Director of Public Prosecutions v Chin
[2014] VCC 830
•2 June 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-13-01950
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SAM CHIN |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Quin | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | ||
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 2 June 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v. Chin | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 830 | |
SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms C. Picone | |
| For the Prisoner | Mr A. Maloney |
HER HONOUR:
1 Sam Nang Chin, you have pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery. The maximum penalty for that offence is 25 years' imprisonment. The circumstances of your offending are set out in the summary of the prosecution opening, Exhibit A.
2 On Thursday 11 July 2013, at about 3.30 pm, the victim, William Chau, and his friend, Chau Lam, were driving down a street in Noble Park. They noticed you driving very close behind them. You then sped up and overtook their car, cutting them off and causing them to stop.
3 You immediately got out of your car and approached Chau's car holding a sledgehammer. Lam could hear you yelling at them demanding both their phones and wallets. You smashed the driver's side window of Chau's car with the sledgehammer and continued waving it at Chau and Lam, wanting their wallets and phones. Chau handed you his wallet and phone which were in the centre console of his car.
4 You then returned to your car, threatening them that if they followed you, you would kill them. They both received cuts and minor injuries from the breaking of the window of the car. Photos of the damage to the car and injuries were provided to me in Exhibit B.
5 The following week, police responded to a report of you in a street in Noble Park, again yelling out at another driver and carrying a sledgehammer. Your registration details were provided to police who attended at your residence upon this report. You were arrested by police when you were located in the garage of your home with your car. In the car, police found a sledgehammer.
6 You were interviewed by police and admitted this armed robbery which had occurred the week before. As well as providing admissions to the conduct, you indicated you did not recognise the victims or their car, but you believed that they were associated with a group of people who had abused your children, had tried to keep you quiet and get you into trouble. Your presentation at interview clearly raised some concerns regarding your mental state, a matter which I will address later in these reasons.
7 Both William Chau and Chau Lam have provided victim impact statements, Exhibits C and D. The offence has impacted on both of them emotionally and they are now paranoid and anxious when driving, fearing a repeat attack.
8 You are currently aged 31 years and arrived in Australia at a very young age with your parents from Thailand, where you were born in a Cambodian refugee camp. You have a younger sister, Lana, and both your parents live in Melbourne. Your family remains supportive of you. You were raised in the Hampton Park area and completed school up to year 9 level. In about year 8, you commenced using illicit substances and have continued to do so for different periods in your life since.
9 You had been in a long-term relationship with Sarin and have children with her. That relationship broke down in about 2010 and you are currently estranged from both her and the children.
10 As noted above, you have had substance and alcohol abuse issues from a very young age. You have been successfully treated for heroin addiction with the naltrexone implant. Of relevance to this offending, you acknowledged to Dr Kevin Ong, forensic psychiatrist, that you had been using amphetamine more regularly six to 12 months before the commission of this offence. You have been assessed by Dr Ong and Dr Aaron Cunningham, psychologist, and both their reports have been tendered on your behalf, Exhibits 3 and 4.
11 In your interview with police and more recently in the course of assessments with professionals, you have indicated that this offence was committed because the victims were following you because they were concerned about the evidence that you had collected regarding them abusing your children. You suspected that your ex-partner was involved as well.
12 Dr Ong's view was as follows:
Mr Chin would also appear to have developed a substance-induced psychosis, characterised by delusional beliefs regarding his ex-partner, Sarin, her supposed infidelity and fears in regard to the safety of his children, whom he believes are being abused. The differential diagnosis in Mr Chin's case would be delusional disorder. This would be difficult to disentangle from his history of significant substance abuse."
13 It is noted that Dr Cunningham opines that you suffered from a substance‑induced psychotic disorder.
14 The somewhat bizarre circumstances of this offending and your mental state raises the question of the application of the principles in Verdins. The authorities are clear that self‑induced psychosis rarely results in a significant lowering of the sentence imposed; see Sebalj v. the Queen (2006) VSCA 106 at 14. However, the issue of your degree of knowledge or foresight about the possible consequences of ingestion or use of the substance is also relevant; see Rees v. the Queen (2011) VSC 523.
15 It was submitted on your behalf that given the opinion of Dr Ong, and the difficulties there expressed, that you should be considered as having moral culpability for your offence lessened and that less weight should be accorded to general deterrence. The Crown appeared to accept this analysis, that general deterrence therefore should be suitably moderated.
16 The issue of specific deterrence is more problematic. It is clear that your actions posed a significant risk to members of the community. I was informed that you are not being treated in custody and that you are able to function in the prison environment without the need for psychiatric or psychological intervention. However, given your mental condition and therefore limited insight into this offending, it is clear that you will require monitoring and mental health assistance on your release. You remain a significant risk without a level of supervision and intervention. I note that you continue to have family support.
17 Additionally, this offence is a step up in seriousness from your previous offending which I was informed occurred in the context of the breakdown in your relationship with your partner.
18 You have pleaded guilty to this offence and will obtain the full benefit of that. This is both as to the utilitarian value of the plea, but also as witnesses were not required to recount this frightening incident.
19 As indicated above, general deterrence, suitably moderated, specific deterrence, just punishment and protection of the community are all relevant sentencing considerations to take into account to be balanced with your particular circumstances, including your mental health. It is clear that you will require supervision and assistance in the future to address psychiatric and substance abuse issues.
20 Mr Chin, could you stand up, please. For the charge of armed robbery, I convict and sentence you to a period of imprisonment for four years with a nonparole period of two years. If you had not pleaded guilty to that offence, pursuant to s.6AAA, I would have imposed a sentence of five years with a minimum of three years.
21 Pre‑sentence detention?
22 MS PICONE: Yes, 320 days up to but not including today.
23 HER HONOUR: Pre‑sentence detention is declared at 320 days.
24 Application was made for a DNA sample from the scraping of your mouth for the taking of a blood sample. I consider, having regard to the seriousness of this offence and by virtue of this order being made by consent, that that order is justified to be made.
25 Application was also made for a compensation order in the sum of $320. Again, that was by consent and I make that order.
26 Finally, application was made for disposal of the sledgehammer and a pair of sunglasses. I also make that order and I understand again that order was by consent.
27 Ms Picone, these orders have all got the date of the plea hearing, rather than the sentence hearing.
28 MS PICONE: I will have that altered and send it to Your Honour's associate.
29 HER HONOUR: Yes, the three orders, thank you. That would be good.
30 MS PICONE: Thank you, Your Honour.
31 HER HONOUR: You can remove the prisoner. Thank you.
---
0
0
0