Director of Public Prosecutions v Clark, Chase
[2012] VCC 1893
•6 September 2012
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-12-00849
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CHASE CLARK |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CAMPTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 6 September 2012 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 6 September 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Clark, Chase | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1893 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Charges of burglary, theft and criminal damage – Plea of guilty – Sentence of 2 years 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months – Time served on unrelated matters taken into account – R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88 – Wheldon v The Queen [2011] VSCA 83.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Miss F. Holmes | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr M. Goldberg | Robert Stary & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
The Charges
1 Chase Clark, you have pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, one count of theft, and one count of criminal damage. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is ten years' imprisonment.
Circumstances of offending
2 The circumstances of your offending is set out in the prosecution opening. In summary, on 28 August 2010, at approximately 1am, in company with another man, you broke into Fishers Used Cars on the Burwood Highway. In the office you and your co‑accused went through the contents of desk drawers and a filing cabinet and you forced open the safe. You removed tools and sets of keys for two vehicles, a gold Mazda Astina worth $8,000 and silver Toyota Kluger worth $21,000.
3 These vehicles were then stolen by you and the Mazda was damaged in the process, being driven through a partially open roller door and over a bollard. In the early hours of the morning both vehicles were photographed by fixed speed camera devices, one in Watsonia and one in Box Hill.
4 When the manager of the premises arrived at 7.45 a.m. he noticed damage to the garage and office area. The quantum of the damage to the office area, roller door and bollards was some $10,000 to $15,000.
5 Police attended at the used car yard later on the morning of 28 August 2010 and a later examination of items found at the scene, including a cigarette butt and blood on the safe, was found to contain your DNA.
6 On Thursday 2 September 2010 police recovered the stolen Mazda at a location less than 200 metres from your co‑accused's home at Box Hill.
7 You were interviewed in relation to these offences on 13 January 2011 and charged on summons on 24 August 2011. A contested committal was held on 24 and 25 May 2012. Plea to the current charges was accepted by the prosecution on 24 August 2012.
Personal circumstances
8 Your personal circumstances were set out in a report from Mr Ball, psychologist. Your parents are from New Zealand and you were born on 14 April 1989. You have six biological siblings. You described your family to Mr Ball as being very poor and very abusive. You said you were scared a lot of the time. You left home at 13 to escape the violence and chaos and lived on the streets and in DHS care. You left school after Year 7 and reported having significant social and disciplinary problems at all the schools you attended. You have been employed as a bricklayer and concreter and you completed three years of a bricklaying apprenticeship. You have been using drugs and alcohol from an early age and you acknowledge a history of drug abuse, recklessness and physical and verbal aggression.
9 You have been attacked four times with knives and machetes and Mr Ball has diagnosed you as having post‑traumatic stress syndrome as a result of these attacks. In addition to this diagnosis, he diagnosed you as having rising anti‑social features in your personality and as having an IQ in the dull, normal range.
10 You have an extensive criminal record for offences of a similar nature, mainly in the Children's Court. There are also approximately nine appearances in the adult jurisdiction.
11 It is also relevant for sentencing purposes that you are currently serving a sentence for other matters. You have already served some 525 days and your current release date is February 2013.
12 You have been bettering yourself while you have been in custody. You have been seeing Geoffrey Fox, psychologist, with respect to emotion regulation, poor violent behaviours, dependency issues, readjustment to life after prison, and developing insight.
13 In a letter dated 23 March 2012, Mr Fox described you as engaging and receptive to all matters concerned in the sessions. In another letter dated 26 June 2012 he said that you were regularly asking for extra work and felt that through the therapy sessions you had been able to gain perspective and insight into your behaviour. You became involved with the Moreland Hall program and you have completed a number of drug courses. In a letter dated 31 August 2012, Rob Testro, clinician, stated that you had completed one of the programs a second time when it was run for Maori participants and you had assisted fellow prisoners and encouraged them to take part.
Sentencing submissions
14 The prosecution sentencing range given in this case was three to four years with a non‑parole period of two to three years. This range was submitted to take into account totality in accordance with Renzella and Wheldon. The prosecutor also submitted that your offences were serious and that you had a history of similar offending.
15 Your counsel, on the other hand, submitted that six months was an appropriate sentence or 12 months, to serve six. In making this submission he relied on the following mitigating matters: Your plea of guilty; your comparative youth and chances of rehabilitation which were submitted to be reasonable given the considerable efforts you had made to better yourself while in custody and your state of mind regarding the possibility that you could be deported. In particular, your counsel relied on the principles of proportionality and totality. With respect to totality, counsel relied on the Renzella principle and submitted that when sentencing you I should take into account time served (525 days) for the other matters.
16 With respect to proportionality, your counsel referred to the fact that on an appeal on 31 August 2010 in this court, your sentence for burglaries on similar commercial premises had been reduced so that essentially you were serving one month on each burglary, resulting in a 13 month sentence with a non‑parole period of three months.
Sentencing remarks
17 In sentencing you, I have taken into account both general and specific deterrence. I have also taken into account the mitigating factors mentioned by your counsel. You pleaded guilty to these offences and I have given you have a discount with respect to your plea of guilty. I have also taken into account your relative youth and the good efforts that you have been making towards rehabilitation while in custody. I have taken into account, in accordance with Renzella and Weldon, the time you spent in custody with respect to unrelated offending. In doing so, I have excised my common law discretion.
18 On the first count of burglary, you are sentenced to 12 months imprisonment; on theft you are sentenced to 18 months imprisonment; and on criminal damage you are sentenced to two months imprisonment. The head sentence is the sentence of 18 months on count 2. I cumulate six months of the sentence on count 1 and three months of the sentence on count 3, on count 2. The sentence is a sentence of two years and three months and I fix a non‑parole period of 12 months. In doing so, I have allowed a reasonable portion of time in relation to the Renzella time. If your counsel does the maths, I think it would effectively appear that there is a seven month period that will be served.
19 MISS HOLMES: Your Honour, there was three months cumulative on charge 3 but Your Honour indicated that there was only a two months sentence for that.
20 HER HONOUR: Nine months. Did I say two months?
21 MISS HOLMES: Your Honour did say two but that makes sense.
22 HER HONOUR: Nine months.
23 MISS HOLMES: And 6AAA also.
24 HER HONOUR: 6AAA, but for the plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to three years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 18 months.
25 MISS HOLMES: Just to make it clear, does Your Honour indicate by not specifying further that this will be concurrent with the sentence he is currently serving.
26 HER HONOUR: Yes, it is concurrent. The disqualification of your licence will be from today's date for a period of 12 months. That means that not long after you are released you will be eligible to apply for your licence. You can work out the maths in relation ‑ you won't have any difficulty working out the maths, I presume, in relation to the time he still has to served.
27 MR GOLDBERG: Yes, Your Honour.
28 HER HONOUR: Anything arising from this matter?
29 MISS HOLMES: No, Your Honour.
30 - - -
0
2
0