Director of Public Prosecutions v Janides
[2024] VCC 1456
•13 September 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-23-01461; CR-23-01462
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JAMES JANIDES |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE KELLY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23 July 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 13 September 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Janides | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1456 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Persistent contravention of a family violence order – Contravention of an Order Intending to Cause Harm or Fear for Safety – Attempt to pervert course of justice – Threatening text messages - Falsely registered mobile numbers – Letters while in custody – Significant criminal history – Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Verdins principles – Lack of remorse
Legislation Cited: Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Cases Cited:DPP v Janides [2014] VCC 1703; R v Buscema [2011] VSC 206; Semaan v The Queen [2017] VSCA 279; Worboyes v The Queen (2021) 96 MVR 344; Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; Shiryar v The Queen [2022] VSCA 96; Zakkour v The Queen [2020] VSCA 72; DPP v Zakkour (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 11 December 2019, Judge Smith); DPP v Dixon [2024] VCC 113; DPP v Peterson (a pseudonym) [2022] VCC 1208; DPP v Parker (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 2129; DPP v Farrugia [2019] VCC 505; DPP v Le [2019] VCC 1151 Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 226; Director of Public Prosecutions v Reynolds (A Pseudonym) (2022) 71 VR 336; Director of Public Prosecutions v Oksuz (2015) 47 VR 731.
Sentence: 4 years imprisonment. Non-Parole Period 2 years 6 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms J. Mackay | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J. Blackley (Sentence Indication) Ms N. Menegas (Plea) | SLKQ Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1James Janides, you have pleaded guilty to 1 charge of Persistent Contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order,[1] 2 charges of Contravention of an Order Intending to Cause Harm or Fear for Safety,[2] and 5 charges of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.[3]
[1] Contrary to s 125A Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) (‘FVPA’).
[2] Contrary to s 123A(2) FVPA.
[3] Contrary to Common Law.
2The maximum penalties for each of these offences are as follows:
· Persistent Contravention of an Order: 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 600 penalty units.
· Contravention of Order Intending to Cause Harm or Fear for Safety: 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 600 penalty units.
· Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice: 25 years imprisonment.
Circumstances of Offending
3Your offending was summarised by the Prosecution at your plea.
Background
4Between 2020 and 2021, you were in a relationship with Ms Cynthia Whitson.[4] At some point during this relationship you also entered into a relationship with Ms Karen Adams.[5] Neither woman knew of the other at the time.
[4] A Pseudonym.
[5] A Pseudonym.
5During your relationship with Ms Adams you continually asked her for money. She loaned to you a substantial sum of money.
6In October 2021 you became friendly with Mr Charles Kearns[6] whilst living in adjacent cabins in a caravan park. The two of you fell out in early 2022, causing Mr Kearns to move in with his new partner to avoid you. On the 12th of February you had managed to obtain an expired driver’s licence belonging to Mr Kearns.
[6] A Pseudonym.
7Ms Mary Gill[7] is Mr Kearns’ former partner who on the 10th of February 2022 received an incoherent message from you explaining your falling out with Mr Kearns. The two of you subsequently became friends.
[7] A Pseudonym.
Breach of Intervention Order
8In early April 2022 Ms Whitson obtained an interim family violence intervention order which prevented you from contacting her in any way. This was served on you on two days later and remained in force throughout this offending.
9You used Mr Kearns’s driver’s licence to falsely subscribe several mobile numbers in his name. Between the April and May 2022 you used some of these numbers to send texts to Ms Whitson in breach of the order. These messages were meant to be read as though they were sent by Mr Kearns but had been drafted and sent by you. This offending forms Charge 1 – Persistent Contravention of FVIO.
10On the 18th of June 2022 you sent Ms Whitson a further threatening text message from a different phone number and attached a number of photographs which depicted Ms Whitson standing outside a local police station on the 14th of June 2022 speaking to police officers. Ms Whitson became extremely anxious at receiving these messages and sought assistance from the police. This conduct forms Charge 2: Contravention of Order Intending to Cause Harm or Fear for Safety.
Arrest and Investigation
11On the 19th of June 2022 police executed a search warrant of your then current property, resulting in police seizing a number of mobile phone handsets and SIM cards, including a black Samsung and black Nokia phones which were used to send the texts referred to in charges 1 and 2.
12You were arrested and interviewed on the 21st of June 2022 and denied all the allegations against you. You were eventually remanded in custody.
Subsequent Contraventions
13Following your remand, Ms Adams received a number of letters, emails and phone calls from you asking her to do things for you. She agreed to do your bidding in the hope of having some of her money returned to her.
14In late August 2022 Police executed a search warrant of Ms Adams’ address and seized a number of letters.
15One of the letters seized was postmarked July 2022. The sender was identified using your name and the institution you were currently remanded at. In it, you asked Ms Adams to author a letter addressed to a business in Melton, albeit sent from Flemington. You had drafted the text of the letter which Ms Adams was to write. It was threatening and menacing.
16On the 8th of August staff of the Melton business found a letter under the door. Ms Adams told police she had authored the letter with the text you had dictated and had posted it to the Melton business. She said she did so because she felt pressured by you. This conduct forms the basis of Charge 6: Contravention of Order Intending to Cause Harm or Fear for Safety.
Attempts to Pervert the Course of Justice
17In several other letters to Ms Adams, you provided Mr Kearns’ biographical details, asked Ms Adams to register prepaid SIM cards in Mr Kearns’ name and use these prepaid SIMS to send threatening text messages to Ms Whitson pretending to be Mr Kearns. You told her you wanted to ‘set up’ Mr Kearns and have him arrested and sent to prison and you wanted Mr Kearns to drop the charges against you. Three letters you sent Ms Adams and messages you sent her through the “Email a Prisoner” system form the basis of Charge 4: attempt to pervert the course of justice.
18On the 16th of August 2022 you called Ms Adams from custody. You became convinced that the police were searching for the letters you had written to Ms Adams, and throughout the call you instructed Ms Adams to destroy these letters. You were attempting to avoid criminal prosecution. This forms the basis of charge 7: attempt to pervert the course of justice.
19You also wrote three letters to Ms Mary Gill.[8] In one, you asked her to tell Ms Adams you were remanded at Fulham Correctional Centre. You pleaded with Ms Gill to make false statements to police implicating Mr Kearns in criminal offending. You wrote that if Ms Gill did not assist you, you would have to save yourself and make a deal. This forms the basis of charge 3 – attempt to pervert the course of justice.
[8] A Pseudonym
20In mid-October 2022 police executed a search warrant of the home address of Ms Rebecca Roberts[9] with whom you lived, and seized a number of letters you had sent Ms Roberts.
[9] A Pseudonym
21In two letters you implored Ms Roberts to help create an alibi for you by providing a statement to send to your lawyers. This statement would have provided police with an innocent explanation for your possession of a mobile phone with numbers linked to Mr Kearns. These letters form the basis of charge 5 – attempt to pervert the course of justice.
22In another letter you wrote to Ms Gill asking her to call your lawyers and tell them that the informant in your earlier matter had been encouraging Ms Gill to make false abuse allegation against you. You asked Ms Gill to make this call using a private number, and on the back of the letter you added a different prisoners name to evade police detection. You made these requests to set Ms Adams up after she had fallen out with you. This letter forms the basis of charge 8 – attempt to pervert the course of justice.
23On the 18th of October 2022 police executed a search warrant at the home of your mother, Elizabeth Janides, in Glenroy. A letter was seized which you had authored and which contained unsavoury descriptions of a number of your victims.
Victim Impact Statements
24A Victim Impact Statement of Ms Cynthia Whitson was read aloud at your plea hearing. She described the anxiety and depression she has experienced because of your offending, as well as the impact on her self-esteem and her ability to trust. She suffers from nausea and poor concentration whenever she is reminded of you, and experiences emotional numbness and social detachment. She feels stuck in limbo, torn between wanting to be out and around people and wanting to isolate. She says it will take time to overcome these feelings, some of which she fears she will have to learn to live with.
25A statement was also prepared by Mr Charles Kearns. Its contents were inadmissible. I have not factored in his loss, but I acknowledge that he has made an impact statement.
Personal Circumstances
26Your personal circumstances were summarised in a report authored by Ms Daniella Kocic, tendered on your plea.[10]
[10] Report of Daniella Kocic dated 15 July 2024 (‘Kocic Report’).
27You are now in your 50’s. You are the youngest of four siblings, you have two older brothers and one older sister. You reported to Ms Kocic that you had a positive relationship with your siblings and parents growing up. You were particularly close to your father who passed in 2021 due to poor health. You were in custody at the time. You say you took on a carer’s role for your elderly mother and supported her financially. Since you entered custody, you report speaking to her every second day.
28You disclosed that you had been assaulted as a child by a priest and a football coach and you suffered an emotional breakdown in the early 2000’s when you disclosed this to the police.
29You attended Glenroy Secondary College until Year 10. You completed an apprenticeship as a farrier and worked in the racehorse industry for approximately 30 years. You ceased working in that industry following the death of your father. You report having worked as a tattooist and as a professional bull-rider.
30You told Ms Kocic that you have struggled in your intimate relationships and that the breakdown of those relationships was not your fault. You told Ms Kocic as recently as 15 July 2024 that you are still ‘kind of together’ with the victim in this matter. Your victim reports that there has been no contact since you offended against her in early 2022. I was told at your plea that you now accept the relationship is over and there are no prospects of reconciliation. It is, nonetheless, alarming that as late as July this year you were representing that the relationship was still on foot.
Defence Submissions
31Mr Blackley from Victoria Legal Aid represented you at your sentence indication hearing and provided written submissions which Ms Menegas relied upon at your plea. She submitted that a carefully structured Community Correction Order with therapeutic conditions could meet all relevant sentencing purposes and would assist most with your rehabilitation.
Prosecution Submissions
32Ms Mackay for the Crown submitted that a sentence of imprisonment with a head sentence and non-parole period ought to be imposed having regard to the objective gravity of the offending, the importance of general deterrence, denunciation and punishment and your history of relevant prior offending.
Prior Offending
33I was provided with Smallwood J’s sentencing remarks from 2014.[11] You had pleaded guilty to one charges of perjury and making a false report. That offending is remarkably similar to this. You had been in a relationship with a woman in the La Trobe Valley. That relationship ended. You registered a mobile phone in her name and sent threatening texts from it to your phone number. You used those messages to obtain an intervention order against her. You then attended a police station and insisted that your estranged ex-partner be charged with breaching the intervention Order by sending you further abusive text messages which you had sent to yourself. You signed a sworn police statement bristling with lies about your ex-partner. She was arrested when driving to collect her child from school. It was despicable, vengeful offending.
[11] DPP v Janides [2014] VCC 1703.
34Your criminal history runs long. You were first convicted of stalking in 2004. You were also convicted then of breaching an Intervention Order. You were imprisoned for 12 months in 2005 for breaching an Intervention Order in Shepparton. I was not provided with the details of this offending, but it must have been a serious example of its type. You were also convicted then of two counts of Harassing a Witness and Threatening to Kill.
35In 2006 you returned to court where you received a partially-suspended 12 month sentence for Making a Threat to Kill and breaching an Intervention Order. You breached that suspended sentence. You received a prison term in 2009 in Mansfield for another Threat to Kill. You appeared in Seymour the following year when you were convicted again of Threatening to Kill and given a suspended prison sentence. You returned to court in 2013 in the La Trobe Valley where you were again convicted for Threatening to Kill, Assault with a Weapon and being a Prohibited Person in possession of a Firearm. The following year you graced the Warrnambool Magistrates’ Court where you were again convicted of Threatening to Kill, Stalking, Possessing a Firearm whilst prohibited, Recklessly Causing Injury and Harassing a Witness.
36You appeared in Hamilton in 2019 where you were again imprisoned for Stalking, Persistent Contravention of a Family Violence Order and, again, Threatening to Kill.
37You had been in a relationship. Your partner had three children to a previous partner. You held a knife to her throat in March 2013. In 2014 she fled you, moving from Portland to Mildura. She left behind her belongings in rented accommodation. She received a number of abusive text messages from you. You had left a message on her phone telling her that it was “your thing” to hurt her and that her children would grow up without a mother. She changed her phone number and closed her Facebook account.
38You broke into her vacated house and stole her jewellery. When her possessions were delivered to her in Mildura the photo albums containing photographs of her deceased child were missing. You had broken into the house and taken them. Because you could not contact your victim, you taunted her sister instead. You told her sister you had the photo albums and that you would burn the photographs. You did just that and sent photographs of the burnt photos to your victim’s sister. You sent her a text message, saying, “I’m burning the only pics of [her son].....I’m half way there burning them....It will kill [ex-partner] having no pic of her dead son....gave you all enough time.”
39Later, you taunted your victim’s sister, telling her you were up the road from her parent’s place. You threatened to destroy the family. That is an abbreviated summary of the offending dealt with in Hamilton on 23 October 2019. I have extracted it to illustrate how malevolent you are. I have also extracted it to counter the submission that the offending before me is a product of your PTSD which is referable to burns you sustained on 1 April 2015 whilst incarcerated at Beechworth. You are a manipulative, vindictive, entitled man. You were that way before 1 April 2015 and you remain that way.
40You appeared in Broadmeadows the following year where again you had breached a Family Violence Interim Intervention Order. You received another gaol term.
41In 2022 you appeared in Ararat where you breached a Family Violence Final Intervention Order.
Gravity of Offending and Moral Culpability
42Ms Menegas conceded that your offending is objectively grave. On the attempts to pervert the course of justice, it was submitted that the offending fell between the low and mid-tier. She submitted that your offending constituted a misguided attempt to corrupt ongoing criminal proceedings. Your attempts were unsuccessful and your counsel submitted that this was because the would-be recruits were not vulnerable and the requests lacked persuasiveness. She argued that the criminal proceedings you were attempting to influence concerned matters routinely dealt with in the Magistrates’ court that would not likely result in a term of imprisonment.
43Ms Menegas conceded in relation to the breaches that there is repeated contact with the victim and the nature of offending indicates a degree of manipulation, however submitted that your offending is not an escalation from past offending.
44Ms Mackay submitted that the charge of persistent contravention of FVIO constitutes a serious example based on the sophistication, repetition and intimidation associated with your offending.
45On the contraventions of FVIO, it was again submitted that your conduct was a serious example based on the following factors:
a) You were in custody on remand for other FVIO breaches;
b) You involved another person in your offending;
c) You sought to conceal your identity;
d) The letter contained derogatory and threatening language, including accusing the victim of a serious criminal offence and threatening to tell the victim’s employer;
e) The letter was sent to the victim’s workplace in a calculated attempt to embarrass and discredit her professionally and jeopardise her employment.
46On the attempts to pervert the course of justice, Ms Mackay submitted that they are relatively serious examples of the offence because:
a) The offending was repeated, persistent and occurred over a protracted period of 3 months;
b) By your offending conduct, you intended to avoid prosecution and conviction for the FVIO breach offences;
c) The offences were premeditated and not spontaneous;
d) You sought to involve three other people in your offending.
47Ms Mackay accepted that there was no actual violence involved in the offending however, threats and emotional manipulation in the context of intimate relationships are to be denounced.
48As to the offence of attempt to pervert, the court in Beljulji approved the factors identified by Justice Nettle in Buscema, namely:[12]
(a) The consequences which the offending was calculated to avoid;
(b) The time during which the deception was maintained and whether it was actively repeated or persisted in;
(c) Whether the deception involved some other person, either as an accomplice or as a victim;
(d) Whether there was any threat or violence involved;
(e) Whether the offence was spontaneous or premeditated; and
(f) Whether the deception resulted in the deception of the court or the creation of false public records.
[12] R v Buscema [2011] VSC 206, [6] approved Semaan v The Queen [2017] VSCA 279, [39].
49Your offending is serious. Your counsel suggested in writing that the consequences you were trying to avoid were minor and related to charges routinely dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court. You have been gaoled for similar offending and you were trying to escape gaol by roping in other people, making them complicit in your scheme to escape the consequences of your actions. There was every chance you would have received a prison term for these latest FVIO breaches in the Magistrates’ Court. Worse, you tried to frame someone else, a practice you used in the past with your estranged ex-partner in Sale.
50Your offending spans almost five months and it was persistent, cynical, exploitative and cowardly. It failed because you are not as bright or persuasive as you think you are.
51Your family violence offending Is in the mid-range. Your attempt to pervert offending is also mid-range in its objective gravity.
Prospects of rehabilitation
52Regarding your prospects of rehabilitation, Ms Menegas referred to Ms Kocic’s report where you are assessed as a low risk of future intimate partner violence. She acknowledged the tension between Ms Kocic’s assessment and your significant criminal history. Ms Kocic noted that your present risk is not imminent, however, your ‘risk would become imminent upon release and resuming contact with the victim’.[13] It appears that the only factor preventing you from picking up where you left off is your current state of imprisonment.
[13] Kocic Report (n 10) 11 [102].
53Since 2004 you have remorselessly harassed, intimidated, taunted and gravely threatened previous partners. You have fabricated evidence against them to have them arrested and charged. You have targeted their vulnerabilities and dedicated yourself to ruining their lives. You have breached several family violence intervention orders. You have demonstrated a contemptuous disdain for court Orders and you have blithely lied to police and to courts.
54On 28 May 2014 you sent the burnt photographs of your estranged ex-partner's deceased child to her sister. In October of that year you came before Smallwood J. He referred to the fact that there had been “a degree of water under the bridge” since you offended against your partner in Sale. Just months before, you had undertaken a hateful campaign against a subsequent partner. Smallwood J was aware that you had received a prison term for a Threat to Kill charge earlier in that year, but he was not provided with the detail. He noted that you had been assessed by Dhurringile Prison as a low risk of reoffending. That assessment has aged like milk. Your then psychologist noted, “One must acknowledge that someone of [your] mental condition would be almost impossible to live with.” That is doubtless an opinion shared by each of your intimate partners.
55Even after you pleaded guilty to these charges before me, you gave a version of your offending to Ms Kocic which traversed your pleas.[14] You minimised your conduct, blamed others, maintained the fiction implicating Mr Kearns and painted yourself as the victim. It was a pathetic self-serving performance and one that reflects very poorly on your prospects of rehabilitation.
[14] Ibid 5-6 [60]-[65].
56I was referred to the steps you have taken to undergo counselling. You had phone contact with the Orange Door organisation ten times between November 2020 and March 2021. This offending post-dates those sessions. You obviously did not learn whatever strategies they tried to impart. You also enrolled in the CAFS family violence program on 19 November 2020. Their program is based on the principles that women and children have the right to live their lives freely and safely and those men who deny them this right need to take responsibility for their actions and must choose to change. If you learnt anything from your engagement with this service you kept it to yourself.
57Your prospects of rehabilitation are extremely poor. I have no doubt that upon your release from custody you will repartner with someone decent and worthy whose life you will set about destroying. You are in your 50’s now. You have a deep vein of cruelty. You have not been deterred by programs, counselling, Community Correction Orders, suspended gaol terms, partially suspended gaol terms, straight sentences or gaol terms with parole. You hold the law in contempt. I suspect you think you are much cleverer than you are.
Guilty Plea & Remorse
58You have been on remand since 2022 and are entitled to some slight reduction in keeping with Worboyes.[15] You pleaded guilty following a sentence indication. The Prosecution submitted that yours is not an early plea of guilty and is of limited value given the complainants were cross-examined at your committal in August 2023. Nevertheless, it was conceded that this plea has saved the expense of a trial and it demonstrates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.[16] Your plea has relieved your victims the stress of giving evidence before a jury. You are entitled to some mitigation of your sentence for the administrative saving to the court.
[15] Worboyes v The Queen (2021) 96 MVR 344.
[16] Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339, 345-346.
59There is no evidence that you are remorseful for your conduct. You sent me a cynical, manipulative letter inviting me to find that you had been conspired against. I stopped reading it after the first paragraph, but the impression left was not endearing.
Verdins principles
60Ms Menegas submitted that limbs 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Verdins are enlivened. On limb 1, she referred me to the following extract of Ms Kocic’s report:
Mr Janides’ offending behaviour appears to be precipitated by a breakdown of his intimate relationship with the victim, which he attributed to conflict with his partner’s daughter, his inability to effectively problem solve, manage interpersonal conflict, or regulate his emotions.
61The Prosecution submitted that this traverses the agreed facts, namely that the offending was precipitated by a breakdown in your relationship. The Prosecution submits that there has been no contact between you and Ms Whitson since March 2022. The facts you admit to in your pleas of guilty include that the relationship ended in July 2021. Ms Menegas conceded that the submission for limb 1 could not be pressed beyond Ms Kocic’s report. Her remarks are insufficient to establish reduced moral culpability.
62Reliance was placed on limb 2 at your sentence indication hearing based on the report of Dr Aaron Cunningham. He writes that you would benefit from a disposition that facilitates your rehabilitation. Limb 2 is conceded by the Prosecution and I accept that it is enlivened to a slight degree. However, I am not prepared to find that your impairment is such that imprisonment is inappropriate.
63Ms Menegas relied on limbs 5 and 6. In her report, Ms Kocic provides a diagnosis of complex PTSD (‘C-PTSD’) on the basis of your childhood abuse and the physical injuries you sustained in the gas explosion.[17] You were also diagnosed by Ms Kocic with Major Depressive Disorder. She writes that imprisonment would likely weigh more heavily on you than someone without your conditions and you are unlikely to receive the specific treatments you require in custody for C-PTSD and high levels of psychological distress. She also noted that the prison environment could lead to an exacerbation of your PTSD symptoms which could result in further decompensation or disproportionate responses.
[17] Kocic Report (n 10) 12 [110].
64I was also provided with psychological reports by Dr Aaron Cunningham, Dr David Weissman and Dr Justin Lewis delineating your history of trauma and your PTSD diagnosis. A number of these reports were obtained for the purposes of your civil claim following the injuries you sustained in the gas bottle explosion in 2015. I have had regard to these reports in accepting your long-standing diagnosis of PTSD and your history of trauma.
65Ms Mackay conceded the engagement of Verdins limbs 5 and 6, however argued that any mitigation must necessarily be limited considering all other relevant factors.
66I am satisfied that you are entitled to some slim mitigation in respect of limbs 5 and 6.
Sentencing Principles
67Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 states that the only purposes for which you may be sentenced are:
(g) To punish you in a manner and to an extent which is just in all of the circumstances;
(h) To deter you or others from committing similar offences in future;
(i) To facilitate rehabilitation;
(j) To manifest the denunciation of your conduct;
(k) To protect the community; or
(l) A combination of two or more of these purposes.
68I have also had regard to the comparable cases I was provided by the Prosecution.[18]
[18] Shiryar v The Queen [2022] VSCA 96; Zakkour v The Queen [2020] VSCA 72; DPP v Zakkour (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 11 December 2019, Judge Smith); DPP v Dixon [2024] VCC 113; DPP v Peterson (a pseudonym) [2022] VCC 1208; DPP v Parker (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 2129; DPP v Farrugia [2019] VCC 505; DPP v Le [2019] VCC 1151.
69Regarding charges 1, 2 and 6, the Court of Appeal has long held fervent views on how sentencing judges are to approach domestic violence offending.
70The Court of Appeal in Skeates said:
Further, the seriousness of family violence and the harm it inflicts is not to be simply equated with physical injury. Family violence is now understood — and defined in law — to encompass behaviour that is physically, sexually, emotionally, psychologically and economically abusive or threatening or coercive, even if such behaviour does not constitute a criminal offence. That kind of behaviour produces situations where people, disproportionately women, live in ‘real and justified fear of men who are, or were, their intimate partners.’ It produces a domestic atmosphere steeped in dread. It robs victims of capacity and agency and also engenders shame.
It follows that in assessing the totality of the circumstances that pertain to any offence committed in the context of family violence, the surrounding behaviours of the offender must be considered to assess the true gravity of the offending and for ‘the sentence to vindicate the dignity of [the] victim’.[19]
[19] Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 226 at [61] – [62].
71In Reynolds, the court observed:
Family violence is a blight on society, which this Court ‘has been at pains to denounce’.[20]
[20] Director of Public Prosecutions v Reynolds (A Pseudonym) (2022) 71 VR 336, 352 [71] (‘Reynolds’).
72The court in Oksuz, considering the offence of Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice, noted:
The offence is serious because the conduct that constitutes it strikes at the heart of the administration of justice. It does so because it involves an offender seeking to deter witnesses from giving evidence — or giving truthful evidence — in court proceedings. Where the offence is committed in the context of a criminal proceeding, the aim of the offending conduct is to undermine the Crown’s ability to secure a conviction against an accused person and thus bring him or her to justice. The serious harm to public safety and the rule of law resulting from such offending conduct is obvious.[21]
[21] Director of Public Prosecutions v Oksuz (2015) 47 VR 731, 753-4 [95].
73Specific deterrence and community protection play significant roles in the sentence I am to impose. Considering your extremely poor prospects of rehabilitation, that factor must be displaced in the sentencing calculus. I am constrained by the Sentencing Indication I gave. As I noted at your plea hearing, that indication was given before I fully considered Smallwood J’s sentencing remarks and before I became familiar with your grotesquely cruel prior offending. Had I not been so constrained, I would have imposed a longer prison term. I am further constrained by the principle of totality.
Sentence
74Mr Janides, please stand.
75On Charge 1, Persistent Contravention of an Order, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months.
76On Charge 2, Contravention of an Order Intending to Cause Harm or Fear for Safety, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months.
77On Charge 3, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months.
78On Charge 4, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months.
79On Charge 5, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months.
80On Charge 6, Contravention of an Order Intending to Cause Harm or Fear for Safety, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months.
81On Charge 7, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months.
82On Charge 8, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months.
83The sentence for Charge 2 is the base sentence. 3 months of the sentence in Charge 1 is to be served cumulatively; 3 months of the sentence in Charge 3 is to be served cumulatively; 3 months of the sentence in Charge 4 is to be served cumulatively; 6 months of the sentence in Charge 5 is to be served cumulatively; 3 months of the sentence in Charge 6 is to be served cumulatively; 6 months of the sentence in Charge 7 and 6 months of the sentence in charge 8. That produces a total effective sentence of four years. I fix a non-parole period of 2.5 years.
84I declare that you have served 815 days by way of presentence detention, and I order that this be administratively deducted from the sentence I impose.
85Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that, but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 6 years with a non-parole period of 5 years.
86The Prosecution have sought a disposal order for a number of items obtained in relation to the investigation and prosecution of these matters. The application not being opposed, I order that the items listed in the schedule of the order be disposed of in the manner prescribed.
0
15
0