Director of Public Prosecutions v Hume

[2013] VCC 723

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

AT LATROBE VALLEY

CRIMINAL DIVISION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

BRETT HUME

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMALLWOOD
WHERE HELD:	Latrobe Valley
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Hume
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VCC 723

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  
Catchwords:            
Legislation Cited:    
Cases Cited:            
Sentence:                

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr K. Doyle	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms S. McCrickard

HIS HONOUR:

1       Brett Hume, you have pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, one count of causing injury recklessly and one count of criminal damage.  Those crimes carry maximum penalties of 25 years, five years and ten years respectively.  You have pleaded guilty at a reasonably early opportunity and indeed made full and frank admissions to police.

2       You are 39 years of age and I accept that within your limitations there is appropriate remorse.  You must also of course get the utilitarian benefit of that plea of guilty.  Further, it seems to me on reading the material that the Crown would have had a great deal of difficulty in obtaining convictions against you but for your admissions.  Accordingly, you are the author of your own conviction and that always attracts a very significant discount.

3 Firstly, pursuant to s.464ZF of the Crimes Act, I make an order that you provide a saliva sample for DNA purposes. That order having been made and your counsel will explain to you how to go about that, I must advise you that should you refuse or fail to comply with a request for such a saliva sample, police may use reasonable force to take it from you and that order is made and handed down. Secondly, a disposal order in relation to the pick handle is made and handed down.

4       The fact of the matter is that at 39 you have very few prior convictions or findings of guilt.  We have an adjourned bond from 1993 for cultivating cannabis, a couple of what would appear to be shop thefts in the 2000s and then a cultivate cannabis in 2011.  You have never been placed in custody and have never had a community-based disposition.

5       Those prior convictions indicate that you are not a violent person.  They confirm that you have been at least cannabis addicted for a very long period of time and that you are by and large not dishonest.  To have had drug addiction for as long as you have, now in excess of 20 years, with so few priors gives me great confidence in your capacity to rehabilitate and to not re-offend.

6       The Crown summary is that a Mr Keith Semple in Morwell lived in Commercial Road.  You were a friend of a Mr Priest.  Mr Priest was Mr Semple's neighbour.  As I recollect from having sentenced Mr Priest, Mr Priest and Mr Semple had spent an afternoon drinking homemade vodka.  They were taking offence, it would seem, at what each other was saying.  In any event, Mr Priest decided to seek retribution.

7       Soon after midnight there was a knock on the door where Mr Semple was and a Mr Ormrod went to open it.  After he did that, Mr Priest, armed with a pick handle, went past him into the unit saying "I'm going to get you Keith", referring to Mr Semple.  You had driven Mr Priest to the address, knowing that he in all probability was going to assault somebody.  You did however remain in the car outside.

8       One Ms Wood, who was there, got up and rang the police.  Mr Semple stood between Mr Ormrod and Mr Priest, trying to calm it down.  In any event, the pick handle was swung and Mr Semple was struck and he went to the ground.  Mr Ormrod saw, he claims, you outside.  Mr Ormrod says that you and Mr Priest chased him.

9       When police attended at the scene, both Mr Ormrod and Mr Semple were too intoxicated to even have statements taken from them.  In any event, about 15 minutes after the police left, you brought Mr Priest back.  He again came to the door armed with a pick handle and knocked on the door.  The safety screen was locked and Mr Ormrod refused him entry.  Mr Priest then used the pick handle to break four windows of the house and damage the security screen.  You drove him away.  As a result of the incident, Mr Semple received some bruising and a lump on his forehead and there was about $500 worth of damage to the building.

10      As I have indicated, you made full and frank admissions to police.  Clearly you were not the antagonist in all this and I would regard you as an aid or abettor rather than someone who had agreed to have the assault carried out.  In any event, it remains a serious matter.  You cannot have a situation where people are taking pick handles around and belting people.  Certainly not in their own home.

11      Of course in the normal course of events this calls for general and specific deterrence, as well as denunciation and appropriate punishment, I sentenced your co-accused Mr Priest to a term of imprisonment of 20 months with a minimum term of nine.  Mr Priest had a far more serious criminal history than you involving a number of gaol sentences.  He was the instigator of all this and he was the one who acted it out.  As I said, you simply aided and abetted his conduct.  Insofar as parity is concerned, I do not think it is applicable other than in the sense that you must receive some punishment, but certainly I do not think active custodial sentence is appropriate for you.  It was conceded by the Crown that a CCO was within range and I think that is dead right.

12      Tendered on your behalf was a report from Latrobe Community Health and I will just simply read that because it is an example to all of how brief a plea can be.  It says:

"Mr Brett Hume suffers from drug induced psychosis and bipolar affective disorder (depression).  His main symptoms have been impaired perception and delusional thoughts.  In the course of his illness, Brett Hume has been hearing voices of his deceased grandfather.  He finds the voices intrude and interfere with his sleep.  He is often withdrawn from social contact and has irrational fears and anxiety.  Most of his illness seems to stem from chronic use of cannabis and amphetamines over a period of more than 20 years."

13      He then describes that you are currently on antipsychotic and antidepressant medication.  You have endeavoured to rehabilitate on a number of programs, as recently as April of this year.  It then goes on to say:

"Mr Hume has struggled for a long time with depression, substance abuse and, thereafter, psychosis.  In the past, Brett was compelled to seek help but lately there has been a significant change in his behaviour.  Brett is seeking for help and adhering to medication.  He has kept most of his appointments with me and I am of the opinion that imprisonment will not serve his medical condition well.  Imprisonment will perpetuate his anxiety and irrational fears."

14      That gives rise to a number of the factors in Verdins, including doing it harder in gaol, and I think in this particular situation making the condition worse, it is not sufficient really to have the necessary causal link with a lack of moral culpability but I do not think it is necessary to waste community resources in having that explored any further at this stage.  I think that any medical report will say that you were in this situation having great difficulty in making rational judgement.

15      Bearing those matters in mind, I had you assessed for a community corrections order and that report deems you to be acceptable.  If you are prepared to undertake that, and I see that you have already signed a form to the effect that you will, it will be a community corrections order with conviction.  There will be 100 hours of community work to be performed over two years.  The only condition is to treatment and rehabilitation for both drug and alcohol and mental health.  There will also be supervision.

16      All right.  I think that the prospects of your rehabilitation, bearing in mind the extraordinary lack of prior convictions for someone in your situation, are good indeed.  If that occurs, I have great confidence that you will not re-offend.

17      MS McCRICKARD:  Sorry, Your Honour, was the length of that order two years?

18      HIS HONOUR:  Two years.

19      MS McCRICKARD:  Yes.

20      HIS HONOUR:  All right.

21      (At this stage the court proceeded with another matter.)

22      HIS HONOUR:  All right, that is done.  Just stand up for me just for a moment, Mr Hume, if you would.  All right, now it is a community corrections order, okay?  I know you have got very few priors in the past and I am pretty confident you will not offend again but just remember if you are in strife, ask for help, which I see you have been doing recently, which is great.  A community corrections order for aggravated burglary is not a good one to breach, all right?  If you have to come back, it might get ugly.

23      OFFENDER:  Yep.

24      HIS HONOUR:  Okay?  All right, thanks for that.

25      (At this stage the court proceeded with another matter.)

26      HIS HONOUR:  Yes, you are excused, Ms McCrickard.  That is all we need to do.  Yes.  There is no 6AAA, it is a CCO.

- - -