Director of Public Prosecutions v Glinski
[2022] VCC 1439
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
General List
Case No. CR-21-00754
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CHRISTOPHER GLINSKI |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DEMPSEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 5 and 26 August 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 August 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Glinski | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1439 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence.
Catchwords: Aggravated burglary and causing injury recklessly – Plea following sentencing indication – Family violence – Relevant criminal history – Psychotic episode in custody – Now treated and complaint with medication – Significant period of remand prior to sentence – Totality with other sentences – Plea of guilty during pandemic – Suitability for CCO post release.
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Cases Cited:R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97; Boulton v The Queen (2014) VR 308.
Sentence: 20 months imprisonment followed by 2 year CCO with conditions. Section 6AAA declaration: 4 years and 6 months with non-parole period of 3 years 2 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr N Norris | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms N Kaddeche | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Mr Glinksi, following a sentencing indication pursuant to s.208 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) in this matter, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of recklessly causing injury.
2I indicated that if you pleaded guilty to the above charges I would sentence you to a combined term of 20 months’ imprisonment, followed by an onerous and lengthy community corrections order (‘CCO’) for a period of two years. My reasons for imposing that sentence follow.
Background
3By way of background, these charges relate to an incident at Ms Stacey Glenn’s residence in Meadow Heights on 9 February 2020. You were once in a relationship with her and had an on again off again relationship with her since the ages of 16 or 17. You have an 18-year daughter Ava together. She was in a relationship with Roberto Sciarra at the time of the offence. Ms Glenn acknowledged writing to you when you were in custody telling you that Mr Sciarra had mistreated her.[1] There was some further support for that proposition in evidence given at the committal. This belief that Mr Sciarra was mistreating your former partner is said to be essentially the catalyst for the present offending. That offending is, as follows.
[1]Depositions, Transcript of Committal Proceedings, p.25.27 and 26.10. See also the answer given at the committal at Depositions p.114: ‘He’s hurting you, where is he?’
The offending
4On Sunday, 9 February 2020, Ms Glenn was at her home with Mr Sciarra. You approached or arrived with a friend Mark Neugebauer. Neugebauer waited in the car while you approached the front door. I am told you attended to check on her.
5You knocked on the front door, calling out for Ms Glenn to let you in. Ms Glenn pretended not to be home. You then went to Ms Glenn’s bedroom window and knocked. She opened the blind of that window and saw you. You said that your friend Mark had got her fish and chips for dinner. While this was happening, Mr Sciarra was in another bedroom.
6You asked Ms Glenn who else was in the house. You were angry and Ms Glenn was frightened. You then opened the window from the outside of the house, removing part of the window, and entered the property.
7When you did this, as Ms Glenn states, (a) you did not have permission to enter the property; and you well knew you didn’t and (b), you had an intention to assault a person inside the property — an inference irresistible given your conduct before entry and the assault you engaged in once you arrived inside.
Charge 1 – Aggravated burglary
8You approached Ms Glenn and you took hold of her. You demanded to know who else was in the house.
9You went to the bedroom where Mr Sciarra was and attempted to open the bedroom door. Mr Sciarra was behind the door, attempting to keep you from entering the room. You pushed the door open and entered the bedroom.
10Immediately upon entering, you began assaulting Mr Sciarra and screaming. You struck him with a metal pole a number of times to the head, legs and arms. You picked up a pedestal fan and struck Mr Sciarra with it a number of times. As a result of the assault, he sustained bruising and pain to his arms legs and upper body, including a circular pattern impressed on his back caused by being struck with the pedestal fan.[2]
[2]See photographs, Depositions, Exhibit 5.
Charge 2 – Intentionally causing injury
11During the assault, you were screaming and making threats while Mr Sciarra was saying ‘Please stop’.
12While this was happening, Ms Glenn ran out to the front of the house to where Mr Neugebauer was sitting in his car. She asked him for help. He remained in the car. Thankfully, two neighbours heard the assault, and each called the police.
13Outside the front of the house, you told Ms Glenn to come with you. Ms Glenn was afraid but agreed to leave with you. You all left in Mr Neugebauer’s car. Ms Glenn remained with you and Mr Neugebauer for about an hour and a half before she was driven back to her home later in the evening by Mr Neugebauer’s daughter. A family violence intervention order had to be ultimately taken out to protect Mr Sciarra.
Arrest and interview
14Nearly a month after this offending, on 14 March 2020, you were arrested by police and transported to Moonee Ponds for interview.
15You made admissions to attending the address but stated that you were let into the house by Ms Glenn.
16You admitted to striking the victim with the pedestal fan. And when asked if you intended to cause him injury you said, ‘Yeah, well, yeah’.
17You made admissions to damaging some sunglasses but denied stealing anything.
Case history
18The case history of this matter been a long and difficult one. Some of it was due to your apparent very poor mental health which I will come to in a moment.
19On 9 February 2020, these offences occurred.
20On 14 March 2020, you were interviewed by Officer Hodge with respect to these matters. You were also bailed on deception charges to 27 July 2020. On 9 August 2020 there were Magistrates’ Court offences for possession of methamphetamine and breach of bail.
21On 25 November 2020, you were charged and remanded on subsequent offending where the informant was Castro Munoz. On 10 December 2020, you were charged and summons for the Hodge offending, because you were in custody at that time on remand for the Castro Munoz matters.
22On 15 December 2020, some five days later, you were remanded officially on the Hodge matters, by Her Honour Ms Bazzani in the Magistrates’ Court.
23On 4 March 2021, you were sentence on the Castro Munoz and other offending notably for three months, 90 days of which was reckoned as served. That offending involved threats to inflict serious injury, assault, theft, threat to kill, handle stolen goods and deceptions.
24On 15 April 2021, you conducted a contested committal.
25On 11 May 2021, the matter was heard by way of an administrative hearing in this court before being further adjourned by way of administrative hearings, on 11 June 2021 and 21 September 2021.
26On 20 January 2022, the matters were set down for a final directions hearing, before Judicial Registrar Wilson before coming before me on 30 March 2022, for a bail application and a case conference.
27You had been remanded on the Hodge offending for some 470 days by that stage, 90 days of that period had been already reckoned as served for the Castro Munoz offending.
28I heard a sentencing indication hearing in its early stages on 13 April 2022. The matter was adjourned because of my unavailability due to illness on 30 May 2022.
29On 3 August 2022, the sentencing indication hearing proceeded in earnest, and it was adjourned until today to permit necessary and relevant reports to be furnished. As I said, you’ve served now some 529 days in custody in relation to this matter alone.
Matters personal to you
30You are now 36 but were 34 at the time of the offending.
31You have only ever had two long term relationships. One was with Jade, which was on and off again for seven years, who died of a heart attack about two years ago, and the other was the victim in this matter, Ms Glenn.
32You have a supportive mother and two older siblings. Your family is unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. You lived with your mother until 2003 when you commenced the relationship with Ms Glenn.
33You completed Year 10 at Box Forest Secondary School. You had never acquired any formal qualifications but had worked doing labouring jobs since leaving school, and attempted an apprenticeship with Reece Plumbing at the relatively advanced age for an apprentice, of 23 years. You then worked at a company Flexiglass and most recently prior to remand you had worked with the witness, Mark Neugebauer.
34You have struggled with permanent accommodation over the years, and you move around between friends’ houses including previously the resident of the complainant Ms Glenn.
35You have had an ongoing and chronic drug problem for many years, especially ice since you were about 20. Other than a detox of two weeks in your youth you have never participated in a residential rehabilitation program. You arranged yourself an assessment with the Eastern Bridge program.[3] I am informed that you were suitable for such a placement but need to be reassessed for same upon your release from custody or prior to it. I am informed and I accept that this is one of the few proactive steps you have ever made towards your own reform.
[3]Exhibit 3: Confirmation Letter from Salvation Army Eastern Bridge Program.
36You have an unenviable prior criminal history. At 36 years of age, you have accumulated 13 pages of prior convictions. At the time you offended now, you had prior convictions for:
(a) Committing indictable offences on bail;
(b) Theft related offences (17 times);
(c) Breach of family violence intervention order;
(d) Intentionally causing injury;
(e) Damage property (8 charges);
(f) Unlawful assault (2 charges);
(g) Fail to answer bail (4 charges);
(h) Throw missile to injure or danger or damage property;
(i) Recklessly causing injury (3 charges); and
(j) Burglary.
37You have received multiple terms of imprisonment, as well as having been afforded the opportunity of a number of community-based orders and a suspended sentence which you breached.
38Since the offending before me, you committed further offences which were finalised, including:[4]
(a) Threat to inflict serious injury (two charges);
(b) Unlawful assault;
(c) Theft (2 charges);
(d) Make threat to kill.
[4]Summaries appear as Exhibit D.
39Your more recent history is troubling, notably:
(a) In 3 August 2017, at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court, you were dealt with criminal damage, fail to appear, theft, assault, discharge missile and recklessly causing injury. You were sentenced to two months and a 15 month community corrections order. You breached that.
(b) On 13 February 2018, at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted and sentenced to 18 months with a non-parole period of 9 months for breaching that CCO I just mentioned, as well as charges of breach intervention order, intentionally causing injury, criminal damage and assault.
40You appealed that sentence but abandoned it on 3 May 2018.
41You were admitted to parole in November of that year, that parole ending in August of 2019. Within six months, by February of 2020 you had offended in the way I have just described, that appears on this indictment.
Mental health
42I'll turn now to the important aspect of your mental health.
43About two weeks into your remand period, so approximately December 2020 or thereabouts, you presented with behavioural difficulties for prison staff. Your mental health remained unchecked effectively by authorities.
44You were assessed by Psychiatrist, Dr Deacon in both July and August 2021 and again in January 2022, with specific instructions and recommendations made to the prison authorities to look much more closely at your mental health.
45It is clear from the sentence or remand report, that the authorities investigated and acted upon the assessment made by Dr Deacon.
46A formal diagnosis of Schizophrenia was not made but was suggested. Consequently, at that time you were prescribed the anti-psychotic Olanzapine.
47Until the provision of an extremely helpful report by written by Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr Nicholas Owens dated 20 July 2022,[5] what exactly was awry with your mental health remained in that concerning state of uncertainty.
[5]Exhibit 4: Psychiatric Report of Dr Nicholas Owens dated 20 July 2022.
48Due to your unstable mental health several case conferences I just referred to were adjourned and ultimately the matter had to be placed back in the general list. You maintained a treatment regime set up for you in the MAP since late 2021. During periods of stability, you have now actually been able to complete programs in custody, as evidenced by the tendering of a number of certificates I received on the plea.[6] I view this as particularly encouraging.
[6]Exhibit 2: Bundle of Certificates – involving alcohol use, ice use and vocational courses.
49The report of Dr Owens is so clearly expressed and is directed to real matters of sentencing principle; it is worthwhile lifting his concluding remarks verbatim here. I will start at paragraph 80.
[80]Mr Glinski is a 36-year-old man who is currently on remand for violent and other offences and is due to attend a hearing at the Melbourne County Court for a sentencing indication. He has a lengthy past history of incarcerations and community sentences for violent, acquisitive, drug-related and other offending, dating back to his late teens.
[81]I think the most likely diagnosis is a drug-induced psychosis. Although the picture is somewhat clouded by Mr Glinski’s denial of symptoms shortly following his initial florid presentation to a private psychiatrist who was assessing him for a previous report, as well as some inconsistencies in his reports of the duration of symptoms it seems that the balance of opinion of treating psychiatrists in the prison is that he did have a psychotic episode of some kind and that treatment with antipsychotics was warranted. I note that he has found treatment to be well-tolerated and since being on treatment there has been no evidence of psychosis. I also note that in Justice Health records there is a note of him talking to himself in his cell approximately six weeks after the reception. Although at this stage he was seeking mental health treatment for anxiety.
[82]Prior to his reception he was using very large quantities of methamphetamine on a daily basis. He has a long history of stimulant use and meets the criteria for stimulant use disorder. He would also meet the criteria for an opiate use disorder.
[83]There is also a lengthy history of anxiety which has never really received any treatment apart from long-term benzodiazepine prescription by a GP and antidepressant treatment in custody. I am unable to give an exact diagnosis in relation to his anxiety, it may be an underlying social anxiety disorder or it may be that he becomes anxious secondary to paranoia or sensitive ideas of reference in public places, perhaps an artefact of multiple periods of time in prison. It would seem likely his anxiety has been perpetuated by psychological dependent on stimulants. He would benefit from psychological treatment for this condition.
[84]Mr Glinski is currently quite stable in his mental health and I would expect this will continue to be the case so long as he continues to take his antipsychotic medication. The usual advice is that following the onset of a first episode of psychosis, medication should continue for at least two years before considering ceasing it. If Mr Glinski decides to stop the medication prematurely he will be at a higher risk of relapse of psychosis. I do not consider Mr Glinski’s case that his incarceration in and of itself elevates this risk.
[85]I don't think that Mr Glinksi's psychotic disorder will make a term of imprisonment more onerous for him. He is receiving appropriate treatment and his condition is well-controlled. There is no evidence, since he has been placed on treatment, that his mental health has been causing any problems in his day-to-day functioning in the prison. He is well-engaged with mental health services and remains willing to continue this engagement, even if he is of the view that ongoing treatment is not necessarily required.
[86]The offending appears to have occurred in the context of intoxication with stimulants as well as alcohol. I cannot make any comment on whether or note there is a connection between drug-induced psychosis and the offending because he was not keen on discussing the facts of the matter, other than to say he agreed with them and he was pleading guilty Use of stimulants and alcohol was likely to have caused some degree of disinhibition of behaviour as well as increased drive and aggression.[7]
[7]Exhibit 4: Psychiatric Report of Dr Nicholas Owens dated 20 July 2022 at [80]–[86].
50Prior to the receipt of this report, Mr Norris very sensibly did not concede that any of the principles outlined in R v Verdins[8] are applicable in this case on the basis that in order to rely on Verdins there needed to be evidence that actually showed the nature, extent and effect of any mental impairment experienced by the offender at the time.
[8](2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’).
51Such evidence should address how mental impairment affected offender at the time of the offending, and how it is likely to impact on their imprisonment.[9]
[9]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269, 271 [8].
52Mr Norris noted that without a psychological, neuropsychological or psychiatric assessment of the kind referred originally in refence to Dr Deacon, to assist the court to properly consider the application of Verdins, no finding could properly be made. Now a report is available and its author opines in the way I have just quoted, and understandably the Crown’s view has not changed.
53I am left to conclude as I must, that the present family violence occurred in the context of mental instability probably caused by rampant drug use.
54I am prepared to accept (and I note that the Crown are too) that,
(a) you have specific needs when it comes to drug and alcohol use and that in some way shapes the sentence I give you; and
(b) you are medicated and require both medication and treatment for your mental health, that much is self-evident.
The offending
55The offending rightly answers the description family violence. You entered your former partner’s home against her will and assaulted her present partner either by way of revenge for the way you perceived he treated her, or out of anger or both.
56In doing so, you violated her home where she was entitled to feel safe. You unjustifiably assaulted a man who had done nothing to you, all the while being armed and being implored to stop. Then you gave Ms Glenn precious little opportunity but to join you for fear of what might happen to her.
57When considering the gravity of the incident offence I take into account:
(a) Aggravated burglary is a serious offence which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years.
(b) The offending was committed against Ms Glenn and Mr Sciarra who were entitled to feel safe in the former’s home. Mr Sciarra was sleeping at the time.
(c) The offending involved the use of a weapon, albeit one that was improvised and located at the premises.
(d) The offending occurred in the context and background of family violence generally.
(e) It is conceded there appears to be little or no premeditation or planning.
58The impact of your crime was serious. Ms Glenn was rightly concerned for her own safety but also that of Mr Sciarra. She remains hypervigilant and frightened of you even now.[10]
[10]Exhibit C: Victim Impact Statement dated 27 May 2022.
Matters of principle
Penalty
59I received genuine assistance by both counsel in this case.
60There appears to be little dispute between the parties about the applicable sentencing purposes for offending of this kind, although there is a difference as to what the parties say about the appropriate penalty. Ms Kaddeche submits an relatively immediate release, followed by a CCO is both open and appropriate.
61Mr Norris on behalf of the Director submitted that nothing less than a head sentence and a non-parole period was warranted.
62I concluded ultimately that you were approaching a time where you had served the majority of the custodial portion of any sentence I would impose before being eligible for release, but the question remained ‘under what circumstances should I release you?’ I made it clear that you had not served enough time in custody before your release, and you had some months to go.
63To that end, I had you assessed for a CCO and that was accompanied by a MAHRS report. Unsurprisingly, you were seen as a high risk of further offending. The CCO assessor, fairly bluntly assessed you as unsuitable for this, your seventh community-based disposition. She said:
Mr Glinski's history of non-compliance and further offending whilst on five previous community-based dispositions demonstrate that these orders are not a deterrent, are unable to mitigate his risk of recidivism, nor do they assist with his rehabilitation as he consistently fails to engage nor completes treatment to a satisfactory level. It is evident there have been little changes to Mr Glinski's personal circumstances or protective factors which would support him in the successful completion of a CCO.
Without clear evidence of previous compliance or a tangible change in circumstances, this service would not be able to mitigate any risk to the community and a further community-based disposition would serve limited purpose. Specifically, despite Mr Glinski being assessed as high risk of re-offending, which would indicate a higher level of service and supports being provided, he has a history of struggling to engage with the requirements of his community-based disposition at their most basic level. That is, whether it be a court-based requirement, engaging with treatment clinicians, or participating in the process for housing support.[11]
[11]Exhibit 6: CCO Assessment Report dated 08 August 2022.
64While I can understand the Office of Corrections’ misgivings, this mostly ignores to me a rather profound change in your circumstances, namely the onset of unquestionably serious mental illness for which you are being well-treated (and I add this is a treatment regime you have been utterly compliant with) combined with the value of the courses already undertaken by you in custody.
65Further, despite some equivocation expressed by the assessor about your living arrangements post-release, it has always been my understanding that you propose to follow through on those important, self-made enquiries to attend the Eastern Bridge program, which is a stable form of residential rehabilitation that is open to you upon a further suitable assessment when you are released. That release is close enough to give you certainty and encouragement to continue to reform, but far enough away to permit meaningful planning to be engaged in prior to your release.
66I do not see the ‘transitional difficulties’ the author refers to as being such an impediment to your management on an order given the Office of Corrections will have date certainty of your release and there will be an established pathway created for them or ACSO to Eastern Bridge. I would be both surprised and disappointed if that opportunity was not given to you.
67Finally, the MAHRS report states you have developed a degree of insight into your poor mental health and the consequent need for treatment (namely Olanzapine), your overall capacity to abstain from drugs is a secondary consequence to that compliance with your medication.[12]
[12]Exhibit 7: MHARS Report dated 15 August 2022.
68You appear to be well aware of the benefits this medication offers and have provided a stable, sober basis from which you might be now supervised in the community, and undertake much needed psychological counselling.
69With respect to the MAHRS assessor, the recommendations that he makes are that you continue to see a GP in Greenvale for your prescription for opiate substitutes. That same GP reviews your medication and the efficacy of same and a mental health care plan be initiated that are all sensible suggestions. My expectation is that you will not need to undertake all of those matters on your own, but can do so and ought to do so with the assistance and guidance of the Office of Corrections.
Plea
70A plea at this stage of the proceedings is late, coming as it does after a contested committal. It is difficult to say that the plea in itself, is driven by remorse. Nonetheless, you ought to be afforded a discount in your sentence, particularly due to the current backlog of County Court trials. I intend to give the full effect to the principles of our Court of Appeal as enunciated in Worboyes v The Queen,[13] to ensure the benefit you receive by your plea is indeed perceptible and answers the description, ‘a pronounced amelioration of sentence’.
[13][2021] VSCA 169.
Punishment, deterrence and denunciation
71It is conceded rightly by your counsel that general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment will all have significance in the formulation of this sentence. These principles are relevant in that the sentence must convey to others that violence of this nature will not be tolerated by the community. That is especially so, Mr Glinski, when dealing with matters involving family violence.[14]
[14]Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97 at [57].
72You must be justly punished for the criminal conduct in which you engaged. In all the circumstances, that punishment still needs to be substantial. A large measure of that punishment though, has already occurred.
Circumstances of remand
73You have served your period of remand during the COVID-19 pandemic. This appears to be the longest time you have spent without your liberty. It has been a difficult time for all persons in custody. It has involved quarantine. It has resulted in longer periods in cells. It has limited the availability of courses and activities. It has meant that family and friends who would otherwise visit in prison, in person have been unable to do so. For the most part, visits have been conducted online. COVID-19 created an environment of heightened anxiety within the community generally, and also in prisons where persons cannot make autonomous choices, and that has been particularly difficult, and I take those matters into account.
Specific deterrence
74By way of specific deterrence, your recent and relevant history means that specific deterrence plays a significant role in the sentence I impose. Your prior convictions and long-standing drug addiction count against you here, especially given that you offended this way so soon after completing a parole (that was itself imposed for a CCO breach) which is very concerning.
Community protection
75The community can only be protected sometimes from an individual by that person’s confinement in custody. In other circumstances, the community is best protected through the reform and re-integration of offenders back into its midst. I am of the view that a mix of both is required here, but I do approach this aspect of the sentence with real caution.
Rehabilitation
76I am forced to conclude that your prospects for reform are guarded. I am encouraged by your efforts to seek out treatment and the courses you have done in a particularly difficult environment whilst in custody to improve your lot. I am encouraged by your desire and willingness to undertake an order that in many ways will be a longer period of supervision than that which might otherwise be imposed under the auspices of parole.
Analysis
77By way of analysis in my view, having balanced and weighed the necessary considerations, I am attracted to the idea that in your case the appropriate sentencing disposition is a lengthy term of imprisonment, followed by an equally lengthy CCO which provides a more flexible sentencing option for me, enabling both punishment and rehabilitation purposes to be served together.[15]
[15]Boulton v The Queen (2014) VR 308.
78I have structured the CCO with that very purpose in mind too. It is by design that I have made the order to last as long as Dr Owens recommends you remain on anti-psychotic medication. This also means that you will be answerable to this court for your offending until late 2024, close to five years after it occurred. You will not be idle over that period either, you will be further punished in a very practical way that I will come to in a moment, but moreover you will be required to engage in treatment, continue with medication, abstain from drugs and otherwise do all that is asked of you both by Corrections and me.
79It appears to me that I can denounce your conduct, punish you, deter others as well as you and foster conditions that assist in your reform, by imposing a long community corrections order with a raft of stringent conditions that will be triggered immediately upon your release. I acknowledge the inherently punitive aspects implicit in any CCO, but in this case, there will be a demonstrable aspect of punishment further imposed by way of a substantial amount of unpaid community work. I am informed there is no impediment to you undertaking same.
Totality
80I consider the global, total amount of time you have spent in custody since your original remand and that includes the sentence imposed on 4 March 2021.[16]
[16]Now in excess of 600 days.
81I also note for completeness, there is a degree of overlap between the criminality involved in Charges 1 and 2 and that fact is also accommodated in this sentence.
Sentence
82The challenge faced by this court is balancing many relevant considerations, some of which obviously pull in different directions, so as to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence.
83Having carefully considered, balanced and weighed the relevant sentencing considerations, I convict you and sentence you to a combination sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment followed by a two-year CCO.
84Every community corrections order contains certain core conditions. They are as follows:
(a) You must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment.
(b) You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by the Regulations.
(c) You must report to, or receive visits from, the Secretary during the period of the order.
(d) You must report to Melbourne Justice Community Correctional Services within two days of the commencement of the order.
(e) You must notify the Secretary of any change of address or employment within two working days after the change.
(f) You must not leave the State of Victoria, except with the permission of the Secretary; and
(g) You must comply with any direction given by the Secretary that is necessary for the Secretary to give, to ensure that you comply with the order.
85The following conditions apply in addition to those mandatory ones:
(a) You be the subject of supervision by the Office of Corrections.
(b) You complete 200 hours of unpaid community work over the two-year period of the order.
(c) You undergo assessment and treatment (including testing) for drug abuse or dependency as directed.
(d) You undergo assessment and treatment (including testing) for alcohol abuse or dependency as directed.
(e) You undergo mental health assessment and treatment as directed.
(f) You must undergo programs designed to reduce the risk of re-offending.
86In order to encourage you to reform and engage fully Mr Glinski in the programs I have ordered, I propose to order 50 hours of the treatment that you engage yourself in, will be taken off the 200 hours of unpaid community work.
87Finally, I will order judicial monitoring, with the first return date being Monday, 12 December 2022 at 9.30 am.[17]
[17]The Court’s enquiries with Sentence Management reveal that a 20-month sentence would permit Mr Glinski’s release on 13 November 2022, but this may be brought forward to the 29 September if the prison gives 46 emergency management days he seems to be entitled to.
88I can only impose such an order, Mr Glinski, if you consent to it being made. Do you consent? We might just need Mr Glinski off mute for that aspect, thank you? Mr Glinski do you consent to an order being made in those terms?
89OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
90HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you. You need to understand if you were to breach this order in any way, either by committing another offence or by not complying with any of the conditions, they be core conditions or special conditions, you could be charged with breaching the order. That includes any breaches of intervention order, that are presently in place to protect Mr Sciarra and Ms Glenn, for instance. I have not included them in the order, but Mr Glinski, you should be under no illusions as to what would happen to you if you approached either of them.
91OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
92HIS HONOUR: You should be under no illusions what would happen to you if you breached this order in any way.
93OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour, I - I understand.
94HIS HONOUR: You are officially at last chance saloon. Do you follow?
95OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour I do.
96HIS HONOUR: All right.
97The offence of breaching community corrections order itself carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment. So, if you breach this order, you come back to me and you are sentenced both for the breach offence and then you would also be re-sentenced for the matters on the indictment. I suggest that you do everything in your power not to do that.
Pre-sentence detention
98Pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I declare you have served a period of 529 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today’s date. I further order that that declaration and its details be entered in the records of the court.
Section 6AAA
99Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I give the following indication, but for your plea of guilty to these charges, I would have sentenced you to a period of four years and six months’ imprisonment and set a non-parole period of three years and two months.
100MS KADDECHE: If the court pleases.
101MR NORRIS: The court pleases.
102HIS HONOUR: Does any of that need to be repeated or clarified?
103OFFENDER: I didn't get the last bit the four years, three, what's that Your Honour?
104HIS HONOUR: Had you not pleaded guilty that's how long you’d spend in gaol, Mr Glinski.
105OFFENDER: Oh, oh, yes Your Honour I understand.
106HIS HONOUR: Thank you for a number of things. Firstly, both of you, the quality of your submissions and the assistance you gave me. Two, for making yourself available at this hour on a Friday afternoon. Ms Kaddeche I'll leave you open on the link with Mr Glinski for a few minutes just to debrief.
107MS KADDECHE: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you.
108HIS HONOUR: Are there any other orders that are sought by the Crown, Mr Norris? I don't recall there being any?
109MR NORRIS: No, Your Honour, nothing further.
110HIS HONOUR: Thank you again, have a good weekend. Mr Glinski, I will see you in a couple of months' time and I have very high expectations.
111OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
112HIS HONOUR: All right. Adjourn the court, thank you.
- - -
0
5
0