Director of Public Prosecutions v Dummelow
[2023] VCC 645
•21 April 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Suitable for Publication | |
AT BALLARAT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 22-02208
CR 23-00028
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MAXWELL DUMMELOW TUI DAVID TEWHARE |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Dawes | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 9 February 2023, 14 April 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 April 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Dummelow & Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 645 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Armed robbery; prohibited person in possession of a firearm; handle stolen goods; commit indictable offence whilst on bail
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited: Worboyes v R [2021] VSA 169
Sentence: Dummelow: 3 years and 5 months’ imprisonment
NPP 2 years and 1 month
Tewhare: 3 years’ and 9 months’ imprisonment
NPP 2 years and 6 months
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms I. Barry | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused For the Accused | Mr L. Hocking Mr A. Paull | Emma Turnbull Lawyers Adrian Paull Criminal Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1
This hearing relates to offences that occurred in late July 2022.
Maxwell Dummelow and David Tewhare, you are co-offenders for the primary offence of armed robbery, being Charge 1 on indictment C2215569.
2 Maxwell Dummelow you have pleaded guilty to the following offences.
Charges Offence Maximum Penalty 1 Armed robbery 25 years’ imprisonment 2 Prohibited person in possession of a firearm 10 years’ imprisonment or 1200 penalty units Related summary offence Charge Offence Maximum Penalty 7 Commit indictable offence whilst on bail 3 months’ imprisonment or 30 penalty units 3 Tui David Tewhare, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences.
Charges
Offence
Maximum Penalty
1
Armed robbery
25 years’ imprisonment
3
Possession of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine)
1 year imprisonment or 30 penalty units
4
Handle stolen goods
15 years’ imprisonment
Related summary offence
Charge
Offence
Maximum Penalty
8
Commit indictable offence whilst on bail
3 months’ imprisonment or 30 penalty units
4 Charge 1 on the indictment is a rolled-up charge, being more than one identifiable charge, bundled together in a single charge. In this case, it encompasses both victims of the armed robbery and includes all the stolen items.
5 At the time of the offending you, Maxwell Dummelow, were 22 years of age and you, Tui Tewhare, were 30 years of age. The victims were not known to either of you.
6 The circumstances of your offending have been provided in the summary of prosecution opening. It is agreed to be an accurate account of events. A general summary of the facts is as follows.
7 The two victims of the armed robbery were cleaners. On 26 July 2022 they drove to work together in one car, arrived at around 6.35 am and parked in the car park. They waited in the car for their workplace to open at the start of their shift.
8 At approximately 6.52 am, you Tui Tewhare drove a Holden Commodore Sedan into the car park. You, Maxwell Dummelow, were seated in the rear passenger seat. There were two other passengers in the car, both of whom have been interviewed but not charged in relation to this offending.
9 You, Tui Tewhare parked in front of the victim's vehicle and you both remained inside the car. You, Maxwell Dummelow asked the victims if they wanted to purchase cannabis or amphetamine which they declined. You then asked if you could have a cigarette. One of the victims complied with your request.
10 You, Tui Tewhare, then drove away towards another car park and returned around 30 seconds later. You parked directly in front of the victims' vehicle and essentially ‘blocked in’ the victims' car. The only way their car could have moved away would have resulted in them hitting the Holden Commodore.
11 You both got out of the Commodore. You, Maxwell Dummelow, carried an axe and a sworn-off shotgun. Your hoodie was drawn up over your head and your shirt was pulled up, partially covering your face. You both stood alongside the victim's front passenger side window with you, Tui Tewhare, standing behind you, Maxwell Dummelow. You, Maxwell Dummelow, demanded that the victims hand over their mobile phones and provide you with access to them. They handed over their phones and one victim provided her PIN code. You both returned to your car, then both returned to the victim's car and demanded that the other victim unlock his phone using a fingerprint, which he did.
12 You both went back to the Commodore and again returned to the victim's car. You, Maxwell Dummelow, demanded that the victims provide their internet banking details. One of the victim's acquiesced. You both then demanded that the victims give you their wallets which contained items including a driver's licence, bank cards and approximately $60 in cash. They complied and you then returned to the Commodore.
13 Another cleaner then arrived at the car park. One of the victims jumped out of their car and yelled at her to call the police. You both left in your car driven by one of the other passengers. One of the victims called Triple Zero and police soon attended.
14 On 27 July 2022 at approximately 5.15 pm, police executed a search warrant at a Sebastopol address. You were both seated in the lounge room of the property. Police located the firearm and the axe that we used. The firearm was not in an operable state.
15 You, Tui Tewhare, had a black bag which was searched. Inside, police located several items including:
· ID cards that were stolen from the victims of the armed robbery;
· Two clear plastic bags containing methylamphetamine, weighing a total of 4.54 grams; and
· An ID card and a bank card which had been stolen from a vehicle parked at the Daylesford Hospital some time between 11 pm on 25 July and 7.40 am on 26 July 2022.
16
You were both arrested and participated in records of interview at the Ballarat police station. You, Maxwell Dummelow, made admissions to your participation in the armed robbery. You claimed that while you carried an axe, your
co-offender carried the butt of the firearm over his shoulder and made the property demands. This account is not consistent with the agreed facts of your offending. However, you did admit that you took possession of the stolen property. You are a prohibited person, pursuant to s3(1) of the Firearms Act 1996, as a result of your criminal history.
17 You, Tui Tewhare denied your involvement in the armed robbery. You admitted your possession of the methylamphetamine. I note that while the amount of methylamphetamine is in excess of a trafficable quantity, it is accepted that the drugs seized were for your own use.
18 You were both on bail for other matters at the time of this incident and have pleaded guilty to those related summary offences. This is an aggravating feature of your offending conduct.
19 The offence of armed robbery is serious. The victims were not known to you, so your selection of them was a random one. The offending was not sophisticated or protracted and the value of the stolen property was insubstantial. Although the victims were vulnerable as they were not armed, it is fortunate that they were not physically injured. The fact that this offending was conducted by you, in the company of each other, is an additional aggravating feature.
20
You, Tui Tewhare, drove the vehicle that blocked the victims' car, so that they were unable to drive away. You were not disguised, did not carry the weapons, nor make the initial demands when you confronted the victims. While you,
Maxwell Dummelow, did partially cover your head and face at the relevant time, you had been in conversation with the victims only minutes earlier, without disguise. You carried the weapons and the victim described that the butt of the gun was facing them. You initiated the demands made.
21 You both had immediate access to the weapons that were used. Neither of you has provided an explanation for having them in your possession, nor have you provided an explanation for the offending conduct.
22 There must have been some premeditation for the armed robbery, although it does not appear to have been extensive. The prosecution agrees that although the offence was not spontaneous, there was not a high degree of planning. Further, that it is not a sophisticated example of this offence.
23 You were located together at a house in Sebastopol when arrested the following day and the weapons were at the address. Some of the stolen items were located in your bag, Tui Tewhare.
24 Both of participated in this offending. I have concluded that there is no disparity in your roles, despite them being slightly different. I am satisfied that objectively, they are similar enough for both of you to be sentenced on the same basis as this was a joint enterprise. Although no specific instructions or details have been provided, it appears that your motivation for offending was driven by your drug addiction.
25 Maxwell Dummelow, you face the additional charge of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm at the time.
26 There is no dispute that the victims would have been terrified. While there is no evidence that the firearm was operative or loaded, its mere presence must have created a sense of extreme fear. In the statement provided by one of the victims, she described that she was, 'Under duress the whole time. I was shitting myself'. The other victim described that when looking back, he is angry that this offending occurred.
27
You were both charged and remanded into custody on 27 July 2022.
Maxwell Dummelow, your matter resolved to a plea of guilty at the second committal mention in November 2022. Tui Tewhare, your matter resolved to a plea of guilty at the next committal mention in January 2023. Your plea hearing has concluded within short compass and you will both be sentenced less than nine months after this incident occurred.
28 The parties agree that your pleas of guilty were entered at an early stage. This has a significant utilitarian benefit. You have saved the court and the community the time and expense of running a trial. In those circumstances, you have facilitated the efficient administration of justice and are entitled to a benefit for that. This is particularly relevant given the delay in jury trials that has resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. I consider the utilitarian benefit of your plea to be enhanced by the fact that it was entered during the pandemic. This attracts a more pronounced amelioration of sentence than at another time. Your pleas of guilty also demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility for your offending.
29 I turn now to your personal circumstances Maxwell Dummelow.
30 You were born in Creswick in July 2000 and are now 22 years of age. You were raised by your parents in a supportive and positive environment. You are the youngest of three brothers. Your mother and your former partner were present at your plea hearing. Your family continues to support you. In around 2003, you fell off a chair in a friend's backyard and suffered significant head trauma. You required an adrenaline shot to restart your heart. You had swelling on the brain, although a subsequent brain scan in 2004 revealed the swelling had reduced. You have not been diagnosed with a brain injury or an intellectual disability.
31 In or around 2011, I am told that you were the victim of sexual offending. In a VARE that you made to police, you stated that the offender anally penetrated you with his penis for about 10 seconds. A 40-year-old male was subsequently interviewed and denied the alleged offending. He was charged and a contested committal proceeded, where you were cross-examined. The case did not proceed further as a ‘nolle prosequi’ was filed in April 2013. However, the offender was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for making threats to kill one of your brothers. I accept for the purpose of this plea that the sexual offending occurred.
32 You had a relatively stable education until Grade 3 when your behaviour deteriorated. You had some friends but were also bullied. Your misbehaviour led to infrequent suspension. You attended several secondary schools. You had difficulty participating in classes and learning. You describe yourself as a “menace” and were expelled from secondary college in Year 8. You then attended a college for ‘troubled’ children but left before the end of the year. In Year 9, you attended another school but did not complete the year due to your truancy.
33 You trained as a painter and decorator between the ages of 16 and 18 years. From the age of 18 you worked as a farmhand for three years. You were in a relationship which ended in 2020, after you committed assault related offending that has recently been dealt with in the Warrnambool Magistrates' Court.
34 You worked as a landscape gardener with your father between 2020 and May 2022. You had ceased your employment at the time of the current offending, due to your drug use. You have not worked since then.
35 You became qualified for bobcat and forklift driving while previously in custody. You have not undertaken any rehabilitation programs while recently incarcerated, although you have completed a food handling certificate. While in custody you have worked as a billet since January 2023. You have now applied to do woodwork. You also attend the gym daily.
36 You have a history of illicit substance use. You regularly smoked cannabis from the age of 13 years. You describe your drug use as “prolific” and estimate that you smoked up to 5 grams per day until you were around 20 years of age. It appears that your drug use affected your engagement with schooling. You started to use methylamphetamine in Year 9, using between 2-3 grams per day at times. Your drug use significantly reduced between 2018 and 2022, although you consumed large quantities of alcohol at that time. You relapsed into significant drug use in May 2022. At the time of the current offending, you regularly consumed methylamphetamine, GHB and heroin. I am told that you were drug affected at the relevant time. While in custody you are provided with Buprenorphine as well as medication to assist with your sleep.
37
You have a number of prior appearances in the Children's Court. You were dealt with for offences of drug use and dishonesty between September 2014 and July 2016. In November 2016, you pleaded guilty to a consolidation of
30 offences, including two charges of aggravated burglary and were placed on a youth supervision order for six months. In March 2018 on appeal to the County Court you pleaded guilty to 23 offences, including reckless conduct endangering serious injury, arson and committing an indictable offence while on bail. You were ordered to be detained in the Youth Justice Centre for a period of six months and then released on a youth supervision order for 18 months.
38 Your first appearances in the adult jurisdiction were in the Magistrates' Court on 27 February and 14 March 2019 for dishonesty and drug related offences. You were sentenced to 97 days detention in a youth training centre, although that time was spent while on remand in adult custody.
39 On 20 October 2022, a consolidated plea of 17 offences, including possession of imitation firearms, assaults and breach of bail proceeded at the Magistrates' Court. You were sentenced to three months' and 28 days imprisonment which lapsed on 8 February 2023. You were remanded in custody for these offences for 10 days, between 29 July and 10 August 2020, although this time was not taken into account as pre-sentence detention. This brief ‘Renzella time’ will be considered when imposing sentence here. You have served 156 days on remand for the current offences.
40 At the time of this incident, you were 22 years of age. You are still 22 and will be sentenced as a youthful offender. In light of the seriousness of your offending conduct, the mitigating effect of your age and your youth is reduced, although it is not extinguished. These factors are still relevant when considering your prospects of rehabilitation. I accept that given your age, the principle of rehabilitation must feature in the sentencing mix.
41 It is conceded that your current misconduct is an escalation in your criminal history. Your counsel submits that your guilty plea is consistent with remorse. I accept this submission. I note that while your admissions in the record of interview were not entirely consistent with the agreed summary of facts, you did admit that you committed the armed robbery.
42 At the conclusion of your record of interview you stated, 'You made me feel better when we talked this through… I had a really heavy feeling in my heart - now it's gone'. The police concluded that you showed genuine remorse for your misconduct.
43 At the time of this offending, you were in a relationship that has recently ended in amicable terms. Your partner was pregnant and gave birth to your daughter in August 2022. You have only had two contact visits with your daughter, although you do have regular video contact. It is regrettable that you reverted to your illicit substance abuse during your partner's pregnancy. Being unable to see your baby daughter has weighed heavily on you.
44 Prior to the end of your relationship, your former partner provided a letter to the court stating that you have shown “extreme remorse” for your offending. You maintain the support of your family and are most fortunate in that regard. Upon your release from custody, you will return to live with your parents and plan to return to employment with your father. These pro-social supports will certainly assist you to achieve your goals for a better life, although maintaining a drug free lifestyle is critical if you are to be successful.
45
At the initial plea hearing your counsel requested that a Forensicare psychiatric report be prepared. However, the Forensicare practitioners determined that a psychological report was more appropriate and your counsel agreed. Accordingly, a psychological report from Professor Michael Daffern, dated
17 March 2023, has been provided. Your personal, criminal and mental health history have all been summarised in the report. You disclosed that being the victim of sexual assault has continued to cause you distress and anger.
46 Professor Daffern made the following observations and findings:
· Your experience of sexual assault is likely to have disrupted your psycho-social development and your mental health through your adolescence and early adulthood.
· You present with symptoms consistent with PTSD.
· Your intellectual ability appears to be low, although it does not appear that you have intellectual disability.
· You have a history of drug dependence and polysubstance abuse.
· You would meet the diagnostic criteria for anti-social personality disorder.
47 At the conclusion of the report Professor Daffern stated:
'It is difficult to parse out the effects of his experience of sexual assault on his subsequent criminal behaviour. He showed problematic conduct before the assault. He was disruptive in class and he was inattentive and overly active from Grade 3 (around the age of eight or nine). His substance use and criminal behaviour commenced after the assault, although these behaviours more commonly emerge in adolescence, generally after the age of 11. It is conceivable that his experience of sexual assault contributed to anger and distress that manifest in oppositionality, drug use and crime and that he coped with post-traumatic symptoms by using drugs. His use of drugs would have drawn him into anti-social networks, exposed him to criminal behaviour and meant he needed to commit crime to purchase drugs. Additionally, his post-traumatic symptoms and distress associated with the abuse was likely maintained by what was a lengthy criminal investigation and legal process; this may have interfered with his schooling and personal relationships'.
48 I do not regard there to be a specific connection between your PTSD and the relevant sexual offending. In my opinion, while there is not a direct or specific link between your overall criminal conduct and being a victim of sexual abuse, these facts including your PTSD as well as your low level of intellectual functioning remain relevant when considering your general circumstances overall.
49 Professor Daffern opines that you may benefit from clinical psychological intervention to address post-traumatic stress symptoms, intervention to address your propensity for substance dependence and intervention to assist you to gain and maintain employment once you are released from custody. Further a neuropsychological assessment may help clarify your cognitive functioning which may assist with your rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
50 I now turn to your personal circumstances, Tui Tewhare.
51
You were born in New Zealand in August 1991, and you are now 31 years of age. You are one of six children. You are your family moved to live in
Australia in 2002. You are a permanent resident here on a special category sub-class 444 visa, being a temporary visa, which allows the holder to remain in Australia indefinitely. However, a custodial sentenced of 12 months or more will automatically cancel that visa. The onus will then be on you to address the revocation of the visa cancellation to prevent your deportation.
52 Your future upon your release from custody is uncertain. Whether you will be remanded in immigration detention and then deported or whether your visa will remain intact is unclear. I consider that you are a substantial risk of deportation and this uncertainty will weigh heavily on you, particularly as your parents, partner, child and other family members all reside in Australia. This will add to your burden of imprisonment. You may also be additionally punished for your offending, because of the lost opportunity to remain here. The prosecution accepts that your situation will weigh heavily on you and make your incarceration more onerous. I consider that is a relevant consideration in the sentencing process.
53 Your parents, siblings, partner and other family members were present at your plea hearing both in person and on Webex. They remain supportive of you. You are most fortunate in that regard.
54 You have been in a relationship with your partner for around 14 years and have two sons together, aged four and 10 years. In 2019, your relationship broke down. This precipitated your use of methylamphetamine. Your relationship has been on and off since that time. Now that you are incarcerated, you and your partner have recommitted to each other.
55 In the past you resided in Portland for several years and held full-time employment in the forestry industry. You regularly worked 15 hours per day and supervised multiple logging crews during that time.
56 A letter of support from your former employer has been provided to the court. He describes you as a reliable, trustworthy and exceptional employee. He is prepared to recommend you for any employment in the future. I note that he is unaware of your current offending.
57 In 2020, you failed a drug test at work. Given that you were required to use a chainsaw, you lost your job. Your family then moved to Ararat to be closer to your parents. Your drug use increased which caused difficulties in your relationship. A limited family violence intervention order was taken out by your partner on 11 September 2020. This was later varied to a full order and included your sons as protected persons. Your relationship with your partner ended and you became homeless in 2021.
58 Your criminal history consists of only one prior appearance on 11 October 2021 at the Ballarat Magistrates' Court where you pleaded guilty to 17 offences that were committed between February 2020 and August 2021. The charges include assault, breach of intervention order, aggravated burglary with a firearm, dishonesty and drug related offending. You received a total effective sentence of nine months' imprisonment and a 12-month Community Correction Order. Your current offending occurred in breach of the Corrections Order which is a further aggravating feature.
59 Upon your release from custody in July 2022, the conditions of the family violence order were reduced and your relationship with your partner resumed. You appeared to be on a positive trajectory as you initially engaged well with your Corrections Order and returned to employment in the demolition industry. In May 2022, your partner became unwell and was admitted to hospital. You were required to leave your job to care for your children. Your capacity to comply with the Corrections Order was also affected. When your partner returned home, your relationship broke down. Regrettably, your drug use resumed and your engagement with negative social peers increased.
60 At the time of the current offending, you had again become homeless. Your drug use resulted in your being in company of the co-accused. You were using approximately half a gram of methylamphetamine daily as well as heroin and GHB. The offence of armed robbery is a significant escalation in the history of your criminal offending.
61 Your partner has written a letter to the court confirming that she remains in contact with you and supports you. She anticipates that when you are released from custody, you will return to reside with her and your children as you are 'a very loving father'.
62 Since your incarceration she has developed anxiety and depression. She writes that you have expressed remorse for your behaviour and that period of custody has affected your family “dramatically”. I take those factors into account.
63 In March 2022, your mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer and given a prognosis of 12-24 months. She has written a letter to the court expressing her concerns that she may not survive until you are released. She has required intensive chemotherapy and writes that she desperately wants to spend the time that she has left with her son. I accept that the burden of imprisonment will be more significant for you, given that your mother has cancer and may die while you are incarcerated. However, I note that you were aware of her diagnosis at the time of this offending.
64 On 31 January 2023 you pleaded guilty to a contravention of a family violence intervention order and were sentenced to a two-month term of imprisonment. You admitted the contravention of your Corrections Order and no further order was made. I am told that you have no other matters outstanding. You have served 221 days on remand for the current offences.
65
I accept that your prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable, given that your criminal conduct commenced when you were 28 years of age. You are now 31. You are most fortunate to maintain the support of your partner and your parents. Your history of employment is lengthy. You aim to return to your
non-criminogenic lifestyle.
66 In relation to both you, Maxwell Dummelow, and you, Tui Tewhare, I now make the following points.
67 When considering sentence in this matter, I am aware that armed robbery is a category 2 offence, pursuant to the Sentencing Act.[1] The Act is prescriptive in the type of penalty to impose in such a case being an immediate term of imprisonment unless s5(2H) of the Sentencing Act is engaged. Neither of your counsel sought to persuade the court that the exceptions exist in either of your cases. Therefore, it is conceded that a term of imprisonment is the only appropriate disposition for your offending. The prosecution submission is that while the offence of armed robbery is a serious one, it is conceded that this incident falls within the low to mid-range.
[1]Section 5(2H)(e): In sentencing an offender for a Category 2 offence, a court must make an order under Division 2 of Part 3 unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare that justify not making an order.
68 You were both remanded on 27 July 2022. I take into account that measures taken by Corrections to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic have added to your hardship in custody. You have been subject to more onerous conditions, including time in lockdown or quarantine. I am aware that access to vocational and educational programs were more limited at that time. Fortunately, you now have access to personal visits from family members, although this has not always been the case. While additional restrictions are currently reduced, the evolving nature of the pandemic may result in future changes. The hardship which has occurred as a result of the pandemic justifies the sentencing benefit. The prosecution concedes that the Worboyes[2] considerations remain.
[2]Worboyes v R [2021] VSA 169.
69 Despite your separate roles in the armed robbery, I have concluded that your moral culpability in the commission of this offence is similar. You both admit that you were affected by drug use at the time. Ultimately, I have determined that for the offence of armed robbery itself, you should both be sentenced on the same basis.
70 Maxwell Dummelow, you are facing a further serious offence being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm at the time of the armed robbery.
71 Tui Tewhare, you are facing separate offences of handling stolen goods of limited value and possession of methylamphetamine.
72 You have both breached undertakings of bail. Tui Tewhare, you have also breached a Community Correction Order.
73 There is a difference in your criminal background, in that you, Maxwell Dummelow, have regularly appeared before the courts for many years. Whereas you, Tui Tewhare, have not. However, you, Maxwell Dummelow, are a young offender and rehabilitation remains a relevant consideration in the sentencing mix.
74 Tui Tewhare, your risk of deportation is a highly relevant sentencing consideration.
75 Maxwell Dummelow, it is conceded that the principles of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are important sentencing considerations in your matter. I consider that the principle of specific deterrence should be given some weight given your criminal history. Hopefully the fact that you have become a father will change your perspective on life and improve your motivation to deal with your drug addiction issues. A period of supervision provided by parole will form part of this sentence, which will be of benefit both to you and to the community. Given your age, I have imposed a lower minimum term, to enable you to access a longer period on parole in order to facilitate your rehabilitation. Your prospects are only reasonable if you are prepared to follow the recommendations given by Professor Daffern.
76 Tui Tewhare, your counsel accepted that the court must send a strong message that your conduct will not be tolerated by the community. A term of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence to give the appropriate effect to the principles of general deterrence, denunciation and punishment. The principle of specific deterrence is also relevant. I accept that your prospects are reasonable, given that your criminal lifestyle did not commence until you were 28 years old. It is submitted that with appropriate supports, you have the capacity to return to your former lifestyle. The protection of the community in the long term will be more likely if you are prepared to engage with rehabilitation. A period of supervision provided by parole will form part of this sentence, which will be of benefit both to you and to the community.
77 I take into account the maximum penalty for these offences and current sentencing practices. I have decided that there must be some, but not total, cumulation in the sentences that I impose. I have endeavoured to tailor your sentences to ensure that they are proportionate to your criminal conduct overall. I have taken care not to doubly punish you for the current offences. The principle of totality needs to be considered. You have both undergone short sentences of imprisonment since you were remanded for the current offending. I take them into account.
78 Maxwell Dummelow, I also take the Renzella time you served in the course of the pandemic into account.
79 I have considered the principle of parity of sentence. It does not amount to a mathematical equation and I am required to balance a number of factors in this case. I have imposed a slightly longer period on parole for you Maxwell Dummelow, in light of your age.
80 Balancing these factors as best I can, I sentence you as follows.
Maxwell Dummelow
Charge
Offence
Sentence
Cumulation
1
Armed robbery
3 years’ and 2 months’ imprisonment
Base
2
Prohibited person in possession of a firearm
1 year imprisonment
3 months
Related summary offences
7
Commit indictable offence whilst on bail
7 days’ imprisonment
Nil
Total Effective Sentence:
3 years’ and 5 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:
2 years and 1 month
Pre-Sentence Detention:
156 days
6AAA Statement:
4 years’ 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 2 months
Tui Tewhare
Charge
Offence
Sentence
Cumulation
1
Armed robbery
3 years’ and 2 months’ imprisonment
Base
2
Possession of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine)
4 months’ imprisonment
1 month
4
Handle stolen goods
6 months’ imprisonment
1 month
Related summary offences
8
Commit indictable offence whilst on bail
7 days’ imprisonment
Nil
Total Effective Sentence:
3 years’ and 9 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:
2 years and 6 months
Pre-Sentence Detention:
221 days
6AAA Statement:
5 years’ and 3 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months
81 The applications for disposal of the axe and forfeiture of the gun and drugs are not opposed and I make those orders.
82 Could I just check do the parties - if you'd like to check that sentence again, I can go through it again?
83 MS BARRY: The calculations appear correct to me, Your Honour, and I've noted all that down.
84 HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you. Any issues Mr Hocking or Mr Paull?
85 COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
86
HER HONOUR: All right. I'm sorry but I can't allow the link to continue for more than a minute or two as I have trial listed to start in a moment.
If there's nothing else that anyone wishes to raise, I'll leave the Bench.
87 MS BARRY: Your Honour pleases.
88 HER HONOUR: Thank you.
0
0
0