Director of Public Prosecutions v Grima

[2014] VCC 1700

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

V

JOHN GRIMA

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CAMPTON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 September 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 October 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Grima
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VCC 1700

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: Intentionally Cause Serious Injury – Contravention of Family Violence Intervention Order
Catchwords: Offending against de facto partner – domestic violence – intimate terrorism
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited: R v Cansino [1997] VSC (Unreported, 11/04/1994)
Sentence: 6 years imprisonment, with a 4 year non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms E. Hill	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Offender	Mr A. Halse	McNamaras Solicitors

HER HONOUR: 

CHARGE

1John Grima, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing serious injury and one charge of contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order.  The maximum sentence for the charge of intentionally causing serious injury is 20 years' imprisonment.  The maximum sentence for contravention of an intervention order is two years' imprisonment or a fine of 240 penalty units or both.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDING

2The prosecution opening regarding the circumstances of your offending was extensive and it will be attached to and form part of this sentence. 

3Your offending was committed against your de facto partner, whom I will refer to as the complainant, who was living with you at your house in Gladstone Park at the time of your offending. 

4Approximately a year prior to your offending, in about March or April 2012, you found some explicit photographs of the complainant taken prior to you commencing your relationship.  It was after you found these photographs that your relationship began to deteriorate. 

5Your offending occurred between 16 and 20 April 2013.  During that time you physically assaulted the complainant at your home address.  Over four days your physical assaults on her included:

·Entering the room that she was in and asking her questions and, when she answered them, hitting her, punching and kicking her in the face;

·Pinning her down and trying to gouge her eyes;

·Grabbing her arm and biting her on the arm;

·Grabbing her by the hair and yanking at her head;

·Smashing her head against the wall;

·Using your knees to assault her, and

·On one occasion, using a meat tenderiser to hit her on the legs and buttocks. 

6On the occasion you hit her with the meat tenderiser, you said that you were sick of hitting her with your hands and that you were going to get a hammer.  You got the meat tenderiser from the kitchen and hit her on the legs and buttocks until she eventually passed out.  You also threatened and verbally assaulted her.  On one occasion when you were assaulting her and she was screaming, you threatened to cut her tongue out.  On another occasion you told her that her family and children all hated her and she was dumb. 

7At the time you assaulted the complainant, you were subject to an intervention order granted to the complainant on 13 December 2012 at the Magistrates' Court sitting at Broadmeadows, prohibiting you from committing family violence against her.

8On Saturday 20 April the complainant made a list of all the chores she had done that day.  She wrote a note to you saying, "Sorry, John, I have to go.  You are either going to kill me or I'm going to keep copping bashings."  She left the list, a note on the bed and went to a neighbour's house. 

9The complainant was then driven by the neighbour and friend to a police station.  When she arrived at the police station at 10.30 the police officer on duty observed her to be visibly distressed and scared.  She also observed severe bruising and swelling on her face.  The complainant told the police constable that she had been continually assaulted over the last four days by her partner. The constable contacted 000 and an ambulance attended the station. 

THE INJURIES

10The complainant was seen by paramedics and transported to the Royal Melbourne Hospital.  Upon arrival at the Royal Melbourne Hospital the complainant was seen by Dr Elizabeth King, who conducted a physical examination and made various observations of her physical state.  These observations are detailed in the prosecution summary and include: 

·    Observations of extensive deep purple to black bruising over the complainant's bilateral forehead, eyes, cheek, jaw and right shoulder;

·    Bruising behind her ears and to the forearms;

·    An extensive right temporal conjunctival haemorrhage to the left eye;

·    Lateral nasal and temporal conjunctival haemorrhage;

·    Scratches to the right arm and bloodied scabs on the legs consistent with a meat tenderiser being used.  The diagnosis was a soft tissue neck injury, a right frontal petechial brain haemorrhage, lipase rise, likely traumatic and multiple rib fractures, acute and chronic.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT

11

The complainant was also seen by the forensic medical officer, Dr Matik Moller.  His findings on physical examination of the complainant were much the same as Dr King.  He described various elements of the injuries as being consistent with blunt force trauma at various times and as being defensive in nature.  In his opinions the injuries were significant and potentially

life-threatening. 

12The complainant showed considerable courage in reading her victim impact statement to the court.  As a result of your attack on her, she is left with numerous scares on her body which have caused her considerable concern.  Emotionally she struggles to come to terms with what has happened.  She is engaging in counselling once a week with a psychologist to help her to come to terms with the depression and anxiety that has overwhelmed her.  Her family are fearful that she will become involved in a similar relationship in the future.  Her 12 year old daughter was upset on seeing her in hospital and blamed herself for not protecting her mother.  

13The plaintiff is currently resuming her career in aged care as a personal care assistant after many months of delaying her career due to being physically limited and unable to care for her patients.

14You were arrested at 4.12 pm on 20 April 2013 and denied assaulting the complainant in your record of interview. 

15With respect to the timing of your plea, the matter resolved at the final directions hearing on 30 July 2014, which was after the complainant had been cross-examined at the committal.

PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

16Your personal circumstances were set out in a report from Mr Jeffrey Cummins dated 26 September 2014.  Further details were contained in a chronology supplied by your counsel.

17You were born on 2 July 1977 in Melbourne.  Your parents are both from Malta.  Your father worked as a fitter and turner, and your mother in a factory.  Their careers both ended prematurely as a result of work-related injuries.  You have a 41 year old sister, but neither yourself nor your parents have any ongoing contact with your sister.

18With respect to your education, you were educated at Oak Park High School until passing Year 11.  On leaving school, you completed a Diploma of Electronics at Broadmeadows TAFE over four years.  You worked as a student in the auto electrics industry and from 1997 to 2003 you were self-employed and ran your own auto electric shop, then you worked for several years as a mobile auto electrician.  You ceased work approximately six months prior to the offences. 

19You have a limited criminal record with no priors for violence.  In 1998 you received a suspended term of imprisonment and a community-based order for theft of a motor car, theft from a motor car and making a false report to police.  Neither the suspended sentence nor the community-based order were breached. 

20In 2009 you received a suspended term of imprisonment for handling stolen goods and obtaining property by deception for which you received a suspended sentence which again was not breached.  There are three charges of assault pending, arising out of an incident between you and the complainant on 10 December 2012. 

21On 30 July 2010, Rebecca, your wife of five years, was killed in a car accident in St George's Road, Preston when she was the front seat passenger in a car being driven by her 19 year old cousin.  You learnt from the Coroner's report that she was two months pregnant.

22You informed Mr Cummins that you were devastated by your wife's death.  You turned to smoking cannabis daily and started smoking crystal meth approximately six months prior to your offending.  You consumed approximately half a gram per day until your arrest.

MR CUMMINS’ OPINION

23Mr Cummins was of the opinion that subsequent to your wife's death you developed significant psychological problems including an adjustment disorder, a persistent complex bereavement disorder and a post-traumatic stress disorder.  In his opinion, you attempted to cope with these mental health conditions by self-medicating, by using cannabis and crystal meth and you eventually developed a dependency on both these substances.

24When he assessed you on 25 August 2013, he formed the opinion that you were in urgent need of mental health treatment and assistance in relation to drug dependency.

25When you were eventually granted bail, it was on the condition that you participated in the Innesfree Rehabilitation Program, where you remained for one month.  You have been drug-free since your arrest on 20 April 2013.  You informed Mr Cummins that you had gained a significant benefit from participating in the Innesfree program and a report from them confirms that this is the case. 

26You informed Mr Cummins on 5 August 2014 that you had essentially resolved your grief concerning your deceased wife and you had moved on from your relationship with the complainant.  You had accepted that it was a destructive and counterproductive relationship. 

27With respect to your prospects for long-term rehabilitation, Mr Cummins was of the opinion that they were now very favourable. 

MITIGATING FACTORS

28In mitigation of your offending, your counsel relied on the following matters:  Your plea of guilty, which was said to be an expression of your remorse and an acceptance of your responsibility for wrongdoing.  While not made at the first available opportunity, your guilty plea had saved the expense of a trial and the complainant from giving evidence at the trial. 

29Your prospects for rehabilitation were submitted to be good, given that you had a limited prior criminal history, no prior offences for violence, a sound work ethic until recently and a close and supportive family.  They were also submitted to be well-advanced given your participation in the Innesfree Drug Program. 

30A report from Innesfree dated 13 January 2014 confirmed that your drug testing and alcohol breath tests had all reported negative.  You are described as being cooperative, as having engaged in all the program requirements and as being highly motivated to make significant changes in your life.

31Your counsel also tendered various certificates related to your efforts in custody to try and better yourself.  For example, an introduction to anger management program, work safety in the construction area, first-aid, a communication skills program and a construction induction card. 

32Whilst your counsel accepted that you had offended in a very serious fashion and that a custodial sentence was appropriate, he urged the court to impose a long period of parole and a short period of time to be actually served. 

PROSECUTION SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS

33The prosecutor, however, submitted that there should be a custodial sentence for some considerable length.  Your offending was submitted to be a serious example of a serious offence, as was reflected by the maximum term of imprisonment being 20 years.  Both general as well as specific deterrence were submitted to be important.  You had used the meat cleaver to inflict injury, you had breached an intervention order and this was an aggravating feature of your offending.

SENTENCING REMARKS

34In sentencing you, I have taken into account all the mitigating matters put by your counsel.  Your plea of guilty, although it was not at the first available opportunity, saved the expense of a trial and the complainant from being subjected to cross-examination for a second time.  I accept that your plea of guilty is reflection of your remorse and that you have made efforts to deal with what no doubt were contributing factors to your offending, that is your drug use and anger issues. 

35With respect to the submission that your prospects for rehabilitation are good, however, I consider that you will have to do more than attending an anger management course and ceasing your drug use before they can be described as good.  Your violent behaviour towards the complainant was appalling, cowardly and brutal and showed a total disrespect for her as a person.  During the assaults on the complainant, you kept saying that it was her fault and that her lying and cheating made you do it.  You were controlling, threatening and abusive. 

36An aggravating feature of your offending which took place over the four day period is that it was in breach of the intervention order.  I consider that your chances of rehabilitation will only be good if you readdress your attitude towards using violence, to deal with problems and conflict in your personal relationships.

37

Dr Moller described the complainant's injuries as being significant and

life-threatening.  While the complainant has recovered, it was apparent from her victim impact statement that she still suffers pains in her ribs, hand and jaw.  She has been left with many scars as a reminder of the sustained violence inflicted on her over those four days.  In addition, it is hardly surprising that she struggles emotionally with the fact that someone who professed to love her could abuse her in the way you did.

38In her sentencing submissions, the prosecutor referred to sentencing remarks made by Vincent J in the unreported decision of R v Cansino [1997] VSC (Unreported, 11/04/1994).  In that case, Mr Cansino had entered a plea of guilty to intentionally causing injury to his partner whom he was living with at the time.  In sentencing him, Vincent J stated:

"You have committed an extremely serious crime of a kind which our community has been concerned with over recent years.  The too frequent resort to violence by persons who have encountered problems in their personal relationships has produced a strong sense of apprehension and outrage in a society which is not prepared to accept that women and children, in particular, are to be subject to such behaviour."

Through the sentences that they impose, the courts must reflect their recognition of the seriousness of such conduct.  The law must be heard to say with crystal clarity that it will not be tolerated.  Consistent with the application of other sentencing principles, judges must endeavour, through their sentences which they hand down, to deter those who are likeminded or may be prepared to release their feelings of frustration and aggression in this manner from engaging in acts of violence of the type which you have perpetrated.”

39In sentencing you, I must take into account the importance of general deterrence.  It is a sad comment on our society that the sentencing remarks made by Vincent J were made back on 11 April 1994.  Unfortunately today, in 2014, domestic violence remains a serious social problem in our community, a form of intimate terrorism, and those who use violence in this way could expect cogent punishment.

40Would you please stand up.

41Taking into account all the various sentencing considerations I am bound to consider, including all the mitigating circumstances that were outlined by your counsel to the court, on the charge of intentionally causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.  I set a non-parole period of four years. 

42

On the charge of breaching an intervention order, you are sentenced to

18 months. 

43But for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to eight years, to serve six years.

44In this case the prosecution sought certificates pursuant to s.464ZF.  I have made those certificates, or granted those certificates on the basis of the seriousness of the offending.  I believe that it was by consent and that it is in the interests of the community that I make the orders.

45I have also made an order in relation to disposal.

46Pre-sentence detention is declared as 275 days - - -

47ASSOCIATE:  Nine.

48HER HONOUR:  Sorry, 900?

49ASSOCIATE"   Two hundred and seventy-nine.

50HER HONOUR:  Two hundred and seventy-nine days is declared as already served.  Yes, is there anything - - -

51MS HILL:  Nothing, Your Honour.

52MR HALSE:  No, Your Honour.

- - -