Director of Public Prosecutions v Doyle
[2024] VCC 2062
•17 December 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-24-00896
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| HAYDEN THOMAS DOYLE |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE RIDDELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 December 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 17 December 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Doyle | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 2062 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Sentence --- Intentionally Cause Injury
Catchwords: Intentionally Cause Injury --- One punch violence --- General Deterrence --- Victim sustained acquired brain injury --- Traumatic brain injury and neurocognitive disorder with long term consequences --- Plea of Guilty --- Delay --- Remorse --- Younger offender --- No prior criminal history --- No subsequent offending --- Excellent prospects of rehabilitation
Sentence: 427 Days imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms J. Piggott | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr A. Malik |
HER HONOUR:
1Hayden Doyle I am now to sentence you for one charge of Intentionally Causing Injury. That offence was committed by you on 27 October 2019. It reflects your single punch to the head of Mr Alex Van Staveren.
2
At the time of the offending you were 25 years old and living in Frankston.
Mr Van Staveren was 33 years old when the offending occurred. He was married to Jessica Van Staveren, and they had a young child together. You did not know each other before the night of this offence.
Circumstances of the Offending
3On 26 October 2019, both of you had been at the Deck bar in Frankston with different groups of people. Mr Van Staveren had accompanied his wife to attend a birthday party. He was in a group with other family and friends. They had been present since about 5:30 pm with the party finishing about 8 pm.
4You were in attendance with your friends who were celebrating the end of a week of a boxing training camp with your group called Almost Boxing Legends. You had a friend Matteo Luisetto who was part of that boxing camp. He happened to be a mutual friend of Mr Van Staveren.
5You and Mr Luisetto had been drinking at your home before attending the Deck. You arrived at about 8.30 pm.
6Mr Van Staveren spent much of the night upstairs outside at the Deck bar with friends. At about 2 am, no doubt when both groups had consumed a lot of alcohol, Mr Van Staveren went to an upstairs bathroom. He came across two of your male friends who he spoke to. That conversation became an aggressive one before the three men separated and Mr Van Staveren returned to his wife and friends.
7You in turn spoke to those two friends before walking towards Mr Van Staveren and his group who were sitting at a table. You were aggressive, leaning in and touching Mr Van Staveren's chest to get his attention. CCTV showed his wife holding her hands up to separate you from her husband. You spoke aggressively to him before walking back to your friends.
8You were promptly ejected from the venue.
9Initially you stayed outside near an exit door, before moving to sit on steps at the entrance of the venue.
10At about 2.42 am Mr Van Staveren, his wife and friends left the Deck Bar, walking along Nepean Highway towards fast food outlets.
11In doing so they passed you. They crossed to the other side of the road. Mr Van Staveren recalled seeing you pointing at him and hearing words to the effect ‘There he is. Let’s get him’.
12You ran after Mr Van Staveren's group who were walking across the intersection. Your group of friends followed.
13There was then pushing and shoving between the two groups.
14Security ran over and intervened, separating the groups. You were observed by a security guard Mr Nikolakopoulos to be ‘extremely aggressive.’ Your friends were trying to calm you down and one of them grabbed you, but you fended him off. This occurred near the entrance to the Grand Hotel. Mr Nikolakopoulos returned to his post and you were still arguing with your friends.
15Both groups then crossed Davey Street. You again pursued Mr Van Staveren along Davy Street. Outside the Grand Hotel there was further pushing shoving and shouting between the two groups. The Prosecution accept that there was mutual aggression demonstrated, although it is apparent that you were the one in pursuit and you were aggressive. You accept you could have walked away.
16Both you and Mr Van Staveren were physically restrained by your mutual friend Mr Luisetto. He tried to pull you away, but you shrugged him off.
17A short time later, Mr Van Staveren and his wife were standing on the footpath talking to Mr Luisetto. Mr Luisetto attempted to push Mr Van Staveren backwards down the street towards the Grand Hotel. Mr Van Staveren was questioning his friendship with Mr Luisetto.
18At that point, you walked towards them and you punched Mr Van Staveren hard to the right side of his head with a closed fist. His head spun and he fell ‘like a dead weight’. On hitting the ground his head fell backwards onto the footpath and was observed to bounce.
19You immediately said ‘I fucked up’. You were told by a friend to leave and you did so, running east on Davey Street.
20In the period immediately after, you exchanged messages with Mr Luisetto claiming to have been 'looking out for him' and 'standing up for him'. You were concerned about being named. You stated you could be in 'serious trouble' if Luisetto did not say you were defending yourself. You acknowledged that you 'fucked up and could have walked away'.
21You were identified by Mr Van Staveren's wife and arrested. At interview on 1 November 2019 you made no comment.
The victim’s injuries
22Immediately after he was hit, Mr Van Staveren's wife rang Triple 0. She noted that Mr Van Staveren was going in and out of consciousness. He was bleeding from the mouth.
23Ambulance and police arrived at 2.58 am. Mr Van Staveren was conscious. He had dried blood in his mouth. A cervical collar was placed on his neck. He was medicated for nausea. He was able to answer questions but did not know exactly what had occurred.
24He went to Frankston Hospital and had a CT brain scan and X-rays. They revealed a fractured skull and bleeding on his brain. He had an undisplaced skull fracture underlying a large blood collection on the scalp at the right rear of his head.
25He was diagnosed as having a contre coup subarachnoid haemorrhage overlying frontal lobes on both sides of his brain. There were 5 millimetre bleeding bruises on the lower frontal aspects of his brain. There was a blood collection on the right side of the scalp. He also had a swollen upper lip and tenderness on the right check.
26He was conveyed via ambulance to the Alfred Hospital where he received specialist care and referral to neurology for follow up. He was commenced on anti-seizure mediation.
27A further CT confirmed the skull fracture to the rear of his head, but no further bleeding.
28He was discharged from the Alfred Hospital on 30 October 2019 and referred to Occupational Therapy, neurological rehabilitation and was prescribed fatigue medication.
29He attended Frankston Hospital on 4 November 2019 with symptoms of ongoing headache, dizziness, nausea, left side hearing issues, left side facial numbness and tingling.
30Dr Jason Schreiber, forensic physician, at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine provided a report with respect to the injury suffered. He could not say whether the extent of injury to Mr Van Staveren was caused by the punch, or by his head hitting the ground. He believed it was not possible to quantify the force required to produce the injuries, however, in a healthy person of the victim's age, significant force would be necessary to produce the injuries. He opined that there was a future risk of seizures and ongoing cognitive and psychological problems.
31On 4 June 2020, Mr Van Staveren underwent a neuropsychological assessment and was diagnosed with an Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) and a Mild Neurocognitive Disorder due to Traumatic Brain Injury. He was assessed as having injury to his frontal lobes and was likely to experience some degree of enduring emotional and cognitive impairment.19
Victim impact
32The victim impact statements from Jessica Van Staveren, Alex Van Staveren, and other members of his family were tendered at the plea before me. They make for very sad reading. They confirm that Mr Van Staveren has experienced the ongoing emotional and cognitive impairment foreshadowed in the neuropsychological assessment.
33Mr Van Staveren described waking up on the ground thinking he was going to die. He said the time in hospital was a frightening experience where he was unable to use the toilet unassisted or write his own name. He said that after discharge from hospital the 'real trauma' began. He described experiencing nausea, fatigue and constant headaches that prevented him from playing with his two‑year old son. He described becoming abusive and unable to control his emotions. He separated from his wife and was unable to spend time with his son alone. He said he felt like a burden and wanted to commit suicide.
34Returning to the workforce, he said he would make costly mistakes due to his weakened motor skills and that impacts his self-worth. He said that he now has little to do with anyone. He has lost connections with his friends and his extended family. The impact of your offending is ongoing for him every day.
35Jessica Van Staveren said, in her statement, that the man she met, married, and started a family with has gone and to this day has not returned. She described the impact on her son and his behavioural changes. She described the difficulties of becoming a single parent, working full time, not knowing when things might return to normal, and experiencing recurring nightmares from the night. She described Mr Van Staveren as often waking up crying. She stated her family will never be the same, but she is thankful her husband is alive.
36Mr Van Staveren’s father, Mark, described the impact of your offending as an ongoing nightmare. He now avoids confrontations and even normal interactions with others. He grieves for the person his son was before the incident. Mr Van Staveren's mother, Carolyn, said this injury was the beginning of the worst time of her life and she would not wish this on any family. His brother and sister described witnessing his mental health deteriorate and fearing their brother would harm himself. They said their brother constantly battles with the trauma from that night.
37In addition to the medical evidence in this case, the victim impact statements clearly provide evidence of the ongoing emotional and cognitive impairment that Mr Van Staveren has suffered since the night of this offence. This is a significant matter in sentencing in this case although it is trite to say that any sentence I impose will not reverse the impact on Mr Van Staveren or his family.
Sentencing Principles
38It is largely because of those types of devastating consequences that the sentencing principles of denunciation and general deterrence are paramount considerations in a matter such as this. The potent combination of younger men, alcohol and verbal aggression morphing into an act of physical violence which causes devastating consequences for its victim must be met by condign punishment.
39As the Court of Appeal said in DPP v Russell,
Random street violence is a scourge on our society. Typically, the violence is brief and unpremeditated but it has profound and enduring consequences. Innocent people are killed or seriously injured; their families are devastated; their communities disrupted. And the outburst of violence is ruinous for the offender, too. Imprisonment with all its destructive consequences is virtually inevitable, as is the shame and embarrassment felt by the offender’s family.
40Those comments were made 10 years ago and continue to be apposite. The risks of one punch hits on unsuspecting victims is well known. The sentence I impose must deter others from acting in such a cowardly way. It must also deter you from doing so.
41In assessing the objective gravity of your offence, I take into account the following matters.
42I accept, as confirmed by the Prosecution, that there was mutual aggression demonstrated by you and by Mr Van Staveren. However, it was you who pursued him. Security were involved at three stages. Your friends tried to restrain and subdue you, but you persisted.
43Further, it was you who punched Mr Van Staveren without warning. He had no opportunity to protect himself or react.
44The punch was forceful and was to the head. I must see it in the context of you being someone with some amateur boxing experience.
45You did not stay to offer assistance to him, although as confirmed this morning on the plea, the Prosecution accept that was largely because you were told to go.
46The injury caused is undoubtedly at the upper end of a cause injury charge.
47Your moral culpability in all those circumstances is high.
48I take into account that your plea is to a charge of intentionally causing injury. That is, although the injury actually caused is very serious, the prosecution accept, and you admit, that your intention on punching Mr Van Staveren was to injure him not cause serious injury.
49The offence of causing injury intentionally encompasses many different factual scenarios from repeated and prolonged assault including with weapons, to the situation here involving a moment in time and a single blow with a fist. It covers the range of injury from a mere scratch or minor cut, to the type of injury here.
50While the nature of injury caused is of course relevant, it must be borne in mind that the nature of the injury is not determinative of the sentence. The intention was to injure, not reckless to the type of serious injury which in fact resulted and in no way intending such an outcome.
51In the circumstances here I have found it difficult to assess the objective gravity of your offence. It was not premeditated, but neither was it spontaneous. You had opportunity to desist. I accept the Prosecution's submission that you persisted. On the other hand, it was not a prolonged or repetitive attack but was a single action. The consequences have undoubtedly been devastating. In my view it is a serious example of the offence, largely because such an outcome is a known risk of such an event, particularly a punch to the head, and because of the injuries which resulted.
52The maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.
53Your counsel accepted that a term of imprisonment is warranted for this offending. I agree. It is not unusual that an offender in a case such as this might be a person of otherwise good character, or who has acted rashly, in the context of alcohol. None of those features are likely to save an offender from imprisonment.
Procedural History
54Before I refer to your personal circumstances I will refer to the history of this matter.
55This incident occurred on 27 October 2019. You were charged soon after and, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic the matter proceeded through the Magistrates Court during 2020 and into 2021. On 11 March 2021 an offer to plead guilty to a charge of recklessly cause serious injury was made. Your Counsel at that time apparently believed the matter would be dealt with in the Magistrates Court by consent. The prosecution opposed summary jurisdiction, and the Magistrate committed you to this court.
56
Thereafter new Counsel were involved and issues relating to the use of
self-defence were raised. The matter then proceeded through the County Court towards a trial. There were a number of delays in that course including adjournments as a result of funding issues, and the need for s198B hearings.
57Ultimately your case proceeded to trial and on 14 February 2023 you were convicted of one charge of recklessly cause serious injury.[1] You were sentenced on 3 April 2023 to a term of imprisonment and on that date you were remanded into custody.
[1] Not guilty verdicts were returned to a charge of intentionally causing serious injury and make threat to kill.
58You successfully appealed against your conviction on 31 May 2024. On that day you were bailed by the Supreme Court, having spent approximately 14 months in custody. Your matter was remitted for retrial in this Court.
59After a directions hearing in August 2024, and with the agreement of the prosecution, your matter was listed for a sentence indication on a single charge of intentionally causing injury. For that purpose, your matter came before me on 11 December 2024.
Delay
60The consequence of that history is that you are now five years on from the time of this offence. At the time you were a young offender, being a 25 year old young man. You are now 30 years old.
61You had no prior criminal history of any kind.
62Your background is outlined in submissions of your counsel. Essentially you were raised by your mother and stepfather. Your mother is a social worker and your stepfather works in construction management.
63You enjoyed a stable, loving and supportive home environment. You completed school to the end of Year 10 then completed a Certificate II in Building and Construction at TAFE before completing two years of an apprenticeship as a carpenter. You worked in landscaping then building before returning to complete your qualification as a carpenter.
64You have had a solid work history stemming from the time you were 15 and including a period as a sole trader subcontracting to various construction companies. Prior to your imprisonment you were working as a concrete pump operator.
65Apart from a period of 12 months where you lived with a partner, you have lived at home with your parents.
66You have now been through the legal process and have spent over a year of your life in custody.
67You have been on strict bail conditions both prior to your trial and after your successful appeal. Those included an alcohol exclusion condition, and a condition which prevents you from entering any licenced premises other than cafes or restaurants. You have not breached your bail in any way.
68You have not reoffended in any way.
69You have experienced, as a first timer, the prison environment. To your credit, you made the most of your time, engaging in courses and in employment. You were engaged in the prison kitchen, a trusted position due to the fact two women were working in the prison kitchen, and due to the nature of the facilities and work.
70You were housed at Fulham Correction Centre. Within eight weeks you were entrusted to live in one of the cottages.
71Nonetheless, prison was a salutary experience for you. You described it as depressing and isolating. Your relationship and career were on hold. You suffer anxiety and were medicated with diazepam. Imprisonment has had a significant deterrent effect.
72Your Counsel relies on that delay in final resolution of this matter. Mr Malik submits that I can take it into account in the two recognised ways: first, because you have had serious charges hanging over you for five years. That is anxiety provoking. It placed your life on hold. It is difficult to work and to continue with life in those circumstances and yet that is what you have managed to do.
73Second, you have used your time to engage in rehabilitation. Prior to trial you self-referred and engaged in psychological counselling over a period of two years from November 2019 to November 2021. You attended eight counselling appointments with Psychologist Tony Vickers-Willis. Mr Vickers-Willis states you actively participated and engaged openly during these sessions, including describing the incident that led to the offending, your arrest and related time spent in custody at your initial brief remand.
74Mr Vickers-Willis describes you as actively participating and engaging openly during sessions. You were able to discuss your offending and its consequences, both for Mr Van Staveren and yourself. He says ‘He expressed regret for his actions, and empathy for the injuries he caused to his victim’. You told him you had not previously acted in this matter, and that the shock of your own impulsive aggressive act caused you significant distress which led to a withdrawal from your normal activities.
75You sought out help and took up referral by your psychologist to resources for anger management and anxiety support. You are described by him as gaining ‘helpful insight into his own emotional triggers, and learnt some practical techniques to better control his reactions’. You reported no similar flare ups in the period of your counselling.
76You have managed to stay alcohol free over the last five years. If you ever had, you do not have an ongoing problem with alcohol.
77You have abided by other restrictive conditions of bail. As I have stated, you have also stayed offence free for five years, most of which time you have been in the community.
78On release from your imprisonment after your Appeal you obtained work again. You have full time employment as a Concrete Pump Operator, working six days per week and working approximately 8-10 hours per day.
79You live with your parents in their family home.
80You have a relationship which you commenced in 2022. Your partner is obviously aware of your offending. You and she maintained your relationship throughout your incarceration and post your release. She is supportive of you.
81You are variously described in written references from your family and friends as a gentle, loving and empathetic person. This show of violence is out of character.
82According to Nathan Tolhurst, who has known you since Grade 5, you are a loyal, caring and honest friend. You are a hard worker, committed to the early mornings and long days of your chosen trade.
83He says he felt ‘compelled’ to write as the altercation was completely out of character for you. He says when he spoke to you at the time, he recalls 'seeing the remorse and absolute anguish about harming someone'. He says you have reflected a lot to him about that night. You have discussed doing things differently if faced with the same circumstances.
84He also describes the fact your life has been in limbo since October 2019 and attests to your efforts to better yourself and contribute to society.
85Your grandmother who has been in court, also writes of the fact you have 'always been a great young man' and never in any trouble before or since. You are close and connected to your family. You are a hard worker. She speaks of your good deeds to her and your grandfather, and of your close and longstanding friendships. Your aunt who has also been present writes in 2023 expressing similar sentiments including describing you as ‘calm, mature and stable’. She believes if given the chance you will give back to society in a most positive way.
86I take those matters into account.
Plea of Guilty
87I also take into account your plea of guilty to this charge. I note your early offer to a more serious charge back in 2021.
88Your plea of guilty can be viewed as entered at an early stage of the matter being remitted to this Court.
89It is a plea with considerable benefit. Ms Piggott fairly conceded that your plea has significant utilitarian benefit. She outlined that the re-running of your trial would have difficulties and would likely involve the re-calling of witnesses. It is not a situation where a retrial could occur 'on the tapes'. That is a result of the fact that a lot of evidence involved CCTV and involved witnesses in the witness box having to watch and identify themselves or other people from the CCTV as it was simultaneously shown to the jury. I take that utilitarian benefit into account. It is significant.
90I also take into account that saving the victim, his family and friends and a number of other witnesses from having to relive this event is also a very important consideration.
91Importantly, I accept your plea of guilty is an expression of your remorse. You acknowledge the profound impact of your behaviour on Mr Van Staveren and the life changing effect that has had on him and those around him. You have expressed your remorse for that situation and empathy for the injuries caused to Mr Van Staveren, as I have outlined.
92A plea which is an expression of genuine remorse entitles an offender to a significant discount in sentencing. That is so because it is a matter which bodes well for real insight and for positive prospects of rehabilitation.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
93I accept that you are far advanced towards full rehabilitation. In my view you have developed good insight into your offending and have done work towards avoiding any similar situation. The Prosecution concede that your plea and acknowledgement that you intended to injure the victim is demonstrative of an evolution of insight. Fairly, Ms Piggott conceded that your prospects of rehabilitation are significant.
94In my view your prospects are excellent. In my view specific deterrence has very little work to do here.
Submissions on sentence
95Mr Malik on your behalf submits that the appropriate sentence in all of those circumstances of one of imprisonment which reflects the time already served in custody.
96The Prosecution submit that the only appropriate disposition is a term of imprisonment, however conceded that such a term could be imposed in combination with a community corrections order. In written submissions Ms Piggott further confirms the Prosecution accept that the time you have already served in imprisonment meets the sentencing objectives, however that it should be followed by a CCO. She relies on the need for general deterrence in particular given the prevalence of alcohol fuelled violence, the need for denunciation and community protection, and the serious consequences for the victim.
97Mr Malik submits that a CCO is not appropriate, noting the charge to which you are pleading guilty and given the significant mitigating features here, particularly, the history of your matter and consequent delay, that you have achieved rehabilitation in the intervening period, that you have not reoffended in any way, and that you have now pleaded guilty at an early stage. He submits those features of your case mean that the time you have served in custody is sufficient to meet the sentencing objectives.
Current sentencing practices
98I have considered current sentencing practices, including consideration of cases on the Judicial College of Victoria Sentencing Manual summaries. As I outlined there are many and varied instances of causing injury intentionally, and always differences between offence and offender. Ultimately, I am required to impose a just sentence in all the circumstances of this case and that is what I have endeavoured to do.
99Taking into account the mitigating features I have outlined, I accepted that the sentencing objectives here could be met by the time you have already served and indicated that I would not return you to custody. The issue for me to determine was whether that term of imprisonment should be accompanied by a CCO. For that purpose I had you assessed.
100You are assessed as suitable for such an order.
101Ms Piggott submitted that there is still insight to be gained towards full rehabilitation and that that could be achieved via a community corrections order; in particular in circumstances where it is submitted that your offence on this occasion was not spontaneous but involved mutual episodes of pursuing the victim. She submitted that unpaid community work could serve to further deter you and others; and that ongoing alcohol treatment could ensure the gains already made are maintained.
102I have considered those matters. I accept that the mandatory conditions of a community corrections order are punitive in the way the Court of Appeal outlined in Boulton v R.[2] It is unusual for a community corrections order to be imposed with only core conditions.
[2]
103Ordinarily a CCO will include the additional punishment aspect of unpaid community work. Here, you have served the most punitive penalty by going into custody. You are now gainfully employed, working full time and long hours. You are making a contribution to the community and to your positive future in that way. In my view unpaid community work is not appropriate or necessary in those circumstances.
104The other purpose of a community correction order is generally to enhance rehabilitation and specific deterrence. To that end, commonly a CCO will include supervision and therapeutic conditions. Supervision constitutes both an oversight for an offender and allows for the therapeutic benefit of discussion with a corrections officer to gain insight into their offending and to monitor the offender's progress. The condition of ongoing supervision is not recommended by the assessor here.
105You have no mental health issues, and that condition is also specifically not recommended by the assessors.
106Although an alcohol assessment and treatment condition is endorsed, it is not clear to me that you ever had a problematic alcohol addiction. You currently do not and have been abstinent for five years. You are able to report the benefits.
107Although an offence behaviour condition such as anger management is endorsed, I do not accept that you have an anger management problem. Your good character before and since, as attested to by those who know you well, supports that conclusion. Your therapeutic involvement with Mr Vickers-Willis specifically addressed the details of this offence and importantly, how you could act differently if confronted with a similar scenario in future. He gave you specific reference to anger management resources, which you took up.
108In short, I do not see that there is work for a community correction order to do. In addition, in my view you have been under a reasonably stringent regime in the community for five years and have served your time in custody. Those matters should deter you from any future offending and I have confidence that they will.
109Although I am satisfied that imprisonment is warranted in your case, my conclusion is the time you have already served is the appropriate sentence in all the circumstances here. I do not propose to impose that term in combination with a community corrections order.
110Mr Doyle, if you could stand up.
111Mr Doyle, on the charge of Intentionally causing injury you are convicted and sentenced to 427 days' imprisonment.
112I declare that you have already served 427 days pre-sentence detention and that that period should be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.
113But for your plea of guilty the sentence I would have imposed would have been a term of three years' imprisonment with a non parole period of 18 months' imprisonment. You can be seated, thank you.
114HER HONOUR: Thanks very much counsel for your assistance.
- - -
0
0
0