Director of Public Prosecutions v Inglis
[2014] VCC 749
•20 May 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-13-01197
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JEFFREY ALAN INGLIS |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 6 May 2014 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 May 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Inglis | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 749 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – Plea of guilty – Attempting to pervert the course of justice – History of substance abuse (Ice) – Sibling co-offenders
Sentence: Convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, 5 months of which be cumulative with the sentence currently being undertaken – New non-parole period of 12 months’ imprisonment – 54 days pre-sentence detention declared as already having been served – Sentencing Act 1991 s.6AAA declaration
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms E Ruddle | Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C Traill | ChrisTraill Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1 Jeffrey Alan Inglis, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment, which reflects the seriousness with which Parliament regards it.
2 You were 41 years old when you committed the offence and you are now 42.
3 On 27 June 2012, you assaulted Ms Montiel. You were arrested in relation to the assault and remanded into custody on 1 August 2012.
4 After you were remanded in custody, you asked your sisters, Karen and Susan Bremner, to speak with Ms Montiel in a bid to have her drop the charges. Throughout the period 4 August 2012 to 30 October 2012, you were in constant communication with your sisters in an attempt to have Ms Montiel recant her statement in relation to the assault of 27 June.
5 The calls were recorded and transcribed for the purposes of investigating your actions and those of your sisters.
6 In early August 2012, you and your sister, Karen, spoke about diverting a phone call to Ms Montiel so that you could speak with her, but you determined that this was too hard. Instead, you told Ms Bremner, “You need to speak to her (Ms Montiel) – butter her up”, later saying, “Yeah, just tell her I fuckin love her and bullshit, bullshit”.
7 As Karen Bremner was away, you then asked your sister, Susan, to divert calls for you and she agreed. On 9 August 2012, Susan Bremner tried to divert calls from you to Ms Montiel, but she was unsuccessful. You told Karen Bremner to speak to Ms Montiel and tell her you would give her a car but that she had to come to court and stop the charges. Ms Bremner said that she would try but did not think that Ms Montiel would agree.
8 As at 2012, Ms April Montiel, who was then 29 years of age, had been in a relationship with you for two years. The relationship was a physically abusive one. On 15 January 2012, your relationship with Ms Montiel broke down and you were served with an intervention order. The duration of the order covered a period up to 30 December 2012 and prohibited you from contacting her, attending within 200 metres from her house, remaining in her presence, threatening her or damaging her property. Despite this, you and Ms Montiel remained in contact.
9
In one call, on 21 August 2012, you told Karen Bremner to get Ms Montiel, “To do something about it”. When Karen Bremner asked, “What, get her to withdraw her statement?”, you replied, “Well, I didn’t say that because it’s probably getting recorded…”. You asked Karen Bremner to attend the home of Ms Montiel. Ms Montiel’s 17 year old daughter reacted badly to seeing
Ms Bremner, presuming that this meant that you and Ms Montiel would reunite. Ms Montiel’s daughter was hospitalised with mental health concerns, although it was conceded by the Crown that Ms Montiel’s daughter has had long-standing mental health difficulties. Your sister, Karen Bremner, reported back to you in relation to this incident.
10
You also spoke with Karen Bremner about doctoring text messages from
Ms Montiel to her. You said to, “Juice them up”. However, your sister decided that this could not be done on her phone.
11 From August to October 2012, you and your sister, Karen Bremner, discussed the complainant, her evidence, and how they could convince her to change her evidence. These discussions took place in over 40 phone calls. During the discussions, you talked about using different methods to get the complainant to change her statement, including promising her a car, offering her money, telling her that you would kill yourself, saying that you would blame the complainant for drug manufacture committed at her home by you, or offering Karen Bremner to take urine screens on Ms Montiel’s behalf – I was told that this last matter concerned Ms Montiel’s ability to have access to her children in circumstances where she had a drug issue. Throughout the period, you persistently told your sister, Karen Bremner, to, “Tell her whatever you want” and to, “Bullshit” the complainant in order to get the complainant to cease contact with the police and withdraw her statement.
12 On five occasions, your sister, Karen Bremner, attended Ms Montiel’s home – usually these visits were pre-arranged with the complainant – the purpose of the visits was so that you could call Karen Bremner’s phone and speak to the complainant. On a further occasion, you were put into lockdown before an arranged call could be made. In the calls that were made, you tried to ensure that the complainant would withdraw her statement or provide evidence to exonerate you. In the calls, you tried to pressure the complainant, telling her that you loved her and you wanted to get out of jail to be with her and to help her. In the last of these discussions, on 5 October, you told her:
“I’m not gonna be doing no more time for you, alright, and I’m going to see you in court and you know what’s going to happen in court, don’t ya?...I’m gonna tell them you’re a prostitute, alright, or this shit has to come out because I’m not get – like why the fuck do I have to get in trouble? With the bust at your place, I’m just gonna blame you. What the fuck…I bought you a car and everything and you treat me like dirt. Do you think I dunno you haven’t been rooting someone? Fucking hell April, if it’s not – you haven’t now, you will be this week. You treat me like a cockhead, mate. Like you’ll just go to court and fuckin make things change. Fucking hell mate. I just bit me tongue for two fuckin months hoping and hoping, like, you can go to court and say I wanna drop the fuckin charges. It’s that easy.”
13 The complainant felt so pressured from the calls from you and the visits and calls from your sister, that she moved into a women’s refuge.
14 The Crown relies on the entirety of the conduct as just described above as the basis for the offence for which I now sentence you.
15 Police tried to interview you on 6 December 2012, but the interview was stopped due to your aggressive behaviour.
16 I take into account the impact on the complainant in this matter, who felt so pressured by your calls and visits from your sister that she moved into a women’s refuge. I make it clear that I have not factored in a good deal of the victim impact statement as it does not relate to this offending but I have factored in the impact to her to the extent to which I have just described.
17
People who are the victims of domestic violence, like the complainant in this case, are entitled to be protected by the law and any attempt to interfere with that protection or any due process of the law is a most serious matter.
Mr Inglis, your offending calls for a punishment which is just in all the circumstances. The offending occurred over the course of about three months and was sustained in nature. You subjected the complainant, whom you had already assaulted, to a persistent campaign of manipulations and threats of a kind in a desperate bid to have charges withdrawn. It is obvious from one of the calls with your sister that you knew very well that what you were doing was against the law, and yet you persisted relentlessly. In doing so, you also implicated your two sisters, who have also been charged. Your conduct must be denounced and strong weight must be given to the principle of general deterrence in a bid to deter others from behaving as you have.
18 As the learned prosecutor pointed out, you were not affected by drugs when you were engaging in this conduct, which would not have impacted your moral culpability, in any event, but perhaps may have served to explain a lapse in judgement. I regard your moral culpability as high.
19 You were charged on 10 January 2013 and, in relation to the matter for which I now sentence you, you were remanded in custody for this. As I understand the position, you had just been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in respect of the assault upon the complainant, which sentence had already been served by way of pre-sentence detention. However, when charged in relation to the offending for which I now sentence you, it was determined that you ought not apply for bail and therefore you continued to remain in jail until the present.
20 You and your co-accused, Karen Bremner, ran a contested committal hearing on 25 June 2013 in which the complainant and the police informant were required to give evidence. I accept and have factored in that Ms Montiel was cross-examined for a brief period of time and in a mild fashion and, at that time, you were facing other charges in relation to this matter. At the initial directions hearing on 26 June 2013, the trial was listed for 16 June 2014 and directions were adjourned to 2 December 2013 to allow for discussions to continue. On 2 December 2013 the matter was close to resolving and a further mention was listed for 18 December 2013. On 18 December, it was indicated that the matter had resolved and on 20 December you were arraigned and the matter was listed for a plea hearing.
21 In those circumstances you are entitled to a discount in sentence which is not insignificant, although not as great as it would have been had you entered a plea at an earlier stage, even allowing for the refinement of the charges as a result of the committal. In pleading guilty before the matter went to trial, you have saved the witnesses, especially the victim, from the time and trauma of giving evidence at trial and you have saved the community the time and expense of running a trial.
22 Susan Bremner was charged in the summary stream for aiding and abetting a breach of a family violence order. She pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and fined $4,000. Her involvement was limited to a number of attempts to forward calls from you to the complainant and to contact her on your behalf; also, she was dealt with in respect of a different charge to you, and had no prior convictions. Given these matters, and the far superior role you played, the principle of parity has very limited application.
23 Your sister, Karen Bremner, is also facing charges in relation to this incident, including one charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice, two charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, stalking and using a carriage service to harass. She has indicated a plea of not guilty and the matter is listed for trial on 16 June 2014.
24 You have a fairly lengthy criminal history, which commenced in 1991 and comprises driving offences, dishonesty offences, drug offences, criminal damage and possession of a weapon offence. The matter before me constitutes the last outstanding matter which you face. I have born in mind very much, in your case, the principle of totality in circumstances where you have been in custody since 1 August 2012.
25 Your offending before me was somewhat unsophisticated, in that you knew your phone calls were being recorded by police, although this also bespeaks a level of desperation and brazenness. They mostly involved efforts to manipulate and cajole a person you had previously assaulted, although you also threatened to implicate the victim in criminal offending if she did not comply with your demands. I accept that there are more serious examples of this offence, albeit that your offending is serious enough, especially in light of the nature of your previous dealings with and knowledge of the complainant.
26
You are presently subject to a sentence insofar as the head sentence is concerned imposed by Her Honour Judge Hogan on 19 December 2013 in respect of one charge of handling stolen goods and one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence being methylamphetamine, as well as a number of summary offences which were dealt with on that same occasion. The trafficking charge related to you buying and selling methylamphetamine (which had been manufactured by an associate) from and to a large number of associates, over a period of about two months. One of the summary matters was a breach of an intervention order. Her Honour Judge Hogan sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 26 months' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively upon sentences which you were undergoing. She imposed a new non-parole period of 20 months' imprisonment. Her Honour declared 44 days as already served. On 19 July 2013 in this court you were sentenced in respect of possessing a drug of dependence for trafficking and possessing a drug of dependence for which you were sentenced to 1 year 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 months’. On 16 August 2013 at the Heidelberg Magistrates Court you were sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment, one month of which was to be cumulative with sentences you were undergoing. This was for an assault which was also in respect of
Ms Montiel.
27 I take into account that this has been the lengthiest period which you have spent in gaol and that the first twelve months spent on remand were especially difficult, involving numerous Court attendance dates which caused a great deal of disruption to any routine. However, in that first twelve months, you completed a number of courses, including an introduction to anger management, conflict management and communication skills. You instructed your Counsel that these courses had given you some understanding and strategies as to how you might handle yourself in the future. Through him, you expressed remorse for what you had done to the victim in the matter before me. In the circumstances, I accept this, although it must be seen in the context of having run a contested committal hearing. Since being in Fulham Prison, you have been able to settle into a routine and have applied yourself to employment in the kitchen. You work there 7 days a week, 6 hours a day, and I was told that you enjoy being able to occupy yourself in this way, and to derive a modest income.
28 It is clear that you have laboured under the scourge of drug addiction for some time. Your drug of choice was crystal methamphetamine or ice. This was the backdrop of your relationship with the victim, who also suffers some mental health difficulties, as does her daughter. Your relationship with the victim was described by your Counsel as toxic. I understand that your relationship with your mother was deeply stressed leading up to the time of your incarceration, but your mother has noticed a dramatic improvement in you, now that you are drug free. She has told your Counsel that she feels that she has regained you as a son. I understand that your mother has made it clear to you that if you wish to have her support as a continuing presence in your life upon your release from gaol, you must continue to stay clear of drugs. I was told that you had a number of negative drug screens whilst in custody but for some reason these could not be accessed. However, I accept in your favour that you are currently drug free, which is to your credit and of relevance to your prospects of rehabilitation.
29 You now enjoy a level of family support-your mother and aunt were at the plea hearing and you have each of them to look to for support upon your release. Upon your release you have resolved to move to your uncle’s farm in regional Victoria and help him with the operation of his potato farm. You have decided to do this in a bid to remove yourself from negative peers and the drug scene. You have a family background in potato farming and you wish to learn and work towards running your own farm one day. I have also factored these matters in, in a positive way, as going to your prospects of rehabilitation.
30 I take into account your family background, which has some sad aspects to it. Your father separated from your mother before you were born, and your natural father denied paternity of you, which was most unfortunate, and no doubt this has impacted upon you. You were excluded by your father when he exercised access to your sisters and did not see the farm that he ran until you were 36 years old. However, you enjoyed a good relationship with your step-father whom your mother married when you were 7. He had been a member of the Australian Federal Police and he then became a truck driver. Sadly, he passed away in October 2008, and your natural father died in 2009. As well as your two sisters, you have a half-sister and some step-siblings. I was told you are particularly close to your sisters.
31 You first started taking drugs when you were 12 or 13 and later on you abused alcohol and amphetamine. Your drug use escalated significantly when you embarked on a relationship with Ms Montiel.
32 You left school in year 9, leaving at the legal minimum age then went straight to employment at a timber yard. From there you completed an apprenticeship and work as a roof tiler for a number of years, leading to your own business, which you ran from when you were 24 years to 35 years. At its peak you supervised 3 employees, 3 apprentices as well as administrative staff.
33 You married in about 2000 but separated in 2005, you have two daughters from that relationship, who are 12 and nine. You had access to your girls before going into custody but you have not seen them since. I have factored this in when sentencing you as it has made your time in custody harder and more isolating and will continue to do so, albeit that your ex wife’s stance is perfectly understandable. Between 2007 and 2009 you were in another relationship, and have a little boy from that relationship. His mother has taken him to see you whilst you have been in custody from time to time. You went on to have a relationship with the victim of this matter, which you now accept is at an end.
34 I take into account the contents of the CISP report dated 13 July 2012, the neuropsychological report of Helen Clausen dated 11 April 2012 and the report of Anglicare forensic counsellor, Jennie Rae dated 9 May 2012. As your Counsel said, these are somewhat dated, being prepared, as they were, before you went into custody and before you committed the offence before me, which, of course, was committed whilst in custody. However, I accept that as at that time, you were co-operative in respect of the directions you received, attending external organisations to which you were referred.
35 I take into account the contents of each of these reports, in particular, your Counsel relied on the Anglicare Report which gives the history of your drug and alcohol abuse and dependence on ice in recent years. The author of that report, Ms Jennie Rae, a forensic counsellor, saw you on 30 April 2012. The report also explores the relationship between you and your father and your experience of rejection as being a likely source of your anger. At that time you reported feelings of anger, guilt and anxiety as a consequence of the drug trafficking in which you had engaged. You indicated to Ms Rae that you were committed to developing insight into your issues of drug abuse and anxiety and to developing coping strategies.
36
As a result of a CISP recommendation, you were assessed by a neuropsychologist with a view to ascertaining whether you had an acquired brain injury; this was thought to be possible because of your drug abuse and because you had suffered a number of head injuries. You do not have an acquired brain injury and you were found to have an average IQ. Although
Dr Clausen was of the view that you had some mild deficits in your cognitive functioning which would be exacerbated by further substance abuse, she said that you had the capacity to engage in full time work and would benefit from drug and alcohol counselling if motivated to engage in this.
37 I accept that this means that, providing you can continue to abstain from drugs, you have a capacity to work and turn things around in your life. It is clear from your work history-in particular, the fact that you were the owner of a sizeable roof tiling business, that you have the ability to make a positive contribution to the community and to be a good role model for your children. Obviously, the challenge will be to stay away from drugs and to stay away from anyone who takes them. In this regard, I understand that you wish to undertake an alcohol and drug course before being released. You are also motivated to seek treatment and counselling for drug abuse upon release and I urge you to do so, Mr Inglis.
38 In view of your offending on this occasion, your criminal history, your battle with drug abuse but also bearing in mind your capacity for honest hard work and your resolve to make a fresh start, I rate your prospects of rehabilitation as fair at best. I must impose not insignificant weight of specific deterrence and protection of the community.
39 You are now 42 years old. It is up to you whether you make a go of things or else spend ever increasing periods in gaol or take ever increasing risks with your life.
40 I have borne in mind the principle of totality, in sentencing you, and must impose a new non-parole period. After queries raised in relation to the appropriate pre-sentence detention in this case, discussions via email ensued. These have resulted in agreement as between the parties that, as presently advised, your present earliest release date is 11 October 2014 and that if you were required to serve all sentences you are presently undergoing without a grant of parole, your time in gaol would end on (or about) 11 November 2016. In fixing a new non-parole period, I must not impose one which would involve you being eligible for release earlier than your present earliest release date, and this means that I must allow for 54 days pre-sentence detention in arriving at a new non-parole period, lest the deduction of the pre-sentence detention undermine this requirement. These are important matters for me to consider in the context of imposing an appropriate sentence and having proper regard to the principle of totality.
41 I have considered the various submissions made in your case at some length and having borne in mind all relevant sentencing principles, I have arrived at a sentence which, in my view, appropriately addresses these in all of the circumstances of your case.
42 Please stand up Mr Inglis
43 In respect of Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment , five months’ of which is to be cumulative upon the sentences you are undergoing. I impose a new non-parole period of 12 months imprisonment and declare that you have already served 54 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
44 If not for your plea of guilty I would have imposed 3 years’ imprisonment and ordered cumulation of ten months’ of the sentence you are presently undergoing and set a new non-parole period of 20 months’ imprisonment.
45 Take a seat for a moment please, sir. Is there anything arising out of that sentence, Counsel?
46 MS RUDDLE: Your Honour, just in terms of the non-parole period, for the sake of clarity it would probably be best if Your Honour declared from when the new non-parole period commences.
47 HER HONOUR: It has to start today, doesn't it?
48 MS RUDDLE: Yes, Your Honour, I'm - yes, Your Honour, that's what I expected Your Honour meant but just for the sake of clarity given the - - -
49 HER HONOUR: I thought all sentences of imprisonment had to start from the day that they're imposed unless they're Commonwealth sentences but - - -
50 MS RUDDLE: That's - - -
51 HER HONOUR: - - - for the sake of clarity the new non-parole period will commence today.
52 MS RUDDLE: Thank you, Your Honour.
53 MR TRAILL: As Your Honour pleases.
54 HER HONOUR: Is there anything further?
55 MS RUDDLE: No, nothing arising Your Honour.
56 HER HONOUR: All right. Yes thank you, if you might remove Mr Inglis, thank you. We'll now adjourn.
- - -
0
0
0