Director of Public Prosecutions v Ibrahim
[2015] VCC 569
•5 May 2015
Shau
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-14-00368
CR-14-00369, CR-14-00370
CR-14-00371
CR-14-00372
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| HANY IBRAHIM ANGELA KOUTSOGIANNAKIS LIRIM SALIEVSKI ELISHA WILLIAMSON |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Hampel | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | ||
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 5 May 2015 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | ||
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VCC 569 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms S. Thomas | OPP |
| For Offender Ibrahim For Offender Koutsogiannakis For Offender Salievski For Offender Williamson | Mr J. McQuillan Mr S. Tovey Mr T. Burns Mr J. Wheelahan | David Bareese & Associates Slades & Parsons Melasecca, Kelly & Zayler Robert Stary Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1 Timothy Gatt, the victim in these matters, who was 36 at the time, has an acquired brain injury as a result of a motorcycle accident. On 12 March 2013, he reported to police that he was stood over by Tamar Haggag who had stolen his car, forced him to sign transfer papers, fired a shot into the sofa he was sitting on to threaten him and stolen a framed print from him.
2 On 15 March, Haggag was arrested and remanded in custody.
3
Angela Koutsogiannakis was in a relationship with Haggag. She was aware that Haggag’s arrest was due to allegations made by Gatt. She was actively involved in trying to secure his release on bail. She sent text messages to people saying she was looking for "Tim" and by context that would appear to refer to Tim Gatt. Late in the afternoon of 18 March
Mr Haggag's bail application was heard and determined and he was refused bail.
Ms Koutsogiannakis was aware of that because she was at court at the time.
4 A couple of hours after that, at around 7:00 pm on 18 March, Mr Gatt went to visit a friend, Tyson Russell, at Mr Russell’s house in Lawless Drive, Cranbourne. Ms Koutsogiannakis was there and let Mr Gatt into the house. She also lived at that address, as a tenant, or co tenant of Mr Russell and knew Mr Gatt through his friendship with Mr Russell.
5
As soon as Mr Gatt arrived, Ms Koutsogiannakis called Hany Ibrahim and told him that Gatt was at the house. Soon after, he and Lirim Salievski arrived at the house. Mr Ibrahim and Mr Salievski approached
Mr Gatt and directed him to accompany them to a table under a pergola, just outside the back door and main living area of the house.
6 Elisha Williamson also lived in the Lawless Drive house and was present when Mr Gatt, and then later Mr Salievski and Mr Ibrahim, arrived.
7 Over the next few hours, Mr Gatt was threatened, questioned, intimidated and stood over, and ultimately forced to sign a false statement declaring his allegations against Haggag were false and requesting that all charges against Haggag be withdrawn.
8
Initially Mr Gatt was made to sit at the table under the pergola. Mr Salievski, Ms Koutsogiannakis and Mr Ibrahim were present and spoke to him, demanding he retract his allegations. Salievski did most of the talking. Ibrahim joined in from time to time and Koutsogiannakis was taking notes. Williamson was walking in and out of the area during this time, well able to see and hear what was happening although, apart from her presence and what it signalled about her acquiescence in the treatment of Gatt by the others, she took no active part at this time. The combination of the physical size of the two male accused, and their close physical proximity to Gatt, the presence of the two female accused and the threatening, indeed menacing words and conduct of the two males, and to a lesser extent Koutsogiannakis, resulted in Gatt feeling intimidated. Salievski demanded that Gatt make a statement to the police withdrawing his allegations against Haggag. When
Mr Gatt told them he was unable to read and write Ms Koutsogiannakis took on the role of scribe and began writing a statement.
9
At around 8:00 pm, Ibrahim left. Salievski left with him but returned some time later alone. Before Ibrahim and Salievski left, the accused had all moved into the house and toward the dining table, apparently as it was cold outside.
Mr Gatt followed and went to sit at the table. Salievski directed him to sit on the tiled floor near the table. Before he left the house, Salievski took Gatt’s car keys and told him he was leaving, but would return. The combination of the removal of the car keys and Mr Gatt’s fear of the consequences if he left, effectively prevented him from leaving the house. Ms Koutsogiannakis remained at the house and so did Ms Williamson. Mr Salievski eventually returned, and he and Ms Koutsogiannakis sat at the dining table. Mr Gatt was kept sitting on the floor.
10
After his return, Mr Salievski continued to intimidate and menace Gatt, as
Ms Koutsogiannakis continued to draft the statement. Salievski then began making demands of Gatt that he “pay” for having caused Haggag to be arrested and remanded. Again, Ms Williamson was walking in and out of the room, and at some stage, also sat at the table with Mr Salievski and
Ms Koutsogiannakis, whilst Gatt was still kept sitting on the floor. Again,
Ms Williamson was able to see and hear what was happening although, apart from her presence and what it signalled about her acquiescence in the treatment of Mr Gatt by the others, again at that stage she took no active part. Finally a short statement was produced, written by Koutsogiannakis, in Gatt’s name, which asserted, amongst other things, that Gatt had made a false statement against Haggag, that he had falsely alleged that Haggag had come to his house. The statement asserted that Mr Gatt and Mr Haggag had been mates for years, and that Mr Gatt had given Mr Haggag a gift of a picture frame. Finally the statement said that Mr Gatt wished to drop all charges against Haggag.
11 After this statement was drawn, unsuccessful attempts were then made to locate a pharmacist or medical practitioner to witness Mr Gatt’s signature on the statement. Mr Gatt asked if he could be released saying he had done what was asked of him in making the statement. Salievski produced a set of knuckledusters and, holding, but not wearing them, tapped Mr Gatt on the head, threatening to injure him. It is this gives rise to the uplifted summary offence of use a prohibited weapon that Mr Salievski has pleaded guilty to.
12
Gatt was then taken by Salievski to Salievski’s car and made to get into it.
Ms Williamson also got into the car, whilst Ms Koutsogiannakis remained at the house. Mr Gatt was driven by Salievski to Cranbourne police station. There, Mr Salievski called Ms Williamson’s phone and told her to keep the line open, making it clear to Mr Gatt that he would be monitoring what Mr Gatt said in the police station. Ms Williamson then escorted Gatt into the police station and, as the CCTV footage clearly shows, ostentatiously kept her phone either in her hand or on the counter near Gatt the whole time.
Mr Salievski remained in the car, listening through Ms Williamson's phone, to what was said in the police station.
13 Gatt, as instructed, asked for a police officer to witness his signature on the statement. The statement was duly signed and witnessed, and returned to him. As he went to leave, Williamson told him to ask that the charges against Haggag be dropped. Not surprisingly, the police officer said she would contact the informant about it.
14 Ms Williamson and Mr Gatt then returned to Mr Salievski’s car. Salievski, on discovering that Gatt had not handed the statement over to the police officer but had returned to the car with it, directed him to return to the police station to leave the signed original with the police officer, and to ask for a copy to be made to be provided to him. Again under Williamson’s escort, he complied. Both of these entries into the police station were captured on CCTV footage.
15
Mr Gatt and Ms Williamson then returned to the car for a second time and
Mr Salievski drove back to the house. Salievski kept the copy of the statement. Upon return to the house he returned Mr Gatt’s car keys to him, and Mr Gatt was able to leave. You, Ms Williamson, spent the rest of the night in Salievski’s company. It is clear from the evidence as to what you did in the time that you remained in his company, that you were not at all intimidated, threatened or oppressed by him. In fact it could be said that you were an active and enthusiastic participant in seeking out and sharing his company.
16 The conduct of Salievski, in removing Gatt’s keys, in the context of the threatening and overbearing conduct to this vulnerable and powerless man gives rise to the charge of false imprisonment to which Salievski has pleaded guilty. Ms Koutsogiannakis has also pleaded guilty to false imprisonment. Her plea must be understood as one of participation in, and acquiescence in this conduct by Salievski by her presence and encouragement when the keys were taken, her remaining at the house while Salievski was away and her continued participation in writing the statement on his behalf after Salievski returned.
17 It is the conduct, in telling Mr Gatt to recant, writing the false statement and forcing him to sign it and give it to the police, and request that the charges against Haggag be dropped that constitutes Charge 1, attempt to pervert the course of justice, to which all four of you have pleaded guilty. As the summary makes clear, the prosecution case concerning Salievski, Koutsogiannakis and Ibrahim is on the basis of joint criminal enterprise, and on aiding and abetting in respect of Ms Williamson.
18 The next day, 19 March, Mr Gatt attended a police station in order to participate in a pre-arranged VARE statement regarding the original complaint he made to police on 12 March concerning Haggag. It was during this visit in the conduct of the VARE that Mr Gatt disclosed the events of the previous evening.
19 AS a result, you, Mr Salievski were arrested on 22 March. When interviewed by the police you denied knowing Mr Gatt and, as was your right, declined to answer any other questions. The knuckledusters, the subject of the summary charge were found in in the centre console of your car when it was searched.
20 You, Ms Williamson, were arrested later that day, when reporting on bail on another matter. You rang Ms Koutsogiannakis and told her you had been arrested for kidnapping. When interviewed, you initially denied knowing Gatt, denied anyone had visited the house on 18 March and denied having left the house in a car with anyone. It was only after being confronted with evidence taken from call records and the police station CCTV that you admitted that Gatt had been at the house and that you had accompanied him and Salievski to the police station and that you had kept your phone open so Salievski could monitor what was said at the police station.
21 You were arrested, Ms Koutsogiannakis, on 22 March at the house at Lawless Drive. When interviewed, you initially denied any wrongdoing but did admit that Mr Gatt was at the house on 18 March. You admitted that you had written a statement for him to sign. You initially said that you only did so because Gatt could not write, but eventually admitted that he had in fact been forced to sign it. After being interviewed by the police, you agreed to make a statement setting out your role and the role of others and you attested to its truthfulness. In that statement you denied knowing Mr Ibrahim, and said that it was Salievski, not Ibrahim you had called to come to the house when Gatt had arrived. You knew these assertions to be false at the time you made the statement. It is this which gives rise to the charge of perjury to which you have pleaded guilty.
22 It was not until 2 April that you, Mr Ibrahim, were arrested. You exercised your right to remain silent and made a complete no comment interview.
23
It has taken two years for these charges to be finalised. They were vigorously contested until the last minute. There was a contested committal at which
Mr Gatt was cross examined by counsel for all four accused. Charges against Ms Koutsogiannakis were resolved, and the crown accepted a plea to attempt to pervert, false imprisonment and perjury in satisfaction of all charges that had originally been brought against her. She entered her pleas of guilty on 13 April this year, the day the matter was listed for trial but before it had been allocated to a trial judge.
24 Mr Salievski and Mr Ibrahim offered pleas to the charges to which they ultimately pleaded guilty to the following day, 14 April. Again the crown accepted those pleas in satisfaction of all charges on the indictment against them.
25 The trial then commenced against Ms Williamson on charges of attempt to pervert the course of justice, false imprisonment and kidnap on the following day, 15 April. A special hearing was conducted, and the evidence of Mr Gatt was recorded on that day. Following further pre empanelment argument on the admissibility of various of the answers given by Ms Williamson in her interview for use as incriminating conduct, a jury was empanelled. On the third day of the trial, part way through during the playing to the jury of the pre-recorded evidence, well into the cross examination of Mr Gatt, Ms Williamson was re-arraigned in the presence of the jury, and pleaded guilty to the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice. The prosecution accepted that plea in satisfaction of all charges, and verdicts of not guilty were entered in respect of the other charges.
26 This is a disgraceful course of conduct in which all four of you were engaged. Mr Gatt was a vulnerable man by reason of his brain injury and he was outnumbered and outmuscled, threatened, humiliated and his will overborne.
27 Having seen him give evidence in the trial of Williamson, it is obvious that he was a man labouring under a significant disability. I do not accept the submissions made by counsel on behalf of each of you that you were unaware of his condition. You may not have known the specific diagnosis but his slowness of speech, his speech difficulties, his general manner of speaking and expressing himself make it abundantly clear he did not and could not meet you on equal terms.
28 In his victim impact statement he speaks of the impact of this on him and his parents in their victim impact statements also do. It is clear that it has had a profound effect on the sense of safety that this already vulnerable and damaged man has had. His capacity to live a safe and meaningful life in the community has been significantly impaired as a result of your appalling behaviour to him on this night.
29
Each of you should feel deeply ashamed of yourselves for your roles in this. Each of you, in your own ways, lent yourselves to somebody else's cause,
Mr Haggag's, but without any knowledge of where the truth lay, and without any reason or justification for standing over Mr Gatt on Haggag’s behalf.
30 No adequate explanation was advanced for the conduct of any of you. On the pleas each sought to minimise your own involvement, and to pass the blame to others, be it your co accused, Haggag or even Mr Gatt. None of you can rely on youth or vulnerability by reason of intellectual impairment or mental illness to justify or explain your involvement.
31 Whether you were, like Salievski and Ibrahim, the standover men, like Koutsogiannakis, the instigator, or Williamson, the acquiescing facilitator, this was conduct which lacked any common decency or morality. It is properly characterised, not as misplaced loyalty, as was put on behalf of Koutsogiannakis, Salievski and Ibrahim, or a wilfully blind passivity, as was essentially the explanation put on behalf of Williamson, but the brutish conduct of mindless hangers on.
32 It is clear that subject to consideration personal to you, denunciation, just punishment and deterrence all must be given proper weight.
33 Whilst each of you is entitled to a reduction in the sentence by reason of your guilty pleas, and all bar Williamson, for ultimately sparing Mr Gatt the further ordeal of giving evidence at trial, there is nothing in the pleas, or the evidence of your conduct and attitudes since which evidences any remorse, in the sense that term was explained by the Court of Appeal Barbaro and Zirilli.[1]
[1] Barbaro; Zirilli v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288.
34 Any expressions of remorse put on your behalves comes either from a bland assertion to that effect in a psychcological report, prepared for the purposes of sentencing or from the Bar table. In my view it is abundantly clear your remorse goes no further than feeling sorry for yourselves and the plight you now find yourselves in.
35 Each of you is old enough to know better. You, Koutsogiannakis are now 43, you, Mr Salievski, 36, you, Mr Ibrahim, 32 and you, Ms Williamson, 30.
36 You Ms Koutsogiannakis, grew up in a strict family, and, it would appear carried a heavy load of responsibility with little love, affection or emotional support for you in your family. You left home and married young, and it would appear were absorbed into a more loving and accepting family environment in your husband’s family. You obtained qualifications as a beauty therapist and manicurist, you had two children, and enjoyed a successful career managing beauty salons. Despite the emotional deprivation of your childhood, and a marriage that ultimately became unhappy, you had shown resilience and capacity to make the most of your life.
37 When your marriage broke up, after 20 years, you went into a downward spiral. You were, apparently consumed by the loss of your marriage and everything that went with that. You stopped working, started using drugs, and eventually found yourself in a share house, or renting a room in Mr Russell’s house. You met and formed a relationship with Haggag. That seemed to be marked by drug use and you describe him now as abusive and controlling.
38 Neither his arrest, nor your subsequent charges were sufficient to make you take stock of the direction in which you were heading. Although the relationship with Haggag came to an end, since being charged with these offences, and whilst awaiting trial, you have been dealt with for what I was told were subsequent drug and driving offences. The psychologist, Carla Lechner, who assessed you for the plea opined you were suffering from longstanding, undiagnosed and untreated depression, arising out of your childhood disadvantage, your unhappy marriage and the consequences of the breakup of it. She recommended, and made it clear in her report, that she had recommended to you at the time of assessment, that you seek treatment from your doctor and a referral to a psychologist under the better mental health program. Although I was told you were willing to engage in such counselling if directed under a Community Correction Order you have taken no steps of your own to do so to date. The same applies in respect of your drug use. Apart from an unsupported assertion you no longer used drugs, no evidence was put before me to support that. No evidence was put before me to indicate you had done anything, or had any interest in doing anything to address your drug use. In other words, you have not shown a commitment to advancing your own rehabilitation, in advance of, or independently of sentence.
39 You express an interest in returning to work, but have not yet done so. You have moved out of the hose in Lawless Drive and have most recently been living back in the same house as your husband. That, I am told is an uncomfortable and temporary arrangement. I consider your prospects for rehabilitation to be reasonable but the optimism must be tempered by your inaction in these respects.
40 So far as you, Mr Salievski are concerned, I was told you arrived in Australia with your parents and siblings from Macedonia when you were nine. You struggled with language and your schooling was poor. You left school after Year 9. Despite the poor schooling I am told you have had a good history of employment in the automotive industry. This is so despite a long history of drug abuse, and related, or concurrent criminal history. You were a heroin user for many years. I was told you had been successfully on a heroin substitute, Suboxone, for the past 3 years, but had been denied it since your remand. A report from Justice Health, which I requested, indicates that this was not as simple as a failure of Justice Health to provide you with prompt and timely assessment and treatment for you to continue on your Suboxone. It would appear you had in fact stopped the Suboxone some weeks before your trial was due to commence. Whether that explains your inability to arrive at court on time, and which led to the revocation of your bail at the commencement of the trial, I do not know. What I am left with is a concern about the extent of your relapse into drug use and how that affects your prospects of rehabilitation.
41 I was told you have a three year old daughter and although you are no longer in a relationship with her mother, that you have a positive relationship with both mother and daughter. If that is the case, then you should reflect on the very poor role modelling you have shown your daughter, by your behaviour on this night and more generally since her birth.
42 You have a significant criminal history, dating back to 1995. You have had 24 court appearances, seven of which are for breach proceeding in respect of community based orders or suspended sentences. The offending spans drug offences, driving offences, dishonesty and property offences. Of more concern, there are offences of violence, and firearm and other weapons offences. Today an addition sheet of criminal history, five further driving offences being dealt with on one occasion in 2004 interstate was added. That is really just more of the same picture.
43 It was submitted you should be sentenced to a community corrections order. Despite the clear punitive and rehabilitative benefits of a community corrections order I do not consider you have demonstrated sufficient prospects for rehabilitation or commitment to rehabilitation to warrant taking such a course.
44
You, Hany Ibrahim, are in a somewhat different position to the other accused because unlike them, you have been in custody for a considerable period – for the whole if not the bulk, of the period since your arrest on this charge. Of the days that you have spent in custody since your initial remand, only 45 days of those count of pre-sentence detention for this offence. Like
Mr Salievski, you have an extensive criminal history, although it is not as extensive as his. You too, report a long history of drug abuse, and your criminal history is reflective of that. It covers the same sort of offending.
45 Again, whilst there may have been some disadvantage in your background essentially you, as a mature adult man, are now responsible for your own welfare and you seem to appreciate that.
46 For you too it was put a Community Correction Order was the appropriate outcome. Again, I disagree. There is nothing in what was put to me to suggest that you have demonstrated any interest in, or commitment to advancing your own rehabilitation.
47
You Ms Williamson, come before the court, like Ms Koutsogiannakis, with no previous convictions but you too have had subsequent court appearances. I am told that your parents separated when you were young, and you appear to have grown up, despite the separation, in a loving stable and supportive environment. There is no suggestion your childhood or adulthood were blighted by family tragedy, as was the case with Ms Koutsogiannakis and
Mr Salievski. Nor was there any suggestion in the materials put before me of abuse or lack of love within the family. You are reasonably intelligent, and you have had a history of stable employment since leaving school, predominately in the childcare sector. You should have had no reason to prefer the aimless life of doing nothing much but take drugs and failing to take responsibility for your behaviour that you had fallen into by the time of this offending. It was put on your behalf too that you should receive a Community Correction Order. At one level, it would appear you are an appropriate candidate. You have no previous convictions, a good history of work skills and experiences, and family support. But quite apart from your total failure to take any responsibility for your conduct on this occasion, you have a demonstrated a pattern of failing to take responsibility for your conduct generally and more specifically in relation to the troubles you have found yourself in as you have come into contact with the criminal justice system being charged and sentenced. .
48 You were consistently late for court in respect of these charges despite your bail requiring you to attend on time. You were repeatedly warned not to be late and warned of the consequences and you still turned up late and appeared to be absolutely outraged when your bail was revoked. You have had three Community Correction Orders imposed on you and your history of compliance, or non-compliance, with them is nothing short of appalling. There is no conclusion to draw other than that you simply thumb your nose at the court, and Corrections. If you are to ever demonstrate your prospects for rehabilitation are better than poor, it will be when you make some push yourself to take responsibility for your own conduct. To place you on a Community Correction Order with your history of wanton, wilful and repeated breach of the Community Correction Orders to date, would be simply setting you up to fail and we might as well set the date for your breach proceedings today. The rehabilitative conditions of a Community Correction Order are only useful if there is some evidence that a person is prepared to take advantage of them. You have shown no such inclination.
49 This is what Corrections said in their assessment report.
"Ms Williamson has a recent history of non-compliance with Community Correctional Services. She first received a 12 month CCO on 30 May 2013. According to CCS records she incurred 17 unacceptable absences, completed only 27 of the hundred community work hours ordered and further offended during the CCO.
On 30 January 2015 Ms Williamson received a second CCO then a third on 7 April 2015. The progress report dated 23 April 2015 provided by CCS to the court for the current hearing outlines that Ms Williamson has incurred 11 unacceptable absences over the past four months. She has failed to attend any psychological appointments as directed, rescheduled her ASCO, that is drug assessment, five times. Has failed to attend for drug testing on four occasions. She has also not completed any community work hours to date.
"When asked about consistent non-compliance with CCO's within the past two years Ms Williamson admitted that she had difficulties with time management and struggles to attend appointments as directed. She indicated she intends to work with a psychologist to develop strategies to address this and to better manage her commitments. She advised her compliance has been impeded by her anxiety about the current case before the court and that once these matters have been finalised she believes that she will be able to make a fresh start with Community Corrections.
50 That confirms that it is simply inappropriate, in my view, to impose a further rehabilitative order on you with conditions such as those required under a CCO.
51 There is nothing, in summary, in the materials before me to suggest that any of you have done anything to address the issues of substance abuse or underlying depression or other psychological condition or personality characteristics now relied on to explain your involvement.
52 For these reasons, I am satisfied that Community Correction Orders are not appropriate for any of you. I am satisfied that no sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate for all of you in respect of the offences to which each of you has pleaded guilty. But I am also satisfied that in each case, having regard to parity, proportionality and the different roles each of you played and your different personal circumstances, that fully suspended sentences are appropriate in each case.
53 I want to make it very clear. I do not consider this to be a light outcome for any of you. Each of you, as I have made clear in my reasons, I consider to be at risk of further offending. If you do so then it is clear that parliament requires that if you commit any other offence punishable by imprisonment you are required to be brought back before this court, most likely before me, and that the sentence imposed must be restored and you must serve it unless you can establish exceptional circumstances arising since today.
54 Each of you would clearly benefit from drug rehabilitation and at least some of you from some counselling or psychological treatment. But it is up to each of you, as far as I am concerned, to take that initiative yourselves. If you want to do so it will be very much to your benefit. But given the lack of enthusiasm that each of you has displayed for it to date I see no point in making orders compelling reluctant people to engage in rehabilitative programs and see no point in imposing such orders with such reluctance when there is such a high prospect of non-compliance and breach for non-compliance. If any of you want to do it without a court order, it will be very much to your credit but if you do not then at least it will not be setting you up for re-sentencing.
55
There is clear difference in roles between each of you and clear differences in circumstances for each of you. I have come to the view that so far as
Ms Koutsogiannakis and Mr Salievski, the same sentence should be imposed for the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice. That is because for Ms Koutsogiannakis she was the instigator and she was present throughout. But for her enlisting the support of Mr Salievski and Mr Ibrahim, this would not have happened and but for her presence she would not have shown her obvious acquiescence in it throughout.
56
Mr Salievski played a more significant role in the standover than Mr Ibrahim. Mr Ibrahim left by eight o'clock, Mr Salievski came back and subjected
Mr Gatt to further humiliating and standover conduct and was there for the completion of the statement. Mr Ibrahim's sentence, therefore, for the attempt to pervert charge should be less than that of Mr Salievski.
57
The difference in the absence of previous convictions for Ms Koutsogiannakis and the significant previous convictions for Mr Salievski are balanced out by what I see are those differences in the roles but the, in a sense, same level of moral culpability but for different reasons. So far as Ms Williamson is concerned, her role is obviously less than that of Ms Koutsogiannakis and
Mr Salievski. I consider that the sentence for her should be at the same level as the sentence for Mr Ibrahim although their roles were different. But her role in knowing what had been going on in the house, not having the moral courage to distance herself from it or to protest and then actively participating by acting as the minder escorting Mr Gatt into the police station, keeping the phone near him so he was aware that everything he said could be heard and monitored by Salievski is, in my view, indicative of a high level of moral culpability and therefore warrants a sentence of the same order as that imposed upon Mr Ibrahim.
58
So far as the false imprisonment I consider that the sentence to be imposed on Ms Koutsogiannakis should be a little less than that imposed on
Mr Salievski. He was the one who removed the keys and gave the order, in effect, to Mr Gatt to remain. Ms Koutsogiannakis was clearly the person who, by her presence in the previous circumstances and her presence whilst
Mr Salievski was away was, in effect, enforcing that false imprisonment.
59 So far as the charge for Mr Salievski of use of the weapon I consider that there should be partial cumulation of that charge with the sentence to be imposed on the attempt to pervert the course of justice.
60 So far as the charge of perjury for Ms Koutsogiannakis is concerned, I consider that sentence should be totally cumulative on the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice because it is a separate level of offending on a different occasion.
61 I consider that for both Ms Koutsogiannakis and Mr Salievski the sentence for false imprisonment should be served concurrently with the sentence of attempt to pervert the course of justice because the circumstances are, in effect, bound up with the gravity of the attempt to pervert the course of justice as I have described it.
62 I have been asked to make ancillary orders in respect of the accused. In respect of Mr Ibrahim, a 464ZF order and I propose to make that. I will make that as in custody order because although I propose to fully suspend his sentence he still has three months of his outstanding sentences to run. That is correct, is it not, Mr Barker?
63 MR BARKER: That's correct, Your Honour, yes.
64 HER HONOUR: Yes. So that should be able to be done whilst he is in custody. So far is Ms Williamson is concerned hers is a not in custody order. She will be required to attend at a police station within a month after the expiration of 28 days from the passing of this sentence. I will leave that to your counsel to explain what that actually means because non-compliance will otherwise set you up for further breach proceedings.
65 I have been asked to make a disposal order and I propose to make that. I note that in respect of the s.464ZF orders that I do so because of the seriousness of the circumstances of the offending justify the making of the order.
66 Angela Koutsogiannakis, on the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice, you are sentenced to be imprisonment for a period of two years. On the charge of false imprisonment you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of nine months. On the charge of perjury you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three months and I direct that the whole of that be served cumulatively on the sentence of Charge 1, the attempt to pervert the course of justice. That makes a total effective sentence of two years' and three months' and I suspend the whole of that sentence for a period of three years from today.
67 Lirim Salievski, on the charges to which you have pleaded guilty you are convicted. On the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two years. On the charge of false imprisonment you are sentenced to be imprisoned of a period of one year. On the charge of use a weapon you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three months and I direct that the whole of that sentence be served cumulatively upon the sentence on attempt to pervert the course of justice. That makes a total effective sentence of two years and three months and hat sentence is fully suspended for a period of three years.
68 Hany Ibrahim, on the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice to which you have pleaded guilty, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 18 months and I direct that the whole of that sentence be suspended for a period of three years.
69 Elisha Williamson, on the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice, to which you have pleaded guilty, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of 18 months. That sentence is fully suspended for a period of three years.
70 Ms Williamson, so far as your 464ZF order is concerned are you going to be continuing to live with your mother and brother? You do not know where you are going to live?
71 OFFENDER WILLIAMSON: Back in Bentleigh.
72 HER HONOUR: You are going to live back in Bentleigh. In that case what is the closest police station to Bentleigh?
73 OFFENDER WILLIAMSON: Moorabbin.
74 HER HONOUR: Pardon?
75 OFFENDER WILLIAMSON: Moorabbin police station.
76
HER HONOUR: In that case you will be required to attend at Moorabbin police station for the provision of that forensic sample. Ms Williamson and
Mr Ibrahim, I must tell you that I am ordering that a forensic sample be provided by you by the taking of a sample from the mouth by what is called a buccal swab. It requires you to rub a swab like a cotton bud on the inside of your cheek until a sufficient sample has been obtained. If you do not cooperate in the provision of that sample then the police are authorised to use reasonable force to obtain that and it is likely that they will use the more invasive means of obtaining that sample, namely a blood sample. Do you understand that,
Ms Williamson?
77 OFFENDER WILLIAMSON: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
78 HER HONOUR: Do you understand that, Mr Ibrahim?
79 OFFENDER IBRAHIM: Yes.
80 HER HONOUR: Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act I declare that so far as you are concerned, Ms Koutsogiannakis, but for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of three years and six months and I would have directed that you serve a period of two years before being eligible for parole.
81 Mr Salievski, I declare that but for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a period of imprisonment of three years and six months and would have directed that you serve a period of two years before being eligible for parole.
82 Mr Ibrahim, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of two years and direct that you serve a further nine months of that before being eligible for parole.
83 Ms Williamson I would have sentenced you to a period of imprisonment of two years and directed that you serve nine months of that before being eligible for parole.
84 Are they all the orders that are required to be made?
85 MS THOMAS: Yes, Your Honour.
86 HER HONOUR: Are the orders that I pronounced correct and do they reflect what I said I intended to do?
87 MR WHEELAHAN: Yes, Your Honour.
88 MS THOMAS: Yes, Your Honour.
89
HER HONOUR: You can take a seat each of you, I have just got to sign those ancillary orders. I have signed the disposal order in respect of the knuckle dusters and the 464ZF orders in respect of Mr Ibrahim and
Ms Williamson.
90 All I can say is I just hope that none of you breach and I do not have to see you back before this court again. If you are not ashamed of yourselves now and after what I have said to you then you will never will be. But I hope that some, at least, of what I said about how appalling your conduct was has sunk into you and you might actually have a little more human decency in your behaviour and in your dealings with people from now on. Adjourn.
- - -