerate, trying to push the police car back. Sergeant Lehmann had his foot on the brake of the police car, preventing it from being pushed back. It is these facts that relate to Charge 1, aggravated reckless exposure of a police officer to risk by driving.
Constable Lennon got out of the first police car and ran to the passenger door of your van. Senior Constable McAuley and Constable Hogg, from the second police car, ran to the driver’s side of the van and sprayed you with OC spray before pulling you from the van.
You were removed from the van and arrested. You were given a preliminary breath test which gave a reading of 0.038. You were taken to the Northern Hospital, where you were admitted for observation due to concerns about you taking an amount of prescription medication. You were not interviewed by police.
Constable Lennon was not physically injured. According to what Sergeant Lehmann stated in his victim impact statement, he suffered lower back and abdominal pain and tightness.
Detective Sergeant Jenelle Hardiman estimated that your van was travelling between 11km/h and 18km/h when it collided with the police car.
The cost of repairs to the police car is $26,662.66.
Nature and gravity of the offending
The aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving is, by its nature, a serious offence for two reasons. First, it has been classed as a ‘Category 2 offence’ and as such, pursuant to s 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act 1991 the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment unless the offender can establish on the balance of probabilities one of the exceptions in s 5(2H)(a) to (e). Secondly, the seriousness of the offence is reflected in the maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
In this instance your conduct is particularised in the charge as having recklessly exposed two emergency workers on duty to risk to safety, being Sergeant Damien Lehmann and Constable Victoria Lennon, as a result of your driving, the offence being connected also to damaging an emergency vehicle. The act exposing Sergeant Lehmann and Constable Lennon to risk was the reversing of your van into the police car while the two officers were in the car.
While objectively the collision may be viewed as relatively minor, as the speed of your vehicle on impact was between 11 km/h and 18 km/h, the offence is concerned with risk, specifically the risk to emergency workers who, in this instance, were simply doing their job, attempting to contain the situation to avoid further risks to the community. The offence must also be seen in the context of you behaving erratically in your home before the incident and then making threats to police. Your behaviour on this occasion was disturbing and would have been frightening to your family, and to the police, all of whom were attempting to calm you down and communicate with you.
On the other hand, the offending does not have the aggravating hallmarks that are often associated with this offence. For example, where the offence occurs in the context of a police chase or where emergency workers are on foot and exposed to much greater risk of injury. Here it would appear that the rapid response by police meant that you were effectively blocked from leaving the vicinity and the collision occurred while police were still in their vehicle. In all the circumstances, while your offending remains serious for the reasons I have articulated, in my view it falls towards the lower end.
Further, it is submitted on your behalf that the objective gravity of the offending is able to be moderated as a result of the nexus between your conduct and your impaired mental functioning. I will address this point below, as it relates to two aspects of the sentencing discretion. First, if there is a causal link to the offending and whether that link substantially and materially reduces your culpability so that s 5(2H)(c)(i) of the Sentencing Act 1991 is engaged. Secondly, whether or not your mental condition at the time of the offending is causally connected to the offending so that Verdins principles are enlivened.
As to the related summary assault, while your family has previously experienced the effects of your mental illness, and remain supportive of you, on this occasion your conduct nonetheless was frightening behaviour witnessed by your wife and children. Your behaviour ultimately resulted in you pushing your wife and behaving in a threatening manner, prompting your wife to call 000. However, as will be discussed further below, the manifestations of your mental illness were also in play at the time of the conduct giving rise to the summary charge.
Victim Impact Statement
A victim impact statement was prepared by Sergeant Damian Lehmann and tendered on the plea. Sergeant Lehmann did not suffer any significant physical injury, however he describes the psychological impact of the incident on him. While Sergeant Lehmann is a very experienced police officer he describes how the incident has made him more hypervigilant and has affected his day to day interactions with his family and others. Sergeant Lehmann’s victim impact statement provides a clear example that even as a 25 year veteran of the police he has been adversely affected by this event and the risk you placed him and his partner in. I have taken the contents of Sergeant Lehmann’s victim impact statement into account.
Personal circumstances
You are 51 years of age. You were born and raised in Preston and you are the fourth of a sibship of four. You were not the subject of any abuse as a child although you recall episodes of your father, who was an alcoholic, pushing your mother and engaging in aggressive behaviour toward her.
You repeated Year 9, leaving school at age 15 to commence an apprenticeship as a chef, which you completed in 1989. You worked as a chef until 2012, when you went to work casually in the building trade.
You met your wife, Elisabete, when you were 17 years of age and you married at 21. You have two children, a daughter now aged 26 and a son now aged 21. You also informally adopted one of your son’s friends who was evicted from his own home when he was in Year 7 at school.
In 1998, while working as a chef in a gaming venue, you were the victim of a serious armed robbery where a gun was pointed at your face and you were held hostage for a period of time. You were also assaulted by being hit on the back of the head, resulting in a brief loss of consciousness. This event has led to you suffering from a long term and debilitating form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for a number of years.
Since the day of this offending you have lived with your sister as a result of intervention orders being taken out preventing you from being in the family home. In recent times you have spent half the week with your sister and half with your family, who clearly continue to support you fully. Your relationship with your wife and your children remains strong and each of them have provided written references to the court.
Your wife, Elisabete, states that she remains supportive of you. She states that your relation is strong, describing you as her best friend. She clearly has a deep understanding of your psychological conditions and forgives you for your conduct that resulted in the summary charge, where she is the victim. She notes that when you have breakdowns you never intend to hurt anyone but yourself. She acknowledges that you have changed as a result of the sustained psychological assistance and other support you have been receiving since the offending.
You daughter, Rachelle, states that you are now a completely different person from the way you were around the time of the offending. She observes that you have developed insight into your mental illness and confirms your commitment to the psychological treatment you have been receiving on an ongoing basis. Your son, Chris, describes the very positive relationship he has had with you and laments the heartbreaking experience of watching you suffer from your mental illness without being able to assist. He also states that when suffering an episode as a result of your illness you do not mean any harm to others.
A report dated 25 November 2019 was prepared by Dr Nicholas Owens, consultant psychiatrist, and tendered on the plea. Dr Owens provides detail of the assault you suffered which resulted in the diagnosis of PTSD. He notes that while you received some treatment in the years following the incident it was short term and did not result in any significant benefit. He also notes that in the weeks leading up to the incident you had been dependent on codeine and other non-opiate analgesic drugs, including a non-prescribed pain reducing drug called Pregabalin. Dr Owens also provides further detail in relation to the incident of 4 August 2019 in the days leading up to the offending. You had, in that episode, stabbed yourself in both arms with a knife, and you stated that you did not know what the triggers were that made you feel like killing yourself.
Dr Owens formed the view that you were suffering a mental impairment at the time of the offending; namely depressive anxiety and hyperarousal symptoms as part of PTSD as well as the disinhibiting effects of alcohol. Dr Owens is of the opinion that there was a connection between your PTSD symptoms and your behaviour at the time of the offending, putting you at a higher risk of suicidal behaviour, which, consistent with the previous episodes, is coupled with reckless and uncontrolled expressions of anger towards others.
Dr Owens gave sworn evidence on the plea confirming his opinions stated in the written report. He further stated that your impaired mental functioning was active at the time when you reversed your car into the police vehicle, that your impaired mental functioning was causally linked to the commission of the offence and that it contributed to it. The cause of the episode on this occasion was the exacerbation of your PTSD and, in particular, your emotional dysregulation following the discussion with the 'CATT' team, resulting in anger and a desire to harm yourself and engage in reckless behaviour. Dr Owens stated your symptoms were all acute and operating together at the time.
Two psychological reports dated 9 March 2020 and 14 August 2020 were prepared by Dr Jacqueline Rakov, consultant forensic psychiatrist, and tendered on the plea. Dr Rakov has been treating you since January 2020 and has seen you on 17 occasions. She confirms that your PTSD has been the focus of her treatment with you, which has included psychotherapy and monitoring of your medication regime. She also confirms that you suffer a generalised anxiety disorder. In the more recent report, Dr Rakov confirms that on 27 January 2020 you took an intentional overdose, being two months supply of your medication, with suicidal intent. You were taken to the Northwestern Mental Health department at the Northern Hospital and, after being discharged, you attended again the next day due to feeling acutely suicidal.
In Dr Rakov’s report of 14 August 2020 she responded to a question concerning your mental health if you were to be imprisoned again in circumstances where the COVID-19 restrictions are still being imposed in the prison system. Dr Rakov notes that while pharmacological treatment will be able to be maintained in custody you will not have access to the psychological therapy or the protective support your family has provided to you through your rehabilitation.
Dr Rakov, who also gave sworn evidence on the plea and is experienced with working within the prison system, stated that the current COVID-19 restrictions would make any prison sentence extremely onerous for you. First, you would be subjected to 14 days quarantine, possibly followed by another eight day quarantine, if you are transferred to another prison. There is no group access to psychological services and scant access to individual services which, if available, take weeks to months to organise.
In general terms Dr Rakov stated that you are doing well in therapy and that your medication regime is settled. That said, she notes you are still fragile and refers to the suicide attempt earlier this year. Thus, if your supports were cut off by you entering prison you would become exposed to risk that you would not have the resources to combat.
Associate Professor Andrew Carroll, consultant forensic psychiatrist, prepared a report dated 21 October 2019 at the request of the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP). While his report is based on a short consultation, he confirms what he describes as, ‘clear-cut symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder’ relating to the armed robbery where you were assaulted at work in 1998. Associate Professor Carroll recommended treatment from a psychiatrist to review and monitor your medication and also to provide clinical psychological treatment, which you clearly have been receiving via Dr Rakov.
A report from CISP was also provided confirming that you attended all your CISP appointments and actively engaged in the treatment plan. The writer of the report, Sophie Erickson, observed significant change in you over the course of her involvement as your case manager. She notes that you have gained insight into your PTSD and how it impacts your behaviour. She notes that in addition to the various psychological treatment you received you also completed components of the men’s behavioural change program. Tendered on the plea was a letter confirming that you have now completed the 20 week program in men’s behavioural change through Djerriwarrh Health Services.
Two further references were tendered from long term friends Darren Langman and Ryan Pearce. Mr Langman speaks of your otherwise good character and strong family relationships and corroborates the views of your family members that while you have struggled with mental illness you are otherwise a person who would not wish to bring harm to anyone. Mr Pearce is the president of the Old Ivanhoe Grammarians Cricket Club, of which you are a member. He is aware of the charges you are facing. He describes you as a selfless person who is always volunteering to assist with off field duties and as a humble man who continues to be welcome at the club.
Finally, a newspaper article was tendered in relation to you being nominated for a bravery award for your efforts in entering a burning home and assisting the occupants to safety.
Relevant sentencing considerations
Mr Smallwood, who appeared on your behalf, provided detailed written submissions with the focus on addressing the exceptions to an immediate term of imprisonment pursuant to ss 5(2H)(c)(i), 5(2H)(c)(ii) and 5(2H)(e). He submits that when regard is had to the psychiatric evidence the court is not constrained by s 5(2H).
First, Mr Smallwood submitted that the evidence in relation to the impaired mental functioning you were suffering at the time of the offending substantially and materially reduced your culpability, thereby engaging s 5(2H)(c)(i), and further, that your impaired mental functioning was not caused substantially by self-induced intoxication in reference to s 5(2HA).
Secondly, Mr Smallwood relied on s 5(2H)(c)(ii) that your current impaired mental functioning would result in you being subjected to substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment.
Thirdly, as an alternative to the above categories Mr Smallwood seeks to rely on s 5(2H)(e) that is, that the psychiatric materials and the other steps you have taken amount to substantial and compelling circumstances, even in light of the restrictive nature of what is able to be taken into account pursuant to that section.
Ms Croxford, who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that having considered the evidence of Dr Owens and Dr Rakov the prosecution does not take issue with the fact that at the relevant time you were suffering impaired mental functioning that was causally linked to the commission of the offence. However, she submitted that the evidence does not support that the causal link ‘substantially and materially’ reduces your culpability and thus does not accept that s 5(2H)(c)(i) has been satisfied.
As to the application of s 5(2HA), Ms Croxford accepted that while the alcohol and drugs you ingested may have played a part in disinhibiting you, your impaired mental functioning was not caused substantially by self-induced intoxication. On this point the evidence is that as a result of you having reacted to the CATT team and then experiencing the symptoms of your PTSD in an acute way, it was then that you ingested the drugs and alcohol. As such, without repeating the very detailed evidence of Dr Owens on this point I accept that your impaired mental functioning was not caused ‘substantially by self-induced intoxication’.
Having considered the relevant evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the impaired mental functioning you were suffering at the time of the offending substantially and materially reduces your culpability, thereby engaging s 5(2H)(c)(i).
As to s 5(2H)(c)(ii), while Ms Croxford submits that the evidence only raises the general risks associated with your condition and does not reach the higher test that you would be subject to ‘substantially and materially’ greater than ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment. That said, Ms Croxford submitted that
Dr Rakov’s evidence fortified your position in relation to satisfying this provision.
Having considered the evidence of Dr Rakov and Dr Owens, in my view your identified impaired mental functioning would result in you being subject to substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment. As noted above, in addition to the fact that your very supportive and protective support system would cease upon you entering prison, with the additional restrictive environment imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, you would be even more vulnerable and at greater risk, which further elevates the risks and burden of imprisonment.
As to s 5(2H)(e), Ms Croxford points out the restrictive provisions that apply to the substantial and compelling circumstances test make this exception a much higher test to satisfy. Mr Smallwood conceded that this was so. While I agree with that submission, and in particular that less weight must be given to personal circumstances, which would include your mental illness, as I have found that s 5(2H)(c)(i) and (ii) have been satisfied I will not make a formal determination on this exception.
I now turn to other sentencing considerations.
I take into account your plea of guilty, which is a plea at the earliest opportunity. As such, your plea has saved the court time and expense and spared the witnesses from having to give evidence. In the circumstances your plea has had a utilitarian benefit and has facilitated the course of justice.
Genuine remorse is somewhat more difficult to discern, however this would seem to be as a result of you not appreciating the impact of your illness on your conduct and you reporting to Dr Owens and Associate Professor Carroll that your recollection of the offending is unclear. Nonetheless, Dr Owens states in his report that you have expressed remorse for the offending. I also note your comments to the Corrections officer who assessed you recently, where she states that you, ‘displayed considerable remorse and accountability for your behaviour, albeit in the absence of memory’. You also state that you ‘deeply regret’ your actions. In my view your remorse is able to be identified to some extent from the way in which you have actively engaged with a variety of treatment services since the offending in order to gain insight into the risks your illness may pose to you and others. In all the circumstances I accept that you have demonstrated remorse.
Mr Smallwood also submitted that Verdins principles have application. For similar reasons as to why I have found that the exceptions of ss 5(2H)(c)(i) and (ii) have been satisfied, I accept that Verdins principles apply in the sense that general deterrence is able to be modified, and further, that Verdins principles 5 and 6 have application for the reasons articulated above as to the burden and risks of imprisonment for a person suffering your mental impairment.
As to your prospects of rehabilitation, as noted you now have a very established network of supports in place that have greatly benefitted you over the past year and facilitated your rehabilitation. You are fortunate to have had the services of Dr Rakov on an ongoing therapeutic basis. You also enjoy the support of your family, who understand your illness and will continue to support you. As such, in the circumstances I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as very good.
Ms Croxford submitted that general and specific deterrence still have a role to play despite your mental illness. As I have found that Verdins principles have application in relation to the time of the offending as to your culpability, general deterrence is able to be moderated. However, in relation to specific deterrence other considerations have relevance. First, while it has taken you some time to properly address your illness, you are now gaining genuine insight and, as such, you now have a greater appreciation of the risk you may pose to your family and others in the community when you become vulnerable. Secondly, you have a prior criminal history and it was submitted that the bulk of the offending has also been linked to your mental illness. Therefore, as you are now aware of the triggers that make you vulnerable, in my view specific deterrence still has some role to play.
Ms Croxford also submitted that denunciation of your conduct and just punishment also have application. While I accept these principles do have application, they too are able to be moderated as a result of your impaired mental functioning.
Finally, I take into account the current circumstances surrounding the COVID‑19 pandemic. From information provided by Corrections Victoria it is clear that the personal visits to prisons have been suspended, there has been a reduction of services and programs and some prisoners are experiencing increased lockdown periods. In your specific circumstances these matters have direct relevance, as detailed above in relation to the s 5(2H)(c)(ii) exception and as addressed by Dr Rakov’s evidence. However, I also take these matters into account in the general sentencing discretion.
Mr Smallwood submitted that if any of the s 5(2H) exceptions are established then the relevant sentencing considerations are able to be met by a community correction order in relation to both the indictable charge and the related summary offence. As I have found that two of the exceptions have been established, and therefore a community correction order is able to be imposed, I had you assessed for such an order and you have been found suitable.
In all the circumstances, in my view a community correction order is able to meet the applicable sentencing considerations while allowing you to continue with the sustained rehabilitation and treatment regime you have established. In coming to that view, I have also taken into account that you served 23 days on remand in relation to this matter.
While all correction orders are punitive, I intend to impose an order with both punitive and therapeutic components.
Sentence
Mr Bragagnolo, please stand.
Peter Bragagnolo, on Charge 1, aggravated reckless exposure of a police officer to risk by driving, and related Summary Charge 10, unlawful assault, you will be convicted and placed on a community correction order for a period of 2 years. Pursuant to s 40(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 this is an aggregate order.
In addition to the standard conditions that attach to all community correction orders you will be required to complete 120 hours of unpaid community work and you will be required to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in relation to alcohol use, drug use, and in relation to your mental health. You will also be subject to supervision for the length of the order. I anticipate that the Community Correctional Services office will be able to integrate your current psychological treatment as part of the treatment condition of the order.
Pursuant to s 48CA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I direct that all of the hours that you satisfactorily complete pursuant to the treatment and rehabilitation conditions may be credited as hours of unpaid community work.
Pursuant to s 89(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991, any driver licence you hold will be cancelled and you will be disqualified for a period of 2 years. As you have not been driving as a condition of your bail, that order will commence on
7 August 2019.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, if not for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a period of imprisonment followed by a community correction order.
---
2
0
0