Director of Public Prosecutions v Doo

[2019] VCC 1761

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA  Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

AT LATROBE VALLEY
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-18-02602

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JACOB DOO

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMALLWOOD
WHERE HELD:	Latrobe Valley
DATE OF HEARING:	30 October 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 October 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Doo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1761

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr R. Hammill	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Brennan	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR: 

1Jacob Grant Doo, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing injury and one charge of prohibited person possess a firearm.  That firearm was an under over 12 gauge shotgun.  Each of those crimes carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.  You are 29 years of age.  You pleaded guilty to a settled indictment and whilst remorse is problematic, I will give you the benefit of the doubt about that.

2Clearly, you must get the utilitarian benefit of that plea and being a settled indictment, one can work on the basis that it was at a reasonably early opportunity.  There has also been a delay since the offending occurred and without attributing responsibility of that to anybody, it's clearly a matter of some significance.

3You do have prior convictions.  They essentially seem to relate to a drug milieu.  There is one in relation to a firearm but I understand from the Bar table that it is agreed that it is essentially a homemade plumbers cannon or something.  But in any event, whilst those priors are of concern, they really just indicate that your counsel's submission that you have operated relatively drug affected since your mid-teens in in fact correct.

4A summary of the offending can be done in brief compass.  I will direct that the Crown opening remain on the court file so that anybody with a genuine interest can look at it.

5What happened here was that a Mr Shillinglaw had a dispute with a Mr Gray over a woman, it would appear.  The two of them had verbal altercations and essentially at one point threatened to shoot each other.  Mr Shillinglaw then enlisted a number of people to go with him to deal with Mr Gray.  You were one of those.

6Upon arrival at Gray's premises, the group was in possession of knuckle dusters and a shotgun.  They got out of the car.  It is clear that the shotgun was in
Mr Rice's hands and Mr Rice in fact took the shotgun into the premises.  This was all on 27 July 2017.  I accept for these sentencing purposes that the shotgun was taken because of the fear that Gray may be armed which in itself is a fairly dangerous proposition that could have turned into a shootout.

7In any event, you did not go inside the house and the other two have been charged with home invasion.  I sentenced them and they received far more significant sentences than you will be receiving but that is for fairly obvious reasons.  After the assault on Gray outside, he went inside the house and was followed by three but not you.

8In the house, so the Crown opening went, the shotgun was leant against the wall and Mr Gray, who clearly I think had experience with firearms was able to get to it and discharge it.  It is said by Mr Gray that he discharged it by simply shooting against a wall.  Whether Mr Shillinglaw was just very, very lucky or not, I do not know.  But the end result of all that was that you heard the shot and ran towards the house.

9The three that ran out of the house with the gun and you were given possession of the gun and you unloaded it.  It would seem that you must have been pretty concerned about what happened at that stage and the possession of the firearm albeit very brief is, in realistic terms, an attempt to get rid of a weapon which had been used in a serious criminal offence, whatever that criminal offence might have been.  Accordingly, whilst it is only a momentary possession, it is an effective possession designed towards, it would seem, on the face of it at least concealing what may have occurred inside.

10I am not going to sentence on a speculative basis but this is not some sort of totally innocent handling of a shotgun, this is the handling of a weapon that has been discharged during the course of a home invasion and has to be regarded as serious.

11Gaol, in my view, is the only option available here and it is agreed by the parties effectively that you have now, having done 379 days, done sufficient gaol.

12I gave Shillinglaw six months for the assault that you have pleaded to and I gave Rice three months.  Rice was an aider and abettor.  So far as the firearm was concerned, there was double punishment involved there and I had to be careful what I gave for that as I gave years of imprisonment for the home invasion.

13I agree as just indicated that the time you have served is clearly sufficient in all these circumstances.  I then therefore very briefly refer to your personal circumstances.  You are now 29.  You went to Year 11 at school, and have done a carpentry apprenticeship.  You clearly have strong family support.  You have a very good work record since leaving school and drugs have been a problem.

14You have now been in custody for a significant period of time.  You have used that custody well.  The urine screens that have been provided to me indicate that you have been clean during that time in custody and you are now obviously detoxified.  Whether you go into a program upon your release, which will be today, is entirely a matter for you but I strongly suggest that you do.

15You have completed a number of courses within the MRC which are all to your credit.  You have been working in the laundry for six hours a day, around about five days a week.  You have been put in lockdown on occasion, but as I say, for someone in your circumstances, you have shown a great deal of common sense in the way that you have utilised your period of time in custody.

16The prospects of your rehabilitation are realistically up to you.  The risk of you reoffending is dependent upon your rehabilitation. 
It would seem, looking at your offending, that whilst drugs may be responsible for it in part, it seems to me to be the milieu in which you were mixing.  That is probably the greatest player in all of this.  What the four of you thought you were doing going around with one gun, believing that the other person may be armed as well to have some sort of Al Capone type shootout is extremely concerning.  If you continue to engage with people who are prepared to do that sort of thing, you might find yourself in a very different jurisdiction, serving a very long sentence indeed.

17However, that is not the case here and I am sure you are intelligent enough and your family are fully aware that the risks you take if you go back into that drug scenario.

18Having taken all of those matters into account, the submissions of counsel are correct and what I propose to do is sentence you to be imprisoned for an aggregate of 379 days.  I direct that 379 days be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.

19Section 6AAA becomes meaningless here because the others were dealt with for home invasion and you would have been on trial for home invasion, but in any event, for the purpose of the records, I will say that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of imprisonment for a period of 450 days.

20I have made the forfeiture order?

21MR HAMMILL:  Yes, Your Honour.

22HIS HONOUR:  There are no other orders I need to make?

23MR HAMMILL:  No, Your Honour.

24HIS HONOUR:  For obvious reasons, I do not impose a non-parole period for 379 days.  We will just leave it at that.  All right.  So it is time served.  You have got to go back to the cells while they check it out before you can be released, so it might be a little while before you are released but all things being equal, if there are no warrants out, you will be released today.

‑ ‑ ‑