Director of Public Prosecutions v Johnston
[2025] VCC 1261
•19 August 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR 24-02223
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DARCY JOHNSTON |
‑‑‑
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCINERNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 19 August 2025 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 19 August 2025 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Johnston |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1261 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
‑‑‑
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE
Catchwords: Theft; burglary; Handling stolen goods; Aggravated burglary - person present; Obtain property by deception; Aggravated recklessly expose emergency worker to risk by driving; Dangerous driving while pursued by police.
Legislation Cited: 74(1), s 76(1), s 88, s99(1), 317AF, 317AE, 319AA(1) Crimes Act 1958; s61(1A); Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic); s16(3D), 87P Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Cases Cited:R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Veen v R (No 2) [1988] 164 CLR 465; DPP v Jones (a Pseudonym) [2013] VSCA 330 40 VR 267; McL v The Queen 2000 120 CLR 452; Gordon v The Queen [2013] VSCA 343; DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293.
Sentence:8 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 and a half years.
6AAA:If not for the plea of guilty the sentence would have been 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years.
‑‑‑
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms G. Hogg | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J. Bourke | Gallant Law |
HIS HONOUR:
1Ms Johnston, you can remain seated until I ask you to stand. Ms Darcy Johnston was aged between 29 and 30 when these crimes took place. She was born in February1995. She is a crane and/or forklift licenced driver by occupation. She was unemployed at the time of these offences. This plea took place on 31 July 2025, when Ms Johnston pleaded guilty to 20 charges in Indictment Q11784319, and her counsel pleaded guilty to summary charges. which I will identify in due course.
2Ms Hogg appeared for the Director, as she does today, and Mr Bourke appeared for Ms Johnston, which he also does today. Today, given queries from the Court, Ms Johnston has pleaded to two amended charges, being Charges 12, and in regard to Charge 18, the particulars have been amended, and I will come to those in due course. These crimes committed from 6 June till 22 August 2024 are of great concern to the community. As I said to Mr Bourke, where such wanton and sustained criminality is committed upon the community, in the circumstances detailed in the plea, condign punishment is in order to satisfy the principles detailed in s5(1) and s5(2).
3The criminality, as best I can understand it, can be classified as follows:
(a) Wanton attacks on local business
Charges 1 involved a burglary, offence pursuant to s76(1), for which the maximum penalty is 10 years, prescribed by Parliament. Charge 2, a theft charge, being a charge under s74, which also brings with it a maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament of 10 years imprisonment. These particular crimes were committed at the Arden Motel on the sixth day of January 2024, at approximately 10.23 am, when Ms Johnston and an unknown offender attended the premises. During such attendance, an employee then at the premises, was distracted, and a theft of an EFTPOS machine took place.
4I had no comprehension of why on earth people would steal from a local business, causing the disruption that it would. I was told, however, by counsel that these machines can be utilised by reversing credits, and that is the reason why they are stolen.
5Charges 3 and 4 took place on 21 June 24, that is, further burglary and theft charges, at 5.31am. In this instance, Ms Johnston and an unknown co-offender attended at a firm called Radiant Skin Care Clinic. The business premises were smashed into by way of the front glass being hit with a hammer, Ms Johnston and her unknown co-offender entered the premises and again stole, an EFTPOS machine and cash in the order of $150 from the register. There is attached with this, a summary charge 25, being in possession of the hammer and going equipped to steal.
6We then come to Charges 5 and 6. Again, further burglary charges committed against a local business, again with an unknown co-offender. This happened on 4 August at 5.49am. These crimes were committed upon the Skin Metric Clinic in Moonee Ponds. The front door was broken open with a crowbar, Charge 5 the burglary, and the parties entered the premises a number of times in order to steal, making up Charge 6, goods in the value of $2500, essentially product and equipment located at the premises. Incidentally, the parties arrived at the premises in a white Porsche Macan.
(b) Attacks upon individuals in the community
7Charge 7 involves the plates on the Macan that I have just mentioned, which was utilised in Charges 5 and 6. Then was stolen from the home of Mr Van on 3rd August 2024. Charge 7 relates to the plates involved in Charges 5 and 6, which were attached, as I understand it, to that Macan and utilised in the offences on 4 August.
8Charge 7, obviously, is a charge of handle stolen goods, and relates to an offence under s88(1) of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament is 15 years imprisonment. Charge 12, in regard to the theft charge, has been amended today to 3 August, and is the theft of the Macan Porsche, set out in Charge 12, from the owner, a Mr Theo Giddis. Previously the indictment in Charge 12 related to the date, 22 August, and it has been amended today to the 3rd.
9Charge 8 involves the use of the Macan, with its altered plates, to steal petrol on 4 August at 12.23 in a petrol drive-off from the BP at Laverton North; such drive-off costing the proprietor the value of the petrol thereby stolen in the sum of $132.03.
10We then come to the most serious charge in the indictment, being the aggravated burglary, which is Charge 9. The premises in this charge were the home of Daniel Dober and Ann Deitoop, At 6.26, Ms Johnston and her co-accused, believed to be, in fact, her partner at the time, Ms Myers, climbed through an open window of the premises while Mr Dober and Ms Deitoop were, in fact, asleep, these premises being located in Heidelberg Heights.
The aggravated burglary is made up from the intent to steal and the knowledge which has been pleaded to, that two persons were present in these premises at the time of entering. As I said, Ms Johnston and her companion, climbed through the open window. At 6.39am, they utilised the key that they had stolen in the property and drove off with the white Mazda. That was parked further up the street and becomes the basis of Charge 10: theft of a car.
11At 6.42, the parties then returned to the premises and stole the other car parked at the premises, being a Toyota Corolla, and drove off with it. That becomes theft Charge 11. While in the home, additional property was stolen, including a Commonwealth Bank card. Subsequently that day, while driving the white Toyota Corolla, five, “Tap n'Go” purchases were made, with such card to the value of $636.47, made up of both petrol and food, and the precise details of those goods are set out in Exhibit A, from [21] to [ 23], and such circumstances make up Charge 14: a charge of obtain property by deception, for which the maximum penalty imposed by Parliament is one of 10 years, and this is a rolled up charge, in order to cover the various eight purchases that made up the items obtained.
12At 8.28, the Porsche Macan was parked in Crissane Road, Heidelberg West. At that stage, there was a handling of goods and the plates were further changed on the Porsche, as I understand, being the plates which had been taken off the stolen Toyota Corolla, and that makes up the circumstances set out in Charge 13: handle stolen goods. A member of the public observed Ms Johnston and her co-accused carrying out these activities, and as a result, rang Triple 0. Thereafter, apparently through some form of good policing, the parties were tracked, and the Toyota Corolla was placed under observation by police somewhere in Preston. Ms Johnston was driving the car, and as I said, her partner at the time, Ms Myers, was also in the car. The Mazda, of course, was the car stolen in the aggravated burglary.
(c) Drug-induced outrageous behaviour placing police in jeopardy, as to their safety, and the community
13At 9.44, as a result, as I have said, of a member of the public, and of good police work, somewhere in Preston, the police tried to stop the cars by way of deflation devices. However, those deflation devices were unsuccessful and both parties drove off; Ms Johnston in the Mazda and her partner, Myers, in the Toyota.
14One officer, in a police car, pursued Ms Johnston. As he was pursuing Ms Johnston, he was struck from behind by her partner, who was in the Toyota, to the extent that the police car was forced to spin out, and thereby the partner successfully stopped the pursuit at that stage by Officer Beams. Subsequently the air wing took up observation at 10.04. The Mazda was seen to be driving at high speeds, over the speed limit, and endangering other cars as it was travelling. At 10.25, the partner, Myers, in Campbellfield Plaza, abandoned her car. That is, the Toyota. She got into the Mazda, which was being driven by Johnston, where there was already another co-offender, a person called Sullivan, in the front seat.
15Further attempts were made by police officers to intercept Ms Johnston, and, a marked divisional van attempted to stop the car by driving into it. This is shown on the exhibited video in file 3, extract 1.1, occurring at 10.25 and 17 seconds. After that contact was made with the front of the car by the divisional van, Exhibit C shows that police from other police cars and the marked car, sought to arrest the three persons in the Mazda. In order to avoid that arrest, Johnston reversed the Mazda. Police Senior Constable, Julian, was caught near the front of the passenger car door, and propelled approximately 10 metres.
16The word used in the summary was, 'dragged'. I think the more appropriate word is 'propelled', and, indeed, that officer was very fortunate, from my observation, not to be impacted or run over by the car the Mazda collided with as it was reversing, or the Mazda itself, as it sped off. Fortunately, that officer's evasive action only left her with minor bleeding and grazing to the knee and hands.
17Such offence makes up Charge 15, which is a charge laid under 317AF of the Crimes Act, 'aggravated reckless exposure of an emergency worker to risk by driving'. The maximum penalty for this offence 10 years imprisonment. This is a defined Category 2 offence, by which a period of actual imprisonment is imposed, pursuant to subs-s(1)(a) of 317AF, and is aggravated by Ms Johnston recklessly exposing Senior Constable Julian when she knew her vehicle was being stolen. Clearly in the circumstances, and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, she knew the marked divisional van was a police car and that police were seeking to apprehend her.
18The consequence of such aggravation strangely leads to no increase in the sentence from that imposed under the lesser charge, 317AE, being a maximum sentence of 10 years. However, pursuant to s16(3D) of the Sentencing Act, the difference between the lesser offence, 317AE, and the more serious offence that brings with it 10 years, being 317AF, which is Charge 15, for which Ms Johnston is before the Court, is that any period of imprisonment imposed for such charge must be cumulated upon other periods of imprisonment imposed for any other offences in this indictment, subject, of course, to direction of this Court. That is, unless I order otherwise.
19Interestingly enough, given the facts, as I perceive them, the aggravation set out in s317AF, (1)(b) and (c) could have been pleaded by the prosecution, but was not. Again, surprisingly, as to this offence, and Charges 16 and 17, no victim impact statement was filed with the Court in regard to any of these police officers. I come then to Charge 16, which is the second offence pursuant to s317AF of 'aggravated reckless exposure of an emergency worker to risk by driving'. This, again, relates to the circumstances that I have explained in regard to Charge 15, brought about by the successful attempt in the Campbellfield Plaza of Ms Johnston to escape from the police.
20DSC Scanlon was one of the persons who tried to arrest the persons in this car. Scanlon went to the rear driver's door, which is now accepted, as I understand, not the passenger's door, as indicated in paragraph 38 of the opening. As a result of being pushed off that door as the car reversed, he suffered pain in the shoulder due to being so hit and the speed of the reversing. Charge 17 was again a similar charge, this time involving Senior Constable Singleton. Singleton had gone to try and open the driver's door and was forced due to the reversing to take evasive action, to ensure he was not injured.
21In looking at Exhibit C, which shows the circumstances of this driving , and indeed, another part of the video which gives a better view. In the one that was played to Court, all you get is a shadow of the police car. In the subsequent part you see the actual marked police car. Given the contact with the marked police car, the attempts of at least three officers to arrest the people in the car, and the actions of Ms Johnston such demonstrate the dangers daily undertaken by our police officers, as they attempt to apprehend criminals in order to protect the public from this type of behaviour.
(d) Drug-induced, dangerous driving, while being pursued by police
22This relates to Charge 18, an offence under 319AA(1). This is a charge which brings with it a maximum penalty of three years' gaol. Again, when you look at the circumstances. a very surprising maximum indeed. Madam Prosecutor, it seems to me, the Director should take some steps to talk to the Attorney-General about the maximum penalty in this Charge.
23This charge of dangerous driving, while being pursued by police, following a direction to stop, in these circumstances, police officers, cars and the air wing, knowing a direction to stop had been given, and knowing that she was being pursued; the nomination of the charge originally was pursuant to sub-s(2): that is, 'fail to indicate while turning and driving at high speeds'. This has today been altered to now read as follows:
The Director of Public Prosecution charges that Darcy Johnston at Campbellfield in Victoria on 22nd day of August, knowing that (a) they had been given a direction to stop, and, (b) a police officer was pursuing the vehicle, drove the motor vehicle dangerously, by failing to indicate when turning, driving at high speeds, while undertaking and overtaking vehicles on the wrong side of the road, and without having proper control of the vehicle.
24All of those factors are detailed, with the amended particulars to Charge 18, which I take into account for the purposes of this sentence. Those amended particulars set out in the addendum of prosecution opening, dated 25 June 25, filed this day, Exhibit D - are as follows:
3.Having exited the Campbellfield Plaza car park, Ms Johnston continued driving along Sydney Road, to Mahoneys Road, at speeds in excess of 70 kilometres per hour in a 70 kilometre per hour zone, while undertaking and overtaking vehicles. Ms Johnston has travelled through the intersection of Hughes Parade and Mahoneys Road against the red light at a fast rate of speed, before turning left into Edgars Road, without indicating.
4.Ms Johnston has continued down Edgars Road in excess of the posted speed limit, before travelling through a further intersection against the flow of traffic. During this time, she has continued to undertake and overtake vehicles.
5.The offender then proceeds to turn into Victoria Road at a fast rate of speed, resulting in the vehicle crossing the median strip of the intersection, and Ms Johnston travelling contrary to the flow of traffic on Victoria Road, at excessive speeds of the posted speed limit being, 50 kilometres. She then continues down Victoria Road at a fast rate of speed, crossing over the top of multiple roundabouts.
6/7Ms Johnston stopped the car to let off Ms Sullivan, who was subsequently arrested, and between Campbellfield Plaza and arriving at Epping Plaza, the co-accused were pursued by a number of police vehicles, as I have said, as well as the police vehicle.
8. Ms Johnston and Ms Myers abandoned the car after colliding with a tree somewhere in the Epping Plaza Shopping Centre, where they were subsequently arrested.
25Given the circumstances, one can only describe this driving as gross, throughout this period, ending when Ms Johnston finally crashed into the tree. It covers all of the details that I have just summarised.
26We come then to Charges 19 and 20. These charges emanate from the police investigation and a search of the Toyota Corolla, which was stolen see Charge 11. Charge 19 relates to the plates IFE 5CL, and a charge of handling stolen goods. Charge 20 relates to the plates AAO 894, and there is a charge of handling those stolen plates.
27We then have a number of summary charges, to which counsel on behalf of Ms Johnston pleaded guilty. Charge 25, as I may have already mentioned, is the charge that relates to the circumstances detailed in Charges 3 and 4. Going equipped to steal is an offence against s99(1) of the Crimes Act, and carries with it a maximum penalty of two years. Charge 20 is an offence of failing to stop after an accident. This relates to hitting a number of cars in the Campbellfield Plaza, as Ms Johnston was escaping from the police. This is an offence under s61(1A) of the Road Safety Act, for which a maximum penalty of 14 days can be imposed. Four parked cars were damaged in that piece of driving.
28Failing to stop on direction from the police is also a summary charge, s64A of the Road Safety Act, which brings with it a maximum penalty of six months' gaol and disqualification of licence for not less than six months. Charge 18 was, drive in a manner dangerous on Sydney Road. In this instance, to effect her escape from the plaza, Ms Johnston hit two cars; one a Nissan, in which a woman of 49 was parked, with her two children, aged 11 and five years, and another a heavy haulage truck.
29Charge 22 is, when she was finally caught, refusing to undertake an oral sample, when requested, which is an offence under s49(1)(eb) of the Road Safety Act, for which on a second offence one is subject to three months' maximum period of imprisonment and 120 penalty units.
30If this cavalcade of offending is not enough, one then has to consider the priors of Ms Johnston. Unfortunately they encompass 10 years, albeit, most in the Magistrates' Court. When she was 21, in January of 2017, she was convicted of drug and dishonesty offences and driving offences, and given a community correction order. It is unusual for this Court to have persons before it with a clean record till that age.
31Looking at the material that is before the Court, Ms Johnston obviously came from a family, unlike many families of persons who come before this Court, which was a loving family. Her problems emanated, as I best understand it, with issues with her own sexual identity at school. She left the home at 16, and unfortunately she started on drugs at about 17, although she stopped GBH by 2024, she has had continual problem with various drugs since that time.
32Those are demonstrated by the further convictions that she has recorded since that age. At 22, she suffered her first gaol offence with a combined CCO of 12 months for drugs, resist emergency worker and breach of the CCO which had earlier been imposed for some 12 offences. When she was 23, on the 4th of April 2018, she got an eight-month sentence for burglaries, theft, 13 offences of theft, handle goods, traffic offences and again a breach of a CCO given to her a year before.
33Then at 24, in September 2019, she had driving, dishonesty and drug offences, for which she was given an aggregate of 24 months' gaol. Then at 25 in June 2020, for theft and drug offences, she was given a sentence of 30 days. Then at 29 in July 2023, criminal damage, drugs, theft, deception and driving matters, she was given a sentence of 14 months. Finally, in October 23, she was given two months for burglary charges.
34It is notable, of course, that throughout that period of criminality, albeit that started late in Ms Johnston's life, she did not work. It is very important, Ms Johnston, for me to stress to you I do not recite your priors to again punish you. As was said by the High Court in Veen v R (No 2) [1988] 164 CLR 465, at [477] to [8]:
“…the antecedent criminal history of an offender is a factor which may be taken into account in determining a sentence to be imposed, but it cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence. To do so would be to impose a fresh penalty. The antecedent criminal history is relevant, however, to show whether the instant offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether the offender has manifested in his commission of the instant offence a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law. In the latter case, retribution, deterrence and protection of society may all indicate that a more severe penalty is warranted. It is legitimate to take account of the antecedent history when it illuminates the moral culpability of the offender in the instant case, or shows his dangerous propensity, or shows a need to impose condign punishment to deter the offender and other offenders.
35You were initially remanded and at the time of the plea had 342 days by way of pre-sentence detention. Have we agreed a figure of days today? Well, you will come back to me.
36MR BOURKE: Your Honour, I may need a moment.
37I then come to the prosecution's submission as to sentence. The prosecutor submitted that the primary sentencing principles to have regard to in these circumstances are general and specific deterrence. As to the dishonesty offences, submission 7(a), I accept such are typical. However, I do not want by such acceptance to suggest that the community should blithely accept such offending.
38I do not accept the prosecution's submission that such dishonesty offences are mid-range. Where you have such a wanton attack on local businesses, as set out in Charges 1 to 6, it seems to me that each of those offences be classified as high-level seriousness. In regard to Charges 7 and 8, I accept the submissions that those charges are mid-range.
39Charge 9, I consider to be high range of seriousness, being the aggravated burglary committed upon persons who were asleep in their home. In regard Charges 10, 11,12,13 and 14 I accept the submission that such is mid-range seriousness. In regard to the escape police matters and placing the police in danger by her driving when she was seeking to escape arrest, that is, Charges 15, 16 and 17, I classify those as in the high bracket of seriousness, carried out by a drug‑affected person and thereby placing, by the driving of that car, police officers in jeopardy of their safety.
40Equally, Charge 18, the dangerous driving charge while being pursued, I also classify as being of a very high level of seriousness, given the circumstances and the risk, to not only the pursuing police but, importantly, all members of the public on the road while this inane driving was undertaken. As I said, Ms Johnston, the community cannot tolerate this type of behaviour.
41I come then to licence disqualification. For the theft of the car, Charges 10, 11 and 12, the licence will be cancelled and Ms Johnston disqualified from obtaining another licence for three months. In regard to the pursuit matters, Charges 15, 16 and 17, these are serious motor vehicle offences pursuant to 87P, and the maximum period of disqualification on each charge is a period of 24 months. In regard to each charge, I impose a period of 24 months.
42In regard to the dangerous driving while being pursued, s 18. I suspend the licence for 12 months. In regard to the summary matters, fail to stop, I suspend the licence for three months, Charge 19. And in regard to the refuse fluid sample, Charge 22, given this has a maximum penalty of four years' loss of licence, cancellation and disqualification applies, that obviously will have maximum effect on the licence, and I do not intend to cumulate any of the other sentences. So the maximum licence disqualification will be the four years imposed by way of the minimum penalty imposed for Charge 22.
43The restitution order sought I will sign. In regard to the co-accused, Myers, has not been dealt with in regard to any of the charges, and apparently Sullivan, who was in the front of the car, for some time, has been dealt with for one charge of car theft. So none of those matters have relevance as to this sentence.
44Coming then to the defence propositions and submissions. Mr Bourke made the point that Ms Johnston is now 30. She is a qualified rigger and forklift driver. She has been, as I have explained, subjected to the milieu that drug users unfortunately live in, that in the end if you are not working and you are on drugs, then you have to get by somehow. Unfortunately, her record shows how she gets by.
45Ms Johnston’s affliction was to the extent of two grams of methamphetamine a day at the time of these offences. She was therefore in a drug cycle where you must commit crimes to get money. And as I have said, while she has been committing these crimes over the last five years she has not worked.
46Mr Bourke, as I have said, accepted that Ms Johnston was deserving of condign punishment and that there was no alternative but for a period of gaol and parole. In mitigation he submitted that the early guilty plea must be seen as utilitarian, which I accept, and that such plea is an acceptance of blame and responsibility, which I also accept.
47I accept that Ms Johnston has demonstrated some remorse and has expressed an apology for her behaviour to the psychologist, Kennedy, and which is set out in Exhibit 2A at p7. It is noted in such report that she suffers no mental illness. She does need treatment, however, for ADHD, PTSD, although I was not able to understand what that related to, and has general anxiety symptoms, which no doubt her current position in gaol has a lot to do with.
48I am also told that she has diligently, while in gaol, sought to rid herself of drugs. She has undertaken the Narcotics Anonymous courses set out in Exhibit 3, exhibited the urine results set out in that exhibit and also undertaken the courses detailed in Exhibit 5.
49Mr Bourke spoke to limb 6 of Verdins 16 VR 269, and I accept that a moderate allowance should be made for the risk of exacerbation of her anxiety, given the evidence of Kennedy, which may come about from imprisonment.
50Mr Bourke also spoke, importantly in this sentence given the number of charges and their type, of the importance of the principles of totality and proportionality, and submitted to the Court that it was very important that the Court did not fall into a pronouncing an excessive or crushing sentence. I take all of those matters into account.
51Clearly with the number of sentences, in particular the aggravated burglary, Charge 9, and the operation of s16(3D) of the Sentencing Act as to Charges 15, 16 and 17, the sentencing here is complex. One has to ensure that one does not pass a crushing sentence on Ms Johnston, and that the total effective of sentence reflects the overall criminality for which Ms Johnston is being sentenced, see in this regard, DPP v Jones (a Pseudonym) [2013] VSCA 330 40 VR 267, at [288]. I accept that the correct way to sentence in this case is the approach recommended by the Court of Appeal in DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293, at footnote 20.
52Ms Johnston is entitled of course, as the High Court said in DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) ALJR 91 1063 at 1075, [64]-[68] as to her sentence to individualised justice in regard to each such charge and a just sentence which is based on the facts which make up each charge.
53As to cumulation, totality must be taken into account despite what Parliament has prescribed. Insofar as the tension that relates to determinations by Parliament’s prescription for cumulation and the principle of totality which this Court must adhere to, I refer to the High Court in McL v The Queen 2000 120 CLR 452 at [476]-[477] and the words of Redlich JA, as he then was, in Gordon v The Queen [2013] VSCA 343 at [74]-[75].
54Ms Johnston, if you could please stand. In regard to Charge 1, you will be sentenced to imprisonment of two years. In regard to Charge 2, imprisonment of nine months. They are respectively, of course, charges of burglary and theft. In regard to Charge 3 and 4 which are, again, charges of burglary and theft, you will be sentenced for Charge 3 to imprisonment of two and a half years, and Charge 4, imprisonment of nine months.
55In regard to Charge 5 and 6, again respectively charges of burglary and theft, you will be sentenced to imprisonment of two and a half years for Charge 5 and nine months for Charge 6. In regards to Charge 7, firstly, the handling charge, you will be sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months, and in regard to the drive off petrol charge, Charge 8, the theft charge, nine months imprisonment.
56Coming to the most serious charge, for which the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament is 25 years, that of aggravated burglary, the charge, under s77(1) of the Crimes Act, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for five years.
57Insofar as Charge 10 is concerned, the theft of the Mazda, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months. In regard to Charge 11, the theft of the Toyota, imprisonment of 12 months. In regard to Charge 12, the theft of the number plates, imprisonment for 12 months. Charge 13, the handling of the plates, imprisonment for 12 months. And Charge 14, the use of the cards stolen to obtain property via deception, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years, 12 months' imprisonment.
58In regard to Charges 15, 16 and 17, the charges that involve the police, and are aggravated offences of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years, on each of those charges, you will be sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
59Coming then to Charge 18, which is the charge that I have detailed and for which were rearraigned today, being the charge of driving a motorcar dangerously while not only being pursued but failing to stop as directed, you will be sentenced to two years' imprisonment. I say again, Madam Prosecutor, I want you to ensure that you convey my concern about that maximum penalty, given these circumstances, to the Director.
60For Charges 19 and 20, handle stolen goods, you will be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on each of those.
61The base sentence will be Charge 9, the aggravated burglary, which is five years imprisonment. In regard to cumulation, upon that base sentence, in regard to each of Charges 15, 16 and 17, I will cumulate on that sentence of five years, six months on each charge and upon each other. In regard to the dangerous driving charge, Charge 18, I will cumulate on the base sentence, and the cumulated time in regard to Charge 15,16,17 a further 12 months. In regard to Charges 1, 3 and 5, I will cumulate three months of the sentence on each charge upon the base sentence and all other cumulated time.
62Hence making a total effective sentence, Ms Johnston, of eight years and three months. There will be a non-parole period imposed of 66 months, which is six and a half years.
63In regard to the summary offences, I will impose on Charge 20 imprisonment of 14 days; Charge 19, imprisonment of three months; Charge 18, imprisonment of six months; and Charge 22, imprisonment of 12 months. None of those obviously will be cumulated.
64Coming back to the sentence on the indictment, you will therefore have a total effective sentence for all of these offences of eight years and three months, with a non-parole period of six and a half years. I declare that the period that you have served on remand to date of 362 days be deemed as service of this sentence, and that such declaration be recorded in the records of this Court.
65HIS HONOUR: So essentially, as to your non-parole period of six and a half years, you have done one year. Ms Johnston, the Parliament requires me to indicate to you the benefit of your plea. By that, what is meant is so that you understand by your pleading guilty, that you have actually attained a benefit. You know that I have now sentenced you to a total effective sentence of eight years and three months with a minimum period to serve of six and a half years. Had you not pleaded guilty, pursuant to 6AAA, I state that I would have sentenced you to imprisonment of 10 years with a non-parole period of eight years.
66HIS HONOUR: You can take a seat. Do either counsel need to clarify any of the comments I have made or are any matters as to sentence that understood?
67MS HOGG: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
68MR BOURKE: No, Your Honour.
69HIS HONOUR: Yes. Can I thank everyone for their assistance in what I said was a complicated matter. Ms Johnston, I need say no more than the things you're already trying. You have found as a result of drugs you've got yourself into this circumstance, so it's only you who can get yourself out of it. You are now not in a good position to commit any more offences or to come before this Court, or any Court, again, because you're only going to get more serious gaol, than you've just received.
70Anyway, good luck, and I hope you achieve freedom from the drug scourge that you've been under for the last 10 years. Yes, the prisoner can be taken down. Yes. Thank you to counsel.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
4
0