Director of Public Prosecutions v Harrison
[2022] VCC 1522
•14 September 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Unrestricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-20-01540
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JAMES HARRISON |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE TODD | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | Multiple | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 September 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Harrison | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1522 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – one charge of intentionally causing serious injury – one charge of possession of a drug of dependence – County Koori Court plea – circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act1958; Sentencing Act1991.
Cases Cited:DPP v Williams and Ors [2022] VCC 1379; Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.
Sentence: Community Corrections Order of 18 months duration, without conviction; fine of $1,000.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms J. Malobabic | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Harrison | Ms O. Thompson | Marshall Jovanovska Ralph |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1
James Harrison, on 11 May and 26 August 2022 I sentenced your
co-accused in this case, Mr DeSilva, Ms Williams, Mr Sexton and Mr Al Zwainy. The sentence for these latter people can be read at DPP v Williams and Ors [2022] VCC 1379.
2
Via different routes and for different reasons, I have sentenced each of your
co-accused to Community Corrections Orders with a range of special conditions.
3You are being dealt with separately because of your election to finalise your plea in the Koori Court jurisdiction.
Pleas of guilty and maximum penalty
4You, Mr Harrison, pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing injury, and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence.
5You also agreed to uplift and pleaded guilty to the related summary offence of the possession of a prohibited weapon without exemption – this relates to a 50cm double-edged machete found at your house when police executed a warrant there on 7 August 2019. I note that this is a separate charge, and this weapon is not said to have been used in the offence of causing injury intentionally. The weapon was found in your home.
Statutory maxima
6The maximum penalty for causing injury intentionally is 10 years’ imprisonment.
7The maximum penalty for the offence of possession of a drug of dependence is five years’ imprisonment (or one year if the court is satisfied that it was not for any purpose relating to trafficking).
8The maximum penalty for the possession of a prohibited weapon without exemption is two years’ imprisonment, or 24 penalty units.
Circumstances of the offending
9This case concerns a group of people who decided that it was a good idea to make a 'reality' TV show on the subject of 'mob wives', or, more particularly, about the life of Ms Williams and her family.
10You were not involved in the original plan, but entered the scene once the project soured.
11A prosecution opening was filed in your case, dated 8 August 2022. It was tendered on your plea and became Exhibit A – it is attached to and forms part of this sentence. I will not repeat every fact here but refer to parts of it in summary.
12The first part of the factual summary relates only to your co-accused but provides context for the later offending.
13On 6 May 2019, Ms Williams responded to correspondence via direct message on Instagram, sent to her by the victim in this matter, Mr Ryan Naumenko. They began discussing the possibility of creating a reality television show. The concept of the show would be to 'capture the life’ of Ms Williams.
14Mr Naumenko told Ms Williams that he worked with Channel 9 and SBS' 'Viceland' channel. They spoke, it is said, of creating this reality TV show in the coming weeks.
15By 20 June 2019, Mr Naumenko told Ms Williams that he was going to arrange a camera crew. They had discussions about starting a 'GoFundMe' page so that others could contribute to the project.
16At one point Ms Williams told Mr Naumenko she thought he was a 'scammer'. In response, he said that the money for this TV series was coming from 'him'. They continued to message one another about the show.
17Mr Naumenko sent Ms Williams messages, saying he made a lot of money and could lend her and her partner money.
18Mr Naumenko then suggested that Ms Williams meet with a producer friend of his. He claimed that $50,000 had been raised through the 'GoFundMe' page, and that he was happy to pass this money on to her.
19By 25 June 2019, Mr Naumenko had contacted Allan Meehan, the 'producer'. He created a WhatsApp messenger group with himself, Mr Meehan and Ms Williams.
20On 25 June 2019, Mr Meehan transferred $10,000 to Mr Naumenko's account for the purpose of funding a 'reality' TV show about Ms Williams' life.
21Discussions then moved to renting a location to film in. Ms Williams told Mr Naumenko not to spend too much on rent. She and her partner Rob then had dinner with Mr Naumenko that evening; there were discussions about Mr Naumenko lending money to Rob.
22Messages between Ms Williams and Mr Naumenko about the show continued over the next few days; Mr Naumenko told Ms Williams that someone from Netflix was interested in investing in the production.
23However, on 30 June 2019 Ms Williams sent messages to Mr Naumenko stating she wanted to pull out of the arrangements. Mr Naumenko persuaded her not to; he had, he said, already made deposits in excess of $50,000 for the show.
24On 1 July 2019, Mr Naumenko contacted a man named Daniel De Silva who owned a production video company, 'Cloakroom Media', in Collingwood.
25The following day, Mr Naumenko met with Mr De Silva in Collingwood to discuss the production; a quote was prepared for the amount of $14,300. A deposit was payable. Filming was to begin on 5 July 2019.
26On 2 July 2019 Ms Williams met with Mr De Silva in Collingwood. On 3 July 2019 Mr Naumenko sent her a message suggesting there had been significant financial investment in the project.
27Contrary to any of the representations made by Mr Naumenko, the only money that was available for the production was the $10,000 transferred by Mr Meehan on 25 June 2019.
28In messages later obtained by police, Mr Naumenko had contacted a third party, commenting that he was delaying progress on the project because only one person had invested in the show.
29Mr Naumenko had set about trying to find a filming location.
30On 4 July 2019, Mr De Silva contacted Mr Naumenko telling him how to pay the agreed deposit for his work on the project. Mr Naumenko told Mr De Silva he had paid the deposit, which was false.
31Mr Naumenko rented an apartment in Hampton via Airbnb to film in. He told Mr De Silva he had paid a $5,000 bond for the apartment, which was untrue.
32On 5 July 2019, Mr Naumenko, Mr De Silva and others began setting up the apartment for filming, and Ms Williams arrived at the address accompanied by you, Mr Harrison.
33After filming finished that day, Mr De Silva asked Mr Naumenko for payment to be made that night. In response, Mr Naumenko said they had agreed previously that Mr De Silva would own the footage and would be paid once a pilot was made, but said that he would endeavour to borrow some money and pay Mr De Silva that evening.
34I note that the prosecution in this matter did not assert that Mr Naumenko's statements as to the terms of the agreement should be accepted as truthful.
35That evening, Mr Naumenko sent Mr De Silva messages that he had been pulled over by police and could not pay the money. He then said he would pay the money; however, no such payment was made.
36On 7 July, Mr Naumenko's mother and children flew to Melbourne. They then went to the apartment where Mr Naumenko was staying.
37At this time Ms Williams was messaging Mr De Silva on WhatsApp. They had come to the mutual view that the complainant was indeed 'scamming' them.
38Mr Naumenko told Ms Williams that he could not film that night as his children had arrived. She shared these messages with Mr De Silva.
39Mr Naumenko told Ms Williams that he was considering giving Mr Meehan his money back.
40Ms Williams and Mr De Silva then came up with a plan to extract money from Mr Naumenko. This is the genesis of the acts giving rise to the charge of blackmail, to which they pleaded guilty.
41Ms Williams wrote to Mr De Silva on WhatsApp proposing a plan to meet Mr Naumenko for the purposes of extracting money from him. They discussed potentially taking his car. Ms Williams, wrote that ‘if one of the boys give him an open hand slap and push to get your money it's no big deal.’ Mr De Silva spoke of Mr Naumenko 'having a stroke' when he saw 'the boys'.
42With Mr De Silva, Ms Williams made a plan to lure Mr Naumenko to the studio in Collingwood for the false purpose of viewing footage that had been edited. They would then intimidate Mr Naumenko and extract the money from him. I note you were not part of this plan, Mr Harrison, and you are not to be punished for the blackmail.
43On 8 July 2019, Mr De Silva sent a message to Mr Naumenko asking for payment and also saying that he had edited together footage for viewing. They fixed a time to meet. Mr De Silva told Ms Williams of the time and place of this meeting.
44It is at this point your participation, Mr Harrison, commences.
Ms Williams had recruited you Mr Harrison to come to the meeting and to intimidate Mr Naumenko, and you, in turn, recruited Mr Sexton and Mr Al Zwainy. These, I take it, were 'the boys' previously referred to by Ms Williams.
The day of the offending
45On the day of the offending, 9 July 2019, Ms Williams exchanged messages with you in which you confirmed you were bringing two friends to the meeting at the studio in Collingwood.
46Police later obtained a message sent by you to Mr Al Zwainy, saying ‘Come with me tonight?’, which he agreed to. You said you would meet him at 4:45pm, and CCTV footage shows you both leaving your address together at about 5:02pm.
47At about 5:40pm, Mr Naumenko brought his children and mother to the meeting at Cloakroom Studios. Ms Williams, sent a message to you at this time telling you to 'play it cool' until Mr Naumenko's family had left.
48Mr De Silva showed Mr Naumenko the footage.
49CCTV footage from this time depicts you, Mr Harrison, with Mr Sexton and Mr Al Zwainy, in the area of the studios at 6:51pm.
50Mr Naumenko left the studio and took his mother and children back to the apartment. He returned to the studio alone at 8:31pm.
The offending
51When Mr Naumenko returned, Mr De Silva suggested a toast before saying 'You're fucked. It’s all over now'. Mr De Silva then said, 'I want money now, Roberta wants money now otherwise you're fucked'. When the complainant offered to organise money, Mr De Silva said 'It’s too late, you're dead'.
52Mr Sexton and you, Mr Harrison, began hitting Mr Naumenko on the sides of his face while Ms Williams, yelled out words to the effect of 'Kill the cunt, he has no money'. Mr Naumenko was repeatedly punched and kicked and was bleeding.
53At 8:40pm Mr Naumenko sent a message to his mother saying 'Call police ASAP'.
54One of the accused then produced a handgun and told Mr Naumenko to sit down (I return later in these reasons to the presence of the handgun).
55Over the next three hours Mr Naumenko was punched and kicked, tied to a chair and threatened. Mr Sexton threatened to break Mr Naumenko's hands, and said you had a mate who would 'burn’ him. Ms Williams demanded money and told Mr Naumenko he was lucky you had not killed his mother and children.
56Mr Naumenko was forced to call his father and sister, asking them for money. Mr Naumenko’s father and sister each transferred $1,000 to an account, the details of which were provided by Mr De Silva, to an account belonging to his company Cloakroom Media.
57Mr De Silva then made Mr Naumenko sign a document to transfer ownership of his mother’s car. Mr Naumenko's car key was kept by one of the people present.
58At about 11:30pm, after being threatened by your associates and told not to contact police, Mr De Silva drove Mr Naumenko home.
59Mr Naumenko was injured, and his mother took photos of his face.
Medical evidence
60Police arranged for the complainant to be examined by Dr Gerald Murphy. The examination took place on 12 July 2019 and Dr Murphy recorded the following matters:
(a) bruising behind the right ear;
(b) redness and swelling to the left side of the face;
(c) superficial scabs on the scalp;
(d) puffiness of the right cheek;
(e) bruising under the right eye;
(f) a large purple bruise on the right jaw;
(g) a laceration on the right upper lip;
(h) bruising on the inner right cheek, and
(i) bruising to the upper and lower lips on the right-hand side.
Investigation and arrest
61On 12 July 2019 police executed a search warrant at Cloakroom Media. Among other things, they found a blank VicRoads transfer of vehicle ownership form. On 7 August 2019 you were arrested by police at a unit in Craigieburn, and your phone was seized.
Interview
62You exercised your right to silence at a police interview.
Procedural chronology
63With your co-accused, your case moved, during the worst of the pandemic, slowly through the Magistrates' and County Court processes, ultimately being dealt with by way of sentence indication hearing before me. At that hearing, and in the context of your co-accused's resolution of their cases, I indicated I would impose a Community Corrections Order were you to enter pleas of guilty to the charges indicated on the draft indictment. You later elected to conclude your plea in the County Koori Court. I return to this later in these reasons.
64It is important to say here that there has now been some considerable delay, generally attributable to the pandemic, in resolving your case, and I accept that these matters have weighed on you in a way that amounts to additional punishment for nearly three years.
Nature and gravity of the offending
65The prosecution puts its case against you in the following terms:
· You agreed to attend the Cloakroom Studio to assist your co-accused in a confrontation with Mr Naumenko for the purpose of adding numbers to intimidate him.
· Once Mr Naumenko had returned to the studio alone, you entered an agreement with your co-accused that he would be assaulted.
· You, together with your co-accused, assaulted and threatened the complainant, intending to cause him an injury. As a result of the assault, the complainant suffered the injuries that I have already set out.
66I have previously described the offending of your co‑accused as unquestionably serious, terrifying, and traumatic for the victim, and this description applies equally to your offending. Although you were not involved in the lead up to these events, you recruited Mr Sexton and Mr Al Zwainy. Your offending unfolded over about three hours; you offended in the company of others. For a 23-year-old person with no prior convictions, your participation in these events is remarkable.
67Your victim sustained a number of injuries to the face and head as a result of what happened to him.
68You apparently accepted the invitation to participate in a scene of intimidation and violence that otherwise had nothing to do with you, and this makes your decision to become involved all the more concerning. The offending was protracted and cruel. Your enthusiasm for the arrangement, and your bringing along friends is worrying.
69Having said that, I am conscious of the need not to sentence you for the charges of blackmail, or for any of the particular threats said to have been uttered in the context of the assault.
70Your participation in these events has a considered quality; and the assault itself was enduring.
Nature and gravity – handgun
71I pause here to note as I have done previously, the prosecution alleged the presence of a handgun at these events. Ultimately, no particular accused was able to be attributed with bringing or using or having knowledge of the handgun. In the circumstances of this case, I appreciate why this aspect of the evidence would have been very difficult to prove. I mention it here for completeness. I have not forgotten the allegation that a handgun was present throughout these events, but I have not applied this fact in the assessment of seriousness of the offending of any accused, given the state of evidence about it, and the burden and standard of proof for a fact alleged in aggravation of sentence.
Impact on victim
72I am obliged to take into account the impact of your offending on your victim. Mr Naumenko read his victim impact statement to the Court on a number of occasions when the court has dealt with these matters, and I reviewed it, and know you were, Mr Harrison, present in court for at least one of the occasions when the statement was read in public. Through your counsel you acknowledged the terrifying nature of what was done to him. Mr Naumenko was injured to the face and head and still experiences feelings of fear about what happened. I listened to him read his victim impact statement and I take into account the effect of your offending on him.
73I am particularly careful not to sentence you, Mr Harrison, by reference to the effect of the blackmail on Mr Naumenko.
Personal Circumstances
74Your family are, according to your mother Rachel's reference, 'proud Aboriginal people from the Yorta Yorta tribe'.[1] You grew up in a single parent family. Your mother Rachel writes of raising you after leaving your father in the light of his physical, emotional and psychological abuse. She raised you in the shadow of transgenerational trauma – she writes of her own mother's struggle with alcohol. She was determined to raise you in a loving, and consistent, and peaceful environment.
[1] See reference of Rachael Harrison dated 29 July 2022
75According to your mother, you always tried your best at school, even though it was not easy for you. You fell behind; an auditory processing disorder was diagnosed in grade three, and your mother engaged a tutor for you. A diagnosis of ADHD followed. You left school in Year 11 to take up an apprenticeship as a refrigeration mechanic (a plumbing qualification) – you completed the apprenticeship and worked in this field steadily for the next seven years, ultimately taking on an apprentice of your own. I note the reference from your former employer. You bought your first home at only 22.
76Your employment progress was devastated by your being the victim of a hit-run car accident in 2020, which meant you needed two operations and now await a third. It has prevented you from working and had an impact on your physical and emotional state. You suffer from unresolved pain and sleeplessness.
Matters in mitigation
77You come before the court at 27 years old and a person of prior good character. You have no criminal convictions of any kind. On your plea, Ms Thompson, who appeared as your counsel, tendered a range of references from family, friends and an employer all of whom testify to your good character, your care for other people, and your industrious nature. Your family and associates hold you in high regard and express their respect and affection for you. I have taken each of the references into account.
78It is clear that you regard yourself as a responsible member of the Yorta Yorta community – you are a volunteer at an Indigenous boxing gym. You visit your grandmother each week and assist her to get to her appointments.
Bugmy[2] principles
[2]Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.
79On your plea it was submitted that the principles in the case of Bugmy apply to your case. It is clear that your mother Rachel was both determined to, and for the most part did, shield you from the worst consequences of the intergenerational trauma visited upon you stemming from the moment, among others, that your great-grandfather was stolen from his family, no doubt among other unjust and irreparable harms. Even so, it is clear that some of those difficulties have resonated through your own life and affect the people who have cared for you. I count your deprived background, to some limited degree, (by reference to your mother’s shielding of you from the worst consequences of this), in your favour in terms articulated by the High Court in the case of Bugmy v The Queen.[3] I also temper this assessment in terms of your prospects for rehabilitation and the role for specific deterrence.
[3]Ibid, [44].
Plea of guilty
80I take into account your plea of guilty. I accept that in your case your plea is both objectively and subjectively valuable. A committal exposed serious weaknesses in the prosecution case, which might have tempted some to conduct a trial as an exercise in proof of guilt of the victim. Whatever the wisdom of that course, you each, Mr Harrison, steered your cases ultimately to a resolution, and have had this matter overhanging your life until today.
81At any time, your plea would be acknowledged as delivering a strong utilitarian benefit; a trial of an estimated six weeks' duration has been rendered unnecessary; but at this time, when, even though case waiting times are contracting, the backlog of cases awaiting trial still slows the proper administration of justice, so your plea demands an additional and palpable benefit. I make it clear that were it not for this factor your sentence would have been significantly more stern. I also accept that your plea contains within it an aspect of remorse, by reference to materials I will turn to later in these reasons.
Current sentencing practices
82The sentencing practices for the charges of intentionally causing injury are broad and heavily fact-dependant. I have considered the sentencing range in the form of comparable cases and of sentencing statistics: no case is exactly like yours and my job is to do individual justice in that landscape.
Delay
83I have had regard to current sentencing practices for the charges before me. Sentencing practices for the charge of intentionally causing injury are heavily fact dependent. I have considered the sentencing range in the form of comparable cases and of sentencing statistics. I have already noted the significant delay in the resolution of the case, and the fact that the charges you pleaded guilty are quite different from those which you originally faced. It has taken three years for your case to resolve, during which time you have demonstrated your ongoing rehabilitation, and complied with bail conditions, and have not reoffended. I accept that the delay of three years between your offending and this sentence, and the uncertainty that you experienced in that time, has been punitive for you, and I take it into account.
Covid-19 pandemic circumstances
84I did not sentence any of the accused in this case to terms of immediate imprisonment and one of the factors pulling away from such a disposition at this time is the harsher conditions experienced by prisoners at the moment, brought about by the necessity to manage the Covid‑19 pandemic in custody.
Sentencing conversation – Koori Court jurisdiction
85You participated in the sentencing conversation where I was assisted by Uncle Rod and Uncle David and they talked to you about your offending and placed both you and what you did in some cultural context.
86I listened carefully to the exchanges between you, and to what was said at the sentencing conversation by your mother Rachel, and your stepfather Drew, and I listened to the elders in court. I watched you participate in that conversation – I am sure parts of it were quite uncomfortable for you. You had to sit with, among other things, your mother's deep grief about what you did. I listened to the elders as they kindly, but firmly, held you to account, not just for your past but for your future.
87I learned that you have been helping your mother care for your two nieces that live with her at the moment. You have helped them with their school projects. You have nursed some shame about being involved in these matters because you know that some of the young people in your Aboriginal community look up to you. You did not try to justify what you did or valorise your role.
88You spoke about your ambitions for the future, how you had become to be involved in this group at that time, the difficulties that the injuries you have sustained in the car accident have caused you, and your preparedness to return to work.
89You unequivocally accepted responsibility, did not try to blame anybody else, and spoke of your acknowledgement of the impact of your offending on others.
90I regard your participation in the Koori Court process as important. When you elected to take that course, I had already indicated that you would be subject to a Community Corrections Order by way of disposition. I have no doubt it would have been easier for you to simply submit to that disposition without enduring Uncle Rod and Uncle David's stern attention as they focused on your shame and responsibility. Given that you already knew the outcome, your submission of yourself to this process seems particularly important.
Parity: Williams, Sexton, Al Zwainy (De Silva)
91I have turned my mind to the question of parity as between co‑accused in this case and there is significant disparity in the legal structure of the pleas. Ms Williams (and I note Mr De Silva, who I have previously sentenced) pleaded guilty to the much more serious charges of blackmail, as well as to a charge of recklessly causing injury on a complicity basis. Mr De Silva and Ms Williams called in aid very different but very powerful matters in mitigation, though they had very similar levels of culpability in relation to the actual offending. Mr De Silva could rely on previous good character and a difficult five‑day remand, among other things. Ms Williams’ exceptional family circumstances weighed heavily in her favour in her plea.
92You, Mr Harrison, were somewhat at the apex of what I will call the secondary group in this scenario, being those who attended without having a stake in the original dispute or project. You were an active participant in the assault. You recruited Mr Sexton and Mr Al Zwainy. Your plea includes the element of intention to cause injury. You, of course, have more powerful matters pulling in the other direction that are unique to you – your lack of prior history, your otherwise good character, and your participation in the Koori Court process in particular.
93I refer to my expansive analysis of the parity issues in this case in my earlier sentencing judgment which has been published.
94Each accused in this case had a different starting line and different considerations along the way, pulling him or her more deeply into their own incomparable category.
Sentencing principles
95I must apply the proper sentencing principles in your case and given your lack of prior convictions and no subsequent offending over the last three years, specific deterrence, I find, has little or no weight in your case. Punishment though is required and denunciation of this behaviour. General deterrence has a role to play in discouraging others from behaving in similar ways. I find you have strong prospects for a full rehabilitation by reference to your history, your trade qualification, and your family support.
Conviction or Non-Conviction
96Ms Thompson submitted that I should consider not recording a conviction when I imposed a Community Corrections Order. She relied on the matters in s8 of the Sentencing Act 1991, and submitted that your future employment prospects would be impeded by the recording of a conviction, and that this, in the context of the other barriers to your rehabilitation, could weigh decisively.
97Ms Malobabic, who appeared for the Director, submitted that the objective offending was simply too serious for such a disposition, and therefore having regard to all of the circumstances, even with powerful matters in mitigation, I ought not exercise the discretion in the way submitted for.
98I have considered these submissions and the matters in s8 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘the Act’) and the material before me. You are still a relatively young person at 27, and have suffered a kind of paralysis of your working life these last three years, which I understand you are about to embark on changing.
99I have considered, as I said, the matters in s8 of the Act, and in particular the nature of your offending, your character and past history (no prior convictions, and nothing subsequent), and the potential impact of the recording of a conviction on you. It is a finely balanced decision in the light of the seriousness of your offending, but I also find the community has an interest in your rehabilitation not being further impeded, and in all the circumstances I will not be ordering a conviction be recorded in this case.
Pre-Sentence report
100I ordered a pre-sentence report in the range of mental health and for your suitability for a Community Corrections Order. You are assessed as being a low risk of reoffending. The Corrections service recommended against imposing a requirement for community work given that you are still not officially cleared for work by the TAC and are awaiting appointments for further surgery on your leg.
101The mental health sequelae of the motor vehicle accident have been noted in the mental health report, and the conclusions in that report will cause me to make a mental health assessment and treatment as part of your Community Corrections Order.
102I have taken into account the submission that you are unable to complete community work and that therefore I might impose a fine in parallel with your Community Order as an aspect of your punishment, and I propose to do that.
Disposition
103I first note that I am satisfied that your charge of possessing a drug of dependence was not for a trafficking purpose and therefore the lower penalty applies.
104On the charges of causing injury intentionally, possession of a drug of dependence, and the possession of a prohibited weapon I sentence you, without convictio,n to a Community Corrections Order of 18 months duration in combination with a fine of $1,000.
105Mr Harrison, I am about to read out the standard conditions of a Community Corrections Order, and once I have done that I am going to give you a moment to speak with Ms Thompson and at the end I will be asking you through her, whether you consent to the undertaking of the Order. Just so that you know, I regard that moment when you agree to complete the Order as an important moment. I want it to be very well advised and well considered, because if the matter ever comes back before me, I will be referring to it.
(a) First, you will be subject to the standard conditions of a Community Corrections Order. That means, importantly, that you must not commit any other offences that are punishable by imprisonment during the term of your Order. If you do so, you will be brought back to court before me and resentenced for these offences.
(b) You must report to the relevant Community Corrections Service stated on the Order within two working days of today.
(c) You are required to advise your supervisor in the Corrections office of any change of address where you are living or working and you must do so within two clear working days.
(d) It is a term of all Community Corrections Orders that you must submit to visits as directed and you must obey all of the instructions and directions of a Community Corrections Officer. You are not able to leave the State of Victoria without their prior permission and that is for the entire period of the 18-month Order.
106I turn now to the special conditions that will apply to your Community Corrections Order.
107I have already said that I will not be applying community work hours in your case because you are not currently medically cleared for work.
108You must comply with a condition to attend for mental health assessment and treatment.
109I also attach a supervision condition which will apply for a period of time of half of the duration of the Order; being nine of the 18 months.
110Ms Thompson, have you got a good enough note of the content of the Order, in order to give Mr Harrison some advice?
111MS THOMPSON: I do, Your Honour.
112HER HONOUR: All right. I am going to leave the Bench just for a moment or two and allow you to speak to him. I am aware of your other commitments, Ms Thompson. Are you all right for time?
113MS THOMPSON: I am, Your Honour.
114HER HONOUR: All right. I will just give you a moment to speak to Mr Harrison and raise any questions at this point, thank you.
115MS THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
(Short adjournment.)
116HER HONOUR: Yes, Ms Thompson have you had a moment to explain the conditions to which Mr Harrison will be subject?
117MS THOMPSON: I have, Your Honour.
118HER HONOUR: All right. I am just going to ask you then directly, Mr Harrison, do you understand the nature of the conditions that you are about to agree with?
119ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour.
120HER HONOUR: All right and do you consent to undertaking that Order?
121ACCUSED: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
122HER HONOUR: All right, good. Ms Malobabic, I make the order for disposal as sought. Have I neglected anything formally?
123MS MALOBABIC: No, Your Honour.
124HER HONOUR: All right. I thank you for your assistance, Ms Malobabic, and you, Ms Thompson. We will adjourn until tomorrow at 11:00am. Thank you, counsel.
125COUNSEL: As the court pleases.
- - -
0
2
0