Director of Public Prosecutions v Carrodus
[2013] VCC 1804
•21 November 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT LATROBE VALLEY
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-12-02335
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| TERRANCE LESLIE CARRODUS |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMALLWOOD | |
WHERE HELD: | Latrobe Valley | |
DATE OF HEARING: | ||
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 November 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v. Carrodus | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VCC 1804 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr G. Hayward | |
| For the Accused | Mr F. Cameron |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Terrance Leslie Carrodus, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary and one charge of intentionally causing serious injury. Those crimes carry maximum penalties of ten years and 20 years respectively.
2 You are now 47 years of age. You pleaded guilty to what in the end was a settled indictment and you must get the benefit of that plea. Remorse is somewhat problematic, but you certainly get the utilitarian benefit of that plea of guilty, saving the community the cost and expense of a trial and the victim and witnesses the ordeal of being cross-examined.
3 You have an extensive criminal history, and I will go through that shortly, but to make it very clear to you, or when I - 6AAA that your plea of guilty has saved you a very significant period of time in gaol.
4
The circumstances of the offending can be dealt with in fairly brief circumstances. You and your victim had known each other for about
20 years. There had been disputes between you over a period of time. There had been no contact.
5 On the day of this offending you had been drinking, and in all probability using drugs of some sort. Mr Grant, the victim, had been staying at a friend's house. You attended at those premises. There could have been a number of reasons. I do not find that you specifically attended looking for Grant, but in any event you knew that he may be there. The front door was open. You made your way in, uninvited, with the intention of assaulting Mr Grant.
6 During the course of that assault you used a hammer, and I find that obviously you struck him a number of times with it. The medical evidence confirms that. The eyewitnesses have you hitting him numerous times, even up to 20. I do not think that is very likely when one looks at the end result of all this. You gave your reason whilst being there and assaulting Mr Grant as "Because you're a police dog informant, cunt."
7 The end result was that police were called and arrived and arrested you and you effectively made a "no comment" record of interview, which of course is your right.
8 There were a number of people present throughout this, and their victim impact statements clearly describe the horror of the scene. Having looked at the photographs, it is clear that it was extreme violence and there was blood everywhere. They initially denied having seen it occur, but prior to committal, made statements in which they conceded that their original statements were false.
9 Mr Grant now claims that he can remember the incident, having had no memory in earlier times. He had been able, despite his injuries, to climb over a couple of fences and eventually get to another house, where he was found bleeding heavily and leaning against a door. Police photographed him, as I understand it, in situ and it makes a very disturbing sight.
10 In terms of the injuries suffered, the statement made by the doctor at the Alfred, where he was ultimately taken, said he was struck multiple times with a blunt instrument, had a Glascow Coma Score of 11/15, which means he was somewhat short of total consciousness. He said there were a number of circular bruises on the scalp and a number of lacerations on the scalp and face. They are consistent with the weapon that is alleged, that being the hammer. Imaging at the time showed right parietal intraparenchymal haemorrhage, right side, a subdural haemorrhage, depressed right parietal skull fracture. He also suffered multiple facial fractures and lacerations. I have endeavoured to, by looking at the report from the Royal Talbot, work out what they were, and they seem to have been around the eyes. In any event, he was taken to theatre and the fracture was elevated, that being the parietal fracture, and a brain laceration was noted and repaired. The scalp lacerations were cleaned and sutured, and I have seen photographs involving those. He was then cared for in Intensive Care until 29 February 2012, this of course having happened on the 7th into the 8th of February 2012. During that time in Intensive Care, he underwent intracranial pressure management, seizure control and management of a pre-existing disease, which we discussed with counsel and I do not need to go into any further. He was discharged to rehabilitation on 26 February 2012 and into the Royal Talbot Rehabilitation Centre. I have seen a report from them which outlines the matters that took place there. I have also read the victim impact statement of Mr Grant, who describes his time at Royal Talbot, and I accept that is correct.
11 For these purposes there clearly was a brain injury, and the ultimate consequences of that, I am sure, have caused difficulty for Mr Grant. As I have indicated to counsel, I do not propose to take it any further than that and I am not sentencing for any form of renal problems that he may have.
12 No matter how you look at it, the assault was a very violent one and occurred in terrifying circumstances for all concerned, though, of course, I am not sentencing you for affray.
13 The consequences to Mr Grant were dramatic, and one of the real problems in your situation, Mr Carrodus, is that you have done it before. I think it is important where, dealing with a matter such as this, that the circumstances surrounding your earlier offending, at least in relation to some matters, be noted.
14 You have now been in courts since you were a kid, I suppose. You have many prior convictions for violence. In 1988 you received an eight year sentence for intentionally causing serious injury; in 2001, 18 months for intentionally causing injury; and in 2005, recklessly causing serious injury, for which you received a sentence of seven years; and there was an associated attempt to pervert the course which brought it up to a total of nine years with a non-parole period of six. There are other gaol sentences for violence and dishonesty contained within that period of time. I do not think I need to go to it any further. You have spent a lot of time in gaol.
15 I indicated before I had seen any material that you were lucky that you were not in a different jurisdiction.
16 It is interesting that in the Court of Appeal decision relating to the 1988 matters, which I have been provided by the Crown, which your counsel has seen, that a similar view was taken. They, in that decision, it was pointed out that in February of the year that that particular incident occurred, within 15 days of your being released from prison you were the initiator of an attack which left a man's face detached from his skull and probably blinded for life.
17 The Court of Appeal judgment expresses deep concern as to the authorities that allowed you to be released in those circumstances . King J went on and quoted from a report from a Dr Barnes, who made extensive reports on you, that "Dr Barnes concluded that you - 'has a persistent and intractable personality disorder' and 'this disorder is one which can only be defined in its social context as manifest antisocial behaviour and in this regard is a sociopathic personality disorder.'"
18 Justice Tadgell said, "I have found this to be an exceedingly disturbing case. The crimes to which each of the applicants pleaded guilty were revoltingly callous and cruel. They involved a violent and unprovoked attack on a middle-aged man by two young thugs. The victim, so far as appears, has been left totally and permanently blind." He also said, "I should note that there is little evidence, if any, of any remorse or even regret."
19 You underwent that sentence, your appeal to the Court of Appeal having been dismissed. There were other sentences that then took place and then you were sentenced in December of 2005 for assaults which had occurred earlier.
20 Judge McInerney, who sentenced you, said that "I have said the great fortune for Mr Carrodus is that this man did not die."
21 What happened in that matter was that - I am quoting from Judge McInerney - "It was in essence unprovoked. It was carried out on a person who was grossly drunk and was making his way out of the premises and causing no problems. Mr Carrodus carried out a brutal attack on his victim by way of stomping on his head and kicking his head and doing so repeatedly. The injuries were horrific. The medical evidence was that such injuries were significant skull injuries to the extent that sedation was needed to keep this person alive. He suffered gross facial trauma, enclosed head injuries." He goes on to say that "The Royal Melbourne Hospital confirmed two jaw fractures, a fracture of the zygoma and a closed head injury. He suffered post-traumatic amnesia for at least 21 days while there."
22 The ambulance officer apparently said that they were the worst injuries he had seen in his career.
23 He went on to make a number of comments about you being a brutal and violent person.
24 You were on parole for those matters when you committed this assault. I have taken into account the victim impact statements. You are to be sentenced as a serious violent offender pursuant to s.6. I am mindful that community protection becomes the principal sentencing consideration, though the Crown here did not ask for a disproportionate sentence. Obviously general and specific deterrence, as well as denunciation and punishment, must play a part in this particular sentence.
25 The real concern in trying to work out an appropriate sentence for you, and I have heard very helpful discussions from both barristers, each one of whom, in these circumstances, gave a range.
26 The history is this, and it is important:
27
On 21 December 2005 you were given the sentence of nine years and six months by Judge McInerney, which I have referred to. There was
pre-sentence detention declared of 612 days. You were paroled on 15 April 2010, owing the Parole Board three years. Your parole was cancelled within hours, it would seem, of this offending occurring on 8 February 2012. From that point on until now you have been in custody for one year nine and a half months. Because of the cancellation of parole, you have no pre-sentence detention. That clearly is a very significant factor in terms of totality and also the lost opportunity for concurrency which might otherwise have existed.
28 As I understand it, I now impose a sentence and a minimum term, but the minimum term that I impose will commence today. At the expiration of my minimum term, I have to work on the basis that the unexpired portion of that parole period will then be served. That is approximately one year and three months. Therefore, as a matter of logic, any sentence that I impose, and looking back to 8 February 2012, you will serve three years longer. That is a difficult proposition in terms of totality when the offending is as serious as this.
29
So, in dealing with this, I have got lost opportunity for concurrency of
21 months, I have got you already having done 21 months, I have to sentence on the basis of there being a further 15 months and there is little I can do about that.
30
On the material before me, the prospects for your rehabilitation and
re-offending have to be regarded as remote. It is hard to know whether you really want to be. You are now 47. You are not even going to have parole available to you until your mid fifties. You may not even be given parole, but there is not a lot I can do about any of those matters. It is disturbing that the Court of Appeal way back, when you were 22 years of age, expressed the views that they did, and you would seem to have achieved very little, if anything, since.
31 There were some matters put on your behalf. Essentially, I think, in fairness that is what they come down to. You have reached the stage where childhoods and those sorts of things are of no real benefit to a sentencing judge.
32 What I have done is imposed a sentence which does not fit within the range of either counsel. That is another matter.
33 On Charge 1, 18 months. On Charge 2, seven years and six months.
34 I direct that six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 2, which gives a head sentence of eight years.
35 I direct that you serve five and a half years before becoming eligible for parole.
36 I make that order on the basis that that five and a half years before becoming eligible for parole is really going to end up being eight and a half, and that seems to me to be, in this situation, enough. So you appreciate that, as I understand it, for the first time certainly in the superior courts, pleading guilty has meant - and I should also point out those earlier sentences that I referred to were after trials - that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced to you to be imprisoned for a period of 12 years with a minimum term of eight and a half. All right. That is just so you know what the benefit was of that.
37 Now there are no other orders I can make because there is no PSD.
38 MR HAYWARD: No.
39 HIS HONOUR: There is nothing else?
40 MR CAMERON: Your Honour, the only order I require is a certificate for Monday.
41 HIS HONOUR: Yes, yes, you have got that.
42 MR CAMERON: If I could, I will obtain it from your associate.
43 HIS HONOUR: Yes, we will work that out.
44 MR CAMERON: Thanks.
45 MR HAYWARD: Thank you, Your Honour, that's all matters as I can see.
46 HIS HONOUR: All right, thanks for that. Thanks, gentlemen.
- - -
0
0
0