Director of Public Prosecutions v Curtin
[2018] VSC 493
•11 May 2018
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2017 0191
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| KEVIN CURTIN |
---
JUDGE: | COGHLAN JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 27 March 2018 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 11 May 2018 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Curtin |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VSC 493 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Manslaughter — Single stab to chest of deceased while intoxicated — Guilty plea — Presence of remorse — Long history of alcohol and drug abuse — Diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia — Stable long-term prognosis — Sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms D I Piekusis | Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J D Williams | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
On 22 January 2018, you pleaded guilty before me to the killing of Stephen Darrall on 20 October 2016. That is the crime of manslaughter, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years.
A plea was conducted on your behalf on 27 March 2018. Your sentence has been deferred awaiting some medical information, to which I will refer later in these remarks. That information has only recently been provided to your solicitors and to the Court.
On the plea, the Summary of Prosecution Opening was marked Exhibit 1 and read to the Court. I have called heavily on it to set out the circumstances of your offending.
Stephen Darrall was born on 3 March 1968. He was the eldest of three children, with younger siblings Jason, who is now deceased, Justin, and Kim-Marie. He was 48 years old at the time of his death. He attended a special school in Bendigo. He had previously been identified as suffering from a mild intellectual disability, and at the time of leaving school he was unable to read or write and received a disability support pension for the rest of his life. At the time of his death, he lived at Ormond Street complex and had lived there since the middle of 2014. He lived in the same block as you. You were born on 2 March 1959.
You are now 59 years of age, and grew up in the Broadmeadows area with your mother and sister. You have previously been married and you are the father of four children. You previously served in the Australian Army and you are a qualified boilermaker by profession. You had been residing at the Ormond Street complex since 2011. You and Mr Darrall knew one another and there is no known history of any conflict between you.
On the afternoon of Wednesday 19 October 2016, Mr Darrall and two friends of his who lived in the complex, Anthony Fowler and Cheryl Gibbs, were drinking at his unit, 107 on level nine. During the course of the afternoon, Fowler and Mr Darrall went to a local bottle shop in Macaulay Road, Kensington. They returned to Unit 107 where they continued to drink with Gibbs.
As the drinking continued through the evening, an argument broke out between Mr Darrall and Fowler. The argument developed into a physical confrontation, during which an allegation was made by Fowler that Mr Darrall was having an affair with Gibbs. During the course of the confrontation, Mr Darrall was punched by Fowler. Fowler obtained a knife from the kitchen and held it under the deceased's neck.
Gibbs attempted to intervene and was assaulted by Fowler. Fowler continued to assault Mr Darrall before leaving the unit, and approximately 20 minutes later Gibbs also left. When she got to her apartment in the complex at approximately 10.20 pm, she contacted emergency services and reported the assault. No police unit was available to attend to the matter.
At approximately 10.20 pm, onsite security guards Yusuf Ali and Simon Beale attended upon Mr Darrall in response to a noise complaint. Ali and Beale were familiar with Mr Darrall and spoke to him through the door, requesting him to turn his music down.
Earlier that afternoon at about 4.45 pm, you attended the office at Urban Communities, the agency responsible for management of the Ormond Street complex. Whilst at the office, you spoke to an employee, Hannah Cabebe, and threatened self-harm. Cabebe observed that you appeared intoxicated, and as a result of a concern for your welfare, she contacted emergency services and requested an ambulance to attend.
Before the ambulance arrived, you left the office and walked towards Macaulay Road. At approximately 5.30 pm, you were observed to be intoxicated, swearing, and yelling abuse at people before ultimately falling face first onto the ground in Haines Street, North Melbourne. Emergency services were called to attend to you and your facial injuries. You were taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital and admitted at 6.54 pm with facial injuries, including bleeding and swelling to the right side of your face.
Staff observed that you were combative, intoxicated, and you refused to provide information as to how your injuries had occurred. You left the hospital at 3.49 am on 20 October against medical advice. You returned to the Ormond Street complex, arriving at approximately 4.00 am. After arriving at the complex, you and Mr Darrall started drinking together on the ground floor, remaining there until approximately 4.45 am.
Following this, the two of you went to your unit, number 31, where you continued to drink. At approximately 5.00 am, one of your neighbours, Haluk Agis, contacted security and complained about loud music coming from your unit. In response to this complaint, Beale, one of the security men, attended and spoke to you, requesting that the music be turned down. Whilst speaking to you, Beale observed bruising to the right side of your face.
Agis continued to hear male voices and singing coming from your unit. At one point, he heard you say something in a loud, angry and threatening manner. At approximately 6.00 am, another neighbour of yours, Ross Nesbit, heard a male voice yell, ‘Fuck off, leave me alone,’ more than once. At approximately 7.24 am, you were seen on CCTV entering the lift on level 3 and exiting into the foyer. Approximately two minutes later, you were seen returning to the foyer and proceeding to level 3.
At about 8.15 am, one of your neighbours, Brian Mahany, left his unit on level 3 to go shopping. As he left, he saw Mr Darrall lying in the hallway outside the lift area. He saw that there was blood on his hand, but he was apparently still breathing. He did not report the matter to the emergency services.
At approximately 8.25 am, another neighbour, Karl Krautschneider, left his unit to catch a train. As he left, he also observed Mr Darrall lying in the hallway in the same position as that observed by Mr Mahany. Krautschneider approached Mr Darrall and tried to rouse him, but after receiving no response, he contacted emergency services. Emergency services personnel arrived at 8.34 am but were unable to revive Mr Darrall.
At approximately 9.20 am the police arrived and a trail of blood was observed to lead from Mr Darrall to your unit.
At 11.20 am, police entered your unit and saw blood on the outside of the middle security door and blood in the hallway. A large kitchen knife that appeared to be covered in blood was on a table and a second knife was on the floor in the centre of the room. You were found lying on a mattress in the lounge of the unit. You were arrested and conveyed to the City West police complex.
Later on that day, crime scene investigators attended your unit and examined it in detail, and found there was a significant area of blood pooling on the ground in the hallway where Mr Darrall had been observed by Mahany and Krautschneider. A small amount of low level projected blood on the wall adjacent to this blood pooling. Blood trailing from the blood pooling in the hallway back to the unit. Within the unit itself, a significant area of blood pooling was on the ground immediately inside the entry, and this was accompanied by low level projected blood on the wall surrounding the pooled blood, projected blood on the exterior surface of the main entry door and shoe impressions in wet blood leading from the pooled blood into the loungeroom.
The bloodstained knife found on the table in your unit was forensically examined and the handle of the knife was subjected to DNA analysis. The statistical analysis provided extremely strong support for the proposition that both you and Mr Darrall contributed to the DNA found on the knife.
On 21 October 2016, a forensic medical officer suggested that an independent third person be present during any interview with you, as you were suffering from possible alcohol withdrawal. A record of interview was conducted with you in the presence of an independent third person in which you said you had invited Mr Darrall up for a drink. It was getting late, a neighbour had complained about the music, and you went to sleep. For no reason, you woke up Mr Darrall and told him to leave. You said, ‘He’s just come up and gone “whack”, hit me there and busted me nose.’ You started hauling Mr Darrall out the door and grabbed the knife and told him to, ‘Piss off, fuck off.’
You went to close the door but Mr Darrall was trying to get back in and walked into the knife. You said in your interview, ‘I thought he was all right and pissed off back home.’ You said that you were a bit groggy when Mr Darrall elbowed you the first time, but said that the second time in the nose was it. Mr Darrall went to grab your wallet but did not get it, and that is when you said to him, ‘Fuck off, piss off out of here.’
You did not see him walk back through the door. You said, ‘I felt it. I could feel it. You could feel it hit something,’ but you did not realise he was dead. You were going to run for security people but it did not work out like that. You just went back to sleep.
You said that Mr Darrall never had any money and that you were a bit lonely and invited him for a sip. You thought you were going to die. You said that you had copped a flogging and had somebody trying to rob you. You said that Mr Darrall had the strength of 40 men. You thought that Mr Darrall might have been trying to chase you, but then his elbow hit the back of your head and your nose got busted.
You said that you tried to talk to Mr Darrall, but it was like something was not functioning in his brain, and it sort of escalated from there. You grabbed the knife when Mr Darrall would not leave and you told him to go fuck off and got him outside, and you felt Mr Darrall walk into the knife. You said that you did not want to kill him. You said you did not know which part of Mr Darrall’s body the knife connected with. You had met Mr Darrall on the night. He would have had a couple of drinks because you would not have let Mr Darrall into your unit sober.
You had been drinking on the day. You said you had had a large amount of alcohol. You had not any problems with Mr Darrall in the past. You did not see the blood until the next morning. You put the knife on a cabinet.
You thought that Mr Darrall had been at your flat for about an hour. You said that Mr Darrall asked you for money and when you told him you did not have any, he had just gone ‘whack, whack, whack’ a couple of times.
You said that your injuries down your left side and to your eye were caused by Mr Darrall, and that you had no injuries prior to Mr Darrall assaulting you. You said that the incident occurred on Wednesday night, not in the early hours of Thursday. You said that you had tried to get Mr Darrall out, but Mr Darrall was giving you a hiding and you thought you were going to die as Mr Darrall would not stop.
I should say in relation to that version of events, I have great difficulty in coming to any conclusion as to its veracity. In ordinary circumstances, it would have been that the injuries demonstrated by you would have been in support of that version of events. However, it is known that you had sustained injuries earlier in the day for which you had received treatment at hospital, and it is simply impossible to ascertain the veracity of that version of events.
I am, however, prepared to find in your favour that the events which led you to killing Mr Darrall arose out of some dispute between you and, at least in your alcohol-addled mind, there was some element of self-defence about your reaction. I will say more about that later.
In a post-mortem examination of Mr Darrall conducted on 20 October 2016, the forensic pathologist, Dr Essa Saeedi, found Mr Darrall to have a single stab wound to the left side of the chest which penetrated the rib, lung and heart. The wound direction was from top to bottom, front to back and left to right. The force required to cause the injuries was at least moderate to severe. A second stab wound was located over the sternum and further, Mr Darrall had a laceration on his inner left thumb consistent with a defensive injury. The cause of death was stab wound to the chest.
Toxicology analysis of Mr Darrall revealed that he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.3 per cent, and such a high level would be expected to significantly impair an individual’s motor coordination and could affect behaviour.
After your arrest, you spoke to a friend, Linda Garland, and you told her that the deceased, Mr Darrall, had been asleep on your floor and you woke him up telling him it was time to leave. Mr Darrall woke and began to walk towards the door when he turned on you and attacked you, and you said you thought you were going to be killed.
These are the matters that are put in the summary of events, and as I have already noted, I do not accept that the injuries on you were caused in the way that you have described. It should be noted that when you were taken to hospital the previous day, you had a blood alcohol of 0.41 per cent, and there is no reason to assume in relation to most of these events that you would be an accurate historian.
On the plea, I received victim impact statements from Helen Darrall, Mr Darrall’s mother, and Ms Kim Walker, his sister. Both of those statements were relatively brief but they are nonetheless moving. Both statements are yet another reminder of how far reaching the effects of violent conduct of this kind truly are. I have taken the victim impact statements into account in my sentencing of you.
As I have already observed, you are 59 years of age. You were brought up in Broadmeadows. You have one sister. Your mother is still alive but you have not been in touch with either of them in recent years. Your own childhood was difficult. Your father was an alcoholic. You suffered physical and sexual abuse at his hands up until the age of 13 and 14, although the physical abuse was more marked after that. Your schooling was difficult and you completed Year 10 and Broadmeadows Technical School. You were bullied on a regular basis.
You commenced an apprenticeship in boilermaking, and welding and fitting and turning. You trained during those years also to be a barman and you did casual work in that capacity. Your parents divorced when you were about 19 and you continued to live at home with your mother. For a short period of time, you worked as a welder with a gas and fuel corporation and you then worked for three years as a boilermaker manufacturing road tankers. During that time you also worked as a part time barman.
You enlisted in the army at age 22. For about the first four years in the army after some retraining, you used your welding and boilermaking skills to work on various equipment and doing repairs and maintenance. You later retrained as a chef and completed Certificates I and II in Commercial Catering. You did that until you were discharged in 1987. I suspect that that retraining came about at least in part because you had seriously injured your back at the time you were in the army.
Your recreation as a young man had been cycling and fishing. You left the army in 1987 and went back to boilermaking and welding, as well as part time work as both a chef and a barman. You had married when you were in the army. There were two children in the marriage. The marriage was difficult at least in part because of the various postings that you had in the army and you divorced in 1990. You have not had anything to do with your wife or children since then.
After the divorce, you were involved in another relationship and fathered two other children. You have not had contact with them since the last 1990s. You are in a relationship with Linda Garland. You had first met in 1993 but renewed that relationship in 2015. She has kept in contact with you and given you support.
It was in about 2001 that you started your involvement with the criminal system and you were first of all convicted of aggravated burglary and assault with a weapon and placed on a community-based order for 12 months. You breached that order, although the breach itself had no consequences. You were at that time directed to involve in treatment for your problems with alcohol. Over the following years, you were convicted or had findings of guilt in relation to street offences, mainly relating to the use of alcohol.
In 2012, you were placed on a community correction order for making a threat to kill. That order had assessment and treatment conditions relating to the use of alcohol and drugs. In the following years up to October 2015, you had four convictions for possessing cannabis.
During the early 2000s, you continued to work as a boilermaker with a large number of employers and also during that period, you were assaulted about the head on several occasions and had a number of alcohol related falls resulting in concussions.
In another incident, when you were the victim of an armed robbery, you received an injury to your arm which has led to you not being in a position to work since about 2004. Although during the whole of this period you tried to do something about your drinking, it was not, in the final analysis, very successful. For about 18 months around that time, you worked as a volunteer, cooking meals for homeless people at two different facilities, and you managed during that time to complete a computer course.
Your counsel put the matter in relation to your drinking in this way in his written submissions:
Over this same period, 2013 to 2016, Mr Curtin’s life was consumed by his alcohol and cannabis dependency and feelings of loneliness and isolation. Mr Curtin attempted a number of detoxification / treatment programs over this period, with little success. Mr Curtin’s life was confined to drinking and smoking cannabis alone and playing music within his apartment, calling the emergency services to report self-harm and sporadic contact with support workers, which were in effect a cry for attention and human contact. For example, in 2014, the police/paramedics attended Mr Curtin’s residence in excess of 26 times and upon presentation found him to be highly intoxicated.[1]
[1]Outline of Plea Submissions dated 26 March 2018 [44].
That strikes me as a fair summary of your life at the time that these events occurred.
On the plea, I received a report from Associate Professor Thomas Turnbull, dated 23 March 2018. That report indicated that you were diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in about 2003, possibly as late as 2005, and have not so far received treatment for it. At the time of his report, your general prognosis and life expectancy was not known and as I have already indicated, I adjourned the plea to get a further report.
I now have the report dated 7 May 2018 prepared by Dr Khai Li Chai, haematology registrar at St Vincent’s Hospital. It seems to me to follow from that report that you do not have any symptoms which require immediate treatment. You will be kept under review and are due to have a CT scan in the near future. Your condition does not apparently require treatment at the moment, but that is not to say that it will not require treatment in the future.
The general prognosis in relation to the condition from which you suffer is that it is treatable, and there is no reason to say at the moment that you have a significantly reduced life expectancy because of it. I have however taken it into account in a general way because you have that diagnosis.
A report from Mr Martin Jackson, a neuropsychologist, was tendered on the plea. It is a very comprehensive report. It was prepared for the purpose of reviewing your cognitive functioning. Mr Jackson carried out a number of tests and prepared a detailed report.
I have already noted that one of the features of dealing with you is the feature of your life which is that your life has been dominated by alcohol and cannabis.
Mr Jackson said this, and this is a useful summary of your use of alcohol and cannabis, and I quote under the heading Substance Abuse.
Mr Curtin stated that he stated that he started drinking alcohol at around 16 to 17, and by age 17 or 18 was drinking every day. He initially started with a couple of cans of beer a day, but when it became daily, he was drinking at least half a dozen cans per day. He stated that his drinking increased even more when he was in the military. He stated that he was generally ‘okay’ whilst he was drinking beer, but he ‘got the taste of whiskey’. By 1993 (aged around 35), he was drinking every day and he would consume at least two bottles of whiskey a week, and often a bottle of whiskey a day. He kept drinking at that rate until around seven or eight years ago. He stated this was a result of attending alcohol rehabilitation and that as part of his treatment, he got to the point where he was not drinking every day. However, he stated that he was bingeing (drinking heavily) three or days per fortnight. He stated that he last drank just prior to his arrest.
Mr Curtin also reported a long history of cannabis use. He started that up until about the age of 34, he would smoke about 0.5 ounces per week (2 grams) a day. However, he stated that his use of cannabis increased at around the age of 34 and he was having 1 to 1.5 ounces per week (4 to 6 grams daily). He stated that he last smoked cannabis just before his arrest.[2]
[2]Report of Mr Martin Jackson, Neuropsychologist, dated 12 March 2018, 2–3 (‘Jackson Report’)
There is also some details given of medication that you had commenced on, including Valium. He further reported under the heading Psychiatric History that you reported a long history of psychiatric issues, although you were somewhat blasé about it.
He stated that he had ‘a habit’ of trying to take his life, primarily by drinking whiskey, and taking Mogadon and Valium all at the same time. He had also tried to take his life by putting a heater in the bath with him.
As previously noted, Mr Curtin stated that he has become psychotic on cannabis at times.
Mr Curtin reported a history of depression, and he stated that he’d been admitted to the Psychiatric Unit at Royal Melbourne Hospital twice in the past. He said he was prescribed antidepressant medication about eight or nine years ago, but he stopped taking it because it made him impotent. He stated that he'd never been on antipsychotic medication.[3]
[3]Jackson Report, 4.
Later in dealing with his conclusions, Mr Jackson said this:
It should be noted that Mr Curtin has relatively little cognitive impairment given the extent of his use of Marijuana and alcohol in the past. Generally a person in their late 50’s or early 60’s who has drunk as much alcohol and smoked as much marijuana as Mr Curtin has, would have severe impairment of his executive function, memory and attention skills. He certainly is an extremely heavy drinker, which is evidenced by reports from the Royal Melbourne Hospital, which note that on an admission in October 2016, he had a blood alcohol of 0.41 and when admitted in 2015, had a blood alcohol of 0.31. For a person to get such high levels of blood alcohol reading and still be walking and talking, they would have to be extremely regular heavy drinkers, who had developed a major tolerance, Therefore, he could be considered very lucky to have sustained very little cognitive impairment.[4]
[4]Jackson Report, 16.
He went on further to say:
The results of the current neuropsychological assessment indicate that there has been no significant changes in Mr Curtin’s cognitive function in most areas since his initial neuropsychological assessment in 2012. Therefore, the cognitive impairment that’s seen in 2012 (and in subsequent assessments) in the areas of general intelligence, executive skills and basic attention remain. It is noted that the majority of his general intellectual abilities and executive skills are in the Average range, and those that aren’t, are generally in the Low Average range. As mentioned above, it’s not possible to determine what his real new learning memory abilities currently are, as he has not produced a valid profile on new learning and memory tasks. However, it can certainly be noted that the impairment that was seen back in 2012 would certainly have been present at the time of the offending behaviour in 2016.
It is also clear that it is highly likely that the real cognitive impairment that Mr Curtin does have, is of a permanent nature. He has now been abstinent for alcohol (and other drugs since October 2016), which is 15 months [at the time of the report I inter below]. Given that there had been no change in most aspects of cognition from the 2012 to 2017 and to the current assessment, would indicate his cognitive performances are stable and the impairment that he has is permanent. It’s just difficult to determine exactly what the degree of the impairment is.[5]
[5]Ibid.
Mr Jackson had been asked to consider a number of specific questions. In answer to the question, ‘If my client does not currently have a condition or is symptom free, what is the likelihood of the relapse of the condition?’.
He answered this:
The major condition that Mr Curtin would have had at the time of the offending was a severe Substance Abuse Disorder, both alcohol and cannabis. He of course is currently symptom-free from both of those disorders, and he has an enforced period of abstinence since incarceration in October 2016. Given the long history of extremely heavy use of alcohol and cannabis, there is a high likelihood of relapse of his substance abuse conditions once he is released from prison.[6]
[6]Jackson Report, 17.
Later he says to the question ‘Did the condition cause or contribute to the offending behaviour?’
It’s highly likely the substance abuse problems contributed to his offending behaviour, as at those very high levels of intoxication, he would have practically no problem solving ability and would simply be reacting to triggers going on around him in the environment. If the deceased had in fact attacked him as indicated, then given his high level of intoxication, he would have simply used whatever means available to him without any thought of the consequences or potential outcomes. This is also indicated to a degree perhaps by the fact that he just closed the door and went back to bed.[7]
[7]Jackson Report, 18.
Under the heading ‘Recommendations and proposals for future treatment’, Mr Jackson said:
The main recommendation is that Mr Curtin is to remain abstinent from all substances (alcohol, Marijuana etc) in the future. Whilst this will occur in prison because he will not have access, this need to continue to occur once he is released from prison. If he goes back to smoking Marijuana and drinking alcohol, then there’s a higher likelihood of exacerbation of behaviours. Therefore, treatment would focus on Substance Abuse Disorder and he would benefit from referral back to a drug and alcohol service. Even if it ends up being in prison for a number of years, it would still be important for him to be referred to a drug and alcohol service upon his release to try and prevent lapses and relapses.[8]
[8]Ibid.
I interpolate there of course, that will be a matter for the parole board. It would also be recommended that he is referred to a clinical psychologist and psychiatrist for potential treatment regarding his past history of trauma and issues with anxiety and PTSD.
To the question, ‘Will imprisonment adversely affect his mental health or make it more difficult for him than it would be for a person who does not have this condition?’, Mr Jackson said:
Imprisonment is unlikely to adversely affect his mental health and would make it more difficult than it would for a person who does not have these conditions (cognitive impairment and mental health conditions). His main problematic condition was actually substance abuse and a period of imprisonment actually resulted in a period of enforced abstinence. His cognition is only mildly affected and would not prevent him from learning the routines of prison and being able to problem solve himself in basic situations.
And, further, to the question ‘What are the prospects of rehabilitation and the likelihood of reoffending?’:
I would certainly have concerns about his prospects of rehabilitation once he is released from prison, given his very long history of extremely high use of alcohol and Marijuana. He would be at a high risk of lapsing and relapsing once he is released into the community, especially if he does not have any support or intervention. The positive is that he reports that when he went to DASWest five years ago, this did result in a significant reduction of his drinking and alcohol, although he binged heavily three or four days of the fortnight.
I am of the opinion that the likelihood of re-offending correlated with the likelihood of a return to significant substance abuse. If he can remain abstinent from substances upon his release from prison, then the likelihood of re-offending is reduced. He does not have a neuropsychological condition that would increase the risk of offending per se in that he doesn’t have a disorder of impulse control or problem solving.[9]
[9]Jackson Report, 19.
So they were the matters reported by Mr Jackson and I received that on the plea, and I have taken his findings into account insofar as they do affect what sentence might be imposed.
The offending is a reasonably serious example of the crime of manslaughter because it involves use of the knife. It is not, however, premeditated or sustained. On your version of events about which I have already made comments and findings, there is an element of self-defence but your reaction to it was entirely disproportionate to any threat you faced, and by your plea you have accepted that.
It is clear that your alcohol addiction played a major part in this offending. Although it is likely that your alcoholism is at least in part a consequence of your upbringing, including the fact that your father was an alcoholic and that he abused you, and introduced you to alcohol, I do not regard that as a circumstance that mitigates your offending because it is simply impossible at this stage of events to calculate what effect that might have had in the way that it relates to your offending.
The law has generally not accepted that intoxication will act in a manner of mitigation for those who are practised drinkers and who know what effects alcohol have on them. In certain circumstances it has been found that the fact of intoxication might be a matter in aggravation. I have not proceeded on that basis in your case.
You cooperated with the police. You made admissions. You pleaded guilty at an appropriate stage so that I regarded your plea as being an early plea, and I have taken those matters into account. As I have said, you are 59. I do not regard your criminal history as being of any particular consequence in relation to the question of sentencing you, and I note that you have not previously been in prison, and again I have taken those matters into account.
It is clear to me that your sentence will be a little more onerous because of your health, and I have taken into account the possibility that the consequences of your diagnosis of leukaemia may be more significant than they are presently understood to be.
I regard you as being remorseful in your own way, as is indicated from the material from Mr Jackson and in relation to the matters that were put to me on your behalf on the plea. Your prospects of rehabilitation are very hard to assess. But ultimately, it will be your ability to refrain from the use of alcohol and other drugs of dependence which will govern that question, and indeed govern the question of whether you can make something of your life after you are released from prison.
General deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are relevant considerations in sentencing you, as are the principles of general deterrence which are linked at least in part to what I have already said about your prospects of rehabilitation.
I was provided with the details and copies of a number of sentences in relation to people who have been convicted of this offence. Those individual sentences are not of great assistance but are relevant at least in making an assessment of what current sentencing practices are. Insofar as they are relevant in that way, I have taken them into account.
If you would stand up please, Mr Curtin.
You will be sentenced to be in prison for eight years with a non-parole period of six years. Had it not been for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 10 years in prison but with a non-parole period of 8 years. I declare 568 days of pre-sentence detention as have already been served under this sentence, and I order that my indication under s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 and the declaration as to pre-sentence detention be entered in the records of the Court.
---
0
0
0