Director of Public Prosecutions v Lafsky

[2017] VCC 1083

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 17-00665

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

PARRISH VAUGHAN LAFSKY

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE COHEN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 August 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 August 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v LAFSKY
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VCC 1083

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  Sentencing

Catchwords:  Plea of guilty; domestic violence towards partner, mother and step-father

Legislation Cited:     Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA

Sentence:TES: 21 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months; declaration as a serious violent offender on Charge 4.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Office of Public Prosecutions	Mr D. R. Cordy	OPP
For the Accused	Mr M. Kozlowski	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1Parrish Vaughan Lafsky, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of causing injury intentionally, two charges of making a threat to kill, one charge of causing injury recklessly, one charge of criminal damage and one charge of false imprisonment.  You have also agreed to have heard in this court, and have pleaded guilty to three summary charges, namely assaulting police, unlawful assault and resist arrest. 

2You have also admitted a prior criminal history, to which I shall refer later. 

3The maximum penalty for intentionally causing injury, for each charge of making a threat to kill, for criminal damage and for false imprisonment is ten years imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for recklessly causing injury is five years imprisonment. For the summary charges, the maximum for both assaulting police and for resisting police is six months imprisonment or 60 penalty units, and for unlawful assault, it is three months imprisonment or 15 penalty units.  I have taken the maximum penalty on each charge into account as an indication by Parliament of the relative objective seriousness of offences of each such type. 

4These charges all arise from events on 25 and 26 December 2013. 

5At that time, you lived at Pyalong with Ms Giusepinna - known as Josie - D'Aspromonte, with whom you had been a in de facto relationship for about four years. The two of you had at that stage a two year old son, and she was twelve weeks pregnant with another child, who has since been born.

6That Christmas Day, some neighbours had been at your place, and you and at least one of the visitors had been drinking a lot of alcohol.  At some stage after they left, Ms D'Aspromonte made a comment about the amount of alcohol you were drinking, and you verbally abused her and told her she had ruined your Christmas, so she left the room.

7You then had an argument over the phone with someone, and threw the phone against a wall.  Later, Ms D'Aspromonte was lying on a bed when you got on top of her and she pleaded with you to stop, and she then walked out of the house. You followed.  She fell to her knees and you hit her in the left eye, causing bruising and swelling.  This is the basis of Charge 1, of intentionally causing injury. 

8You then told her to go inside and clean herself up.  You asked if you had caused the bruising and swelling to her eye, and you stated that you did not mean to, but also said "I can't look at you, go to bed".  You then used her phone to call your ex-wife Ms Thomas who lives in Queensland and is the mother of your three oldest children. You told Ms Thomas that you hit Josie, and asked her to talk to Josie, but then you took the phone back from Josie, and Ms Thomas told you that unless things were sorted out, she would not allow the children to come to Victoria to visit you as had been planned for the Christmas holidays. 

9Next morning, 26 December, you again spoke to your ex-wife by telephone.  You also spoke to your eldest son who was then aged 13, but his mother apparently took the phone and told you she would not allow the children to visit you.  You were very upset and angry at that. 

10You then phoned your mother, Cherie Deegan.  You asked for money, and verbally abused her so she hung up. 

11You then directed Ms D'Aspromonte to pack the car, as you were all going to Queensland.  You told her to drive first to Heathcote, where your mother and step-father lived, as you wanted to get money from your mother. On the way to the Deegans' house, as Ms D'Aspromonte drove, you threatened to kill her foetus and make her eat it, and then to kill her last.  She believed your threat.  This is the conduct that gives rise to Charge 2 of making a threat to kill Ms D'Aspromonte.

12She drove you to your mother's house in Heathcote where you told her to take the child to the door.  She did, but she also ran inside the house telling Mr and
Mrs Deegan not to let you take them and she then hid.  Your mother went outside to confront you, while Mr Deegan blocked your entry into the house.  You demanded that your mother give you money and said you were going up there to kill the whore and guy first. You then charged at your mother screaming, "I'll kill you first", and put your hands around her neck, pushed her backwards, lifted her from the ground by the throat and then grabbed her arms and threw her to the ground.  She believed the threat to herself to be real.  This conduct by you is the basis of Charge 3 of recklessly causing injury to Sheree Deegan, and Charge 4 of threatening to kill her. 

13Your step-father, Lawrence Deegan, then went outside the house holding your two year old son, whom you grabbed from his arms.   At the time, he had an arm in plaster and an injured hip.  You then screamed out for Josie and tried to enter the house and as Mr Deegan tried to stop you, and while you were holding your child with one arm, you put your other hand around Mr Deegan's throat and pushed past him.  That action is the basis for the summary charge of unlawful assault of Lawrence Deegan. 

14You then pulled a panel from the side of the door away from the frame, in order to enter the house, and that action is the basis of Charge 5 of criminal damage.

15You called to Ms D'Aspromonte who came out of the house to find her child whom you were holding.  You directed her to get into the driver's seat of the car, and put the child in the back. Fearing for her life, she did as you told her and drove to a supermarket in Heathcote.  She did not call police as she feared you would check her phone, but she unsuccessfully tried to call your
ex-wife in Queensland.  You then directed her to drive back to your joint home in Pyalong.  She tried to attract the attention of passing police, but was told not to by you.  This part of your conduct gives rise to the charge of false imprisonment of Ms D'Aspromonte.  That is Charge 6 on the indictment.

16As you arrived at your house, you began to cry.  Ms D'Aspromonte asked a neighbour on the street to look after the child and then spoke to your mother by phone.  Ms Deegan heard items being smashed in the background, hung up and called 000.  You then appeared with a bottle of alcohol and a knife and cut your lower stomach, saying to Ms D'Aspromonte, "I want you to watch me". 
Ms D'Aspromonte called Lawrence Deegan begging for help.

17At about 3.30 pm police arrived and found you in the backyard.  You told police to get off your property before picking up a steel star picket and approaching officers, swinging the star picket at them and repeatedly yelling abuse at them.  You then threw a car radiator at police, who used OC spray in an attempt to subdue you.  They eventually handcuffed you, but as they put you in the rear of the police vehicle, you lashed out again, kicking and making contact with officers and resisting being shut into the van for a protracted time.  This course of events gives rise to two summary charges - a rolled up charge of assaulting police officers Murphy, Harvey, Shaw and Price, and a rolled up charge of resisting police officers Murphy, Harvey, Shaw and Price.

18You were transported to Seymour Police Station and deemed fit for interview.  During that interview, you told police that you were angry at your ex-wife, that
Ms D'Aspromonte sustained the injury to her eye from your son's new toy, and that you intended to drive to Queensland to see your kids.  You agreed that you had asked your mother for some money, but claimed she was going to give it to you.  You suggested Ms D'Aspromonte came at you with a knife, and you could not recall assaulting and resisting police.

19I must assess the objective seriousness of this offending and the subjective seriousness of your role in it.  All of these events reflect a shameful display of uncontrolled rage by you, with both physical violence and verbal abuse towards anyone who was not doing as you wanted or was trying to stop you. It caused physical and emotional harm to your close family members.

20I am told that on the first night, you were fuelled by alcohol, but even if that were an excuse, which it is not, that does not explain your actions the following day.  I am told they were sparked by your anger and frustration after being told by your ex-wife that she refused to let your three oldest children come for the scheduled visit.  Without any evidence of you imbibing alcohol that day, nor using drugs, although I am told you were in the habit of using both, so without evidence of something further heightening or prolonging your anger that day, you maintained a violent and vicious rage over some hours. 

21That seems to have lasted from an angry phone call with your mother demanding money from her, to ordering your partner to pack the car and drive to Heathcote, making a vile and menacing threat to her in the car.  Then physically and verbally attacking your mother, step-father and damaging their property.  You forced Ms D'Aspromonte to drive you home, continuing to keep her under your power and fearful of you.  

22That you did all of this in the presence of your then two year old son was disgraceful.  It is also, sadly, an indication that if, as you say, your own mental health has been impacted by what you say was violence and abuse in your childhood, you have been potentially causing similar future problems in your young son's life. 

23To attribute any of this behaviour simply to anger and frustration from your ex-wife refusing to allow your older children to come as had been planned, or to attribute it to being fuelled by alcohol, is both logically and morally senseless. I have already said there is no indication that you were affected by alcohol that morning.  Your behaviour towards your then partner and your mother and her husband, reflects that you were prepared to take out through physical violence and threats, your anger on people who were not actually connected with what is said to be the source of your anger or frustration that day, but the very people from whom you were expecting support.  That you would grab at your mother and lift her by the throat, while also verbally abusing and threating her, and then assault your step-father, whom you knew to be in poor health, was also appalling behaviour.  Frightening for them, and totally unacceptable by any community standards.

24The causing of injury to Ms D'Aspromonte was serious.  The hitting in the area of her eye, of your partner, in anger and frustration, even if fuelled by alcohol, is totally unacceptable and was evidenced the following day by the bruising noticed by your mother, your step-father and police, and I have seen photos, taken the next day, showing a very marked black eye.  Drunkenness cannot excuse such action.

25The threat you made to kill Ms D'Aspromonte was not only despicable, but reflects that you were willing to use the fact that she was pregnant to press home an added vulnerability to reinforce the threat.  I am to sentence you on the basis that she believed the threat to kill her. Whether she could have believed the initial aspect, which as I have said I find despicable, but whether she could have believed the initial aspect of what you threatened is harder to believe.  But I accept that she was genuinely terrified of you at that stage from these events and believed your threat to kill her.

26Your confrontation with your mother seems to have been a continuation of your general rage and it was in the context of wanting her to lend or give you money, which she was refusing to do.  That seems to have been the only reason you went to her house that day.  That you could threaten to kill her, she said shocked her deeply.  It seems to come after a stream of threats of what you intended to do in Queensland, which of course was more remote from where you were standing at that point in time, and it developed into a direct threat to your mother.

27Even later that day in your record of interview, you were prepared to blame others - from being angry at your ex-wife, to blaming your two year old child's toy for the injury to Ms D'Aspromonte's eye, and even suggesting that
Ms D'Aspromonte came at you with a knife. 

28I have read the Victim Impact Statement of Ms D'Aspromonte, and although some parts must be disregarded, and although it covers some further matters which I do not accept arise directly from these events, it is clear that these events caused her very considerable anguish at the time and perhaps even more now with hindsight, than she was prepared to acknowledge, when she apparently reunited with - and lived with - you while you were evading being found to stand trial.

29Your mother read her own Victim Impact Statement, and it is confronting to hear any mother state that she feels she will never want to see you, her son, again.  It is particularly upsetting to her that Mr Deegan, her husband or partner of
30 years, has died in the meantime, and before he saw you brought to justice for these offences against both her and him.  She also blames you for her not having opportunity to see any of her grandchildren now.  Whether that is strictly due to these events for which I sentence you or others, I cannot determine.  But I accept that she feels that these are connected and regrets the loss of access to her grandchildren.

30When police attended your home later that afternoon, apparently called by your mother, you verbally abused them, then swung a long bar at them.  It apparently took four officers and OC spray to subdue you enough to get handcuffs on you, and even after that, you reacted with further and prolonged violence by kicking at them, and more verbal abuse as you resisted being put into the van.  This was a serious level of resisting arrest, and also the assault on the police not only threatened but actually injured one, or made contact with one officer.

31These police officers were carrying out their duty, and you must have known that from the moment you saw them at your property.  Not only did they not deserve to be assaulted, as they were by you, but community interests require that they, and their role, be respected and protected, through the imposition of a sentence for these offences that thoroughly denounces such conduct towards them.

32Community attitudes towards domestic violence have become much more condemnatory in the last few years.  The community will not tolerate domestic violence.  It is not to be hidden or excused and courts should enforce the law in such circumstances, sending a clear and unequivocal message to that effect.  Your sentence must reflect community denunciation of all of your actions, just punishment and both general and specific deterrence. 

33I take into account that you have pleaded guilty to these charges and are entitled to considerable leniency for doing so.  It was by no means an early plea of guilty as I can see from the transcript that Ms D'Aspromonte was cross-examined at a committal hearing, including about these events. However, I accept that there was a more serious charge against you at that stage, which was ultimately withdrawn and which did take much more of the cross-examination at the committal hearing.  I am not sure of the exact timing of the other charge being withdrawn, but I gather that at the end of the committal hearing, you indicated that you would plead guilty to these charges.  That meant that no witnesses were put through the stress of giving evidence at a trial in front of a jury, and the time and cost of such a trial was saved.  Your pleas of guilty also indicate that you have now accepted criminal responsibility for this offending.

34I am not convinced that your plea itself demonstrates unconditional remorse, but I do accept that at some level, you feel genuine remorse for what you put your former partner, your mother and step-father through in these events.  Immediately after striking Ms D'Aspromonte, you expressed remorse by saying you did not mean to cause injury to her eye, but then you turned the situation to one of self-pity. When arrested and interviewed by police, you at first tried to deny or justify your behaviour.  However, you wrote to your mother and Mr Deegan from prison, during your first period of remand, which was seven to eight months after these events. In writing, you expressed remorse, accepted responsibility, and although your mother does not accept that as sufficient, I do read it as conveying some genuine remorse.  I suspect that some of your regret about these incidents is for the consequences to you, including the loss of contact with now, all of your children, as a result.  But I accept that you also have some genuine remorse.  I shall tell you after I have sentenced you, what the sentence would have been had you not pleaded guilty. 

35I turn now to your personal circumstances.  You are now aged 40, indeed will turn 41 later this week.  You were born in New South Wales, the youngest of three siblings, but your parents separated when you were about four.  You lived with your mother, she subsequently formed a relationship with Mr Lawrence (known to you as “Larry”) Deegan, who became your step-father and with whom she lived until he died in 2014.  They of course are the victims of some of the offences for which you are to be sentenced. 

36I am told that you moved with your family many times during your childhood, within New South Wales and Queensland.  I accept that this would have disrupted both your schooling and your ability to make or maintain peer friendships, and that you look back on these as very unhappy times for you.

37I was told by your counsel that you experienced a dysfunctional and abusive childhood.  There is no evidence of this, apart from what you told a forensic psychologist, Mr McKinnon, when assessed by him in May this year.  You described to him being physically abused yourself and seeing violent abuse of your brother, on your occasional visits to your biological father.  You told him also that you experienced strict discipline and emotional deprivation from your mother, and physical violence and discipline from your step-father. You told him that first your older brother, and later your sister, went to live with your biological father, and that the latter was because she indecently touched you.  You also describe an incident of sexual assault on you by a stranger, which was reported to police, but nothing eventuated.

38Without any evidence of these matters, and indeed I do not even have evidence directly from you about them, only through the indirect telling by you of these matters to Mr McKinnon, it is difficult for me to find that it is more probable than not that these matters occurred. Indeed, with some of them, it is difficult to reconcile with what you wrote in the letter I have mentioned to your mother and Larry.  In the end, I make no actual finding as to whether the abuse in childhood which you described to Mr McKinnon did occur, particularly any from your mother or Mr Deegan.   

39There is clearly now no ongoing relationship between you and your mother, or indeed, you and your biological father or your older two siblings.  I take into account that whosever fault that may or may not be, you come before the court in a particularly isolated personal position, having no family contact while you are in prison, or indeed to give any physical or moral support.

40You told Mr McKinnon that you started using alcohol and abusing drugs at an early stage in life, and that in your 20s and 30s, you were injecting amphetamines and consuming excessive alcohol.  You told him that since 2010, you had not injected, but had been smoking methylamphetamine, known as “ice”, as well as drinking alcohol. He diagnoses a polysubstance abuse disorder, which he attributes to having been largely a means for you to self-medicate your chronic distress, although your substance abuse has ultimately only served to exacerbate interpersonal difficulties and lead you into legal problems.

41Chronic abuse of alcohol or drugs is not an excuse for offending, and would usually not be a mitigatory factor, as the commencement of such consumption is usually voluntary.  The only circumstances in which alcohol or drug abuse might be mitigatory, is where it can be shown that such drug or alcohol use commenced at a stage where it should not fairly be found to be voluntary, because it arose from a reaction to truly disadvantaged or troubled life circumstances, usually at an early age. If all you told Mr McKinnon about your childhood circumstances were supported on the evidence before me, and there were evidence that you had indeed taken to alcohol and illicit drugs from despair, due to a truly abusive or a deprived childhood, this diagnosis might be relevantly mitigatory.  However, not only is there no such evidence, it does not seem to me consistent with the history you also gave Mr McKinnon, that from the age of about 16, you were living independently of both your parents' households, and after a few months, were taken in to live with the family of your girlfriend.

42I am not satisfied that your history as described of alcohol and drug abuse should be regarded as mitigatory in this case.  I do accept that you were drunk at the time you assaulted Ms D'Aspromonte, and that although you hit her deliberately, intending to cause injury, your self-control was probably diminished by the effects of alcohol and it was a spontaneous event soon regretted.

43You apparently left home and school at about age 16.  You were working and living initially out of a panel van, then you moved in with your then girlfriend's family where you stayed for about two years, and then you and she obtained independent accommodation.  That girlfriend was Ms Thomas, with whom you were in a relationship for almost twenty years, marrying after about ten years.  Together you had three children who are now, I am told, aged 17, 15 and 13.  They reside in Queensland, and as I have already outlined, there was an argument on 26 December 2013 over whether they would be allowed to come to stay with you for their scheduled holiday, and that was precursor to most of this offending.  I am told that you have not seen any of those children since then and not even had telephone contact for a long time.  I accept that this loss of contact with those children weighs heavily on you. 

44That relationship ended by 2011, and you subsequently started a relationship with Ms D'Aspromonte, initially in Queensland, and in 2011, when she wanted to move back to Victoria, you followed her.  I am told that it was an unstable relationship as you both were drug users, but nevertheless, there were two children from that relationship.  Bailey who was aged 2 at the time of this offending, and is now five- by now he has probably turned six - and Jayden, with whom Ms D'Aspromonte was pregnant at the time I think has recently turned three.  I am told that you have been denied any contact with them since March of this year, after another incident with
Ms D'Aspromonte, as a result of which an Intervention Order was obtained in respect of her and both of those children.

45You have admitted a prior criminal history which I must take into account.  Although it dates back some twenty years, it does not reflect an entrenched or continuous history of offending.  It commences in New South Wales with a charge of malicious damage in 1996, for which a small fine was imposed and there was a further similar type of charge.  I note you are now facing a charge of criminal damage, but both of those incidents happened a very long time ago.

46There were some intermittent court appearances in Queensland, which I do not regard is of much significance for present purposes, except that they confirm possession of drugs in 2002 and 2006.  Of more relevance is a charge of common assault, for which you were fined in 2007, and then in April 2008, a term of six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three months, for breach of an order which your counsel said related to an intervention order in respect of your then wife.  Of more concern is that in March 2011, at Seymour Magistrates' Court, you were charged with assaulting police and resisting police.  You were placed for that on a good behaviour bond, to continue with treatment recommended by your doctor. In September 2012, you were placed on a Community Corrections Order, for drunk and unlicensed driving, and criminal damage which, I am told, was to your own home, being also that of Ms D'Aspromonte.  In October 2012, you again were placed on a good behaviour bond with a condition to attend treatment recommended by your doctor, for unlawful assault, again apparently on Ms D'Aspromonte.

47It was pointed out by your counsel that you have a history of compliance with court orders to be of good behaviour, or on a Community Corrections Order, and that was urged on me to be taken into account, to again give you the opportunity of fulfilling a Community Corrections Order.  It was noted, however, that the Queensland charge that led to a term of imprisonment was for breaching an order in the nature of an intervention order.

48Although overall there is clearly some relevant prior offending, with indications of violence within the home, as well as assaulting or resisting police, for someone who displayed the extent of violence and anger that you did in late December 2013, I take into account that your criminal record is not so extensive or so serious as to reflect that you have had an entrenched uncontrolled violent history.

49I am told that you have a good and sustained work history.  From about age 16, you commenced a sheet metal apprenticeship in Queensland, and went on to complete three years of it.  However, you told Mr McKinnon that the reason you left it was because you felt the pay rates were too low, and you moved to New South Wales where your brother assisted you to obtain better paid work as a tree feller.   However, after about a year you fell out with your brother, and have hardly spoken to him since.  You went on to various manual labouring and trade positions and have particular experience in roof plumbing, and construction, upon which you worked in New South Wales and Queensland, before coming to Victoria.

50I am told that despite the many disruptions in your life, and indeed periods affected by alcohol and drugs, you have worked most of your life and rarely been reliant on social security benefits.  Indeed, you apparently have employment available with a person who conducts refurbishing work in Rosebud on your release from custody. 

51I have already referred to a report from Mr Ian McKinnon, forensic and consultant psychologist, who examined you for this case in May of this year. In addition to matters I have already noted, you told him that you had suffered significant concussive episodes in your adolescence and early adulthood.  Apart from that, you told him of physical injuries which have been to your ankle, which in late 2016, had screws inserted and which require removal.  You also have issues with your liver and other health complaints, and require some further medical treatment, but you told Mr McKinnon that numerous moves within the prison system up to the time he saw you, had prevented your medical needs being properly assessed.

52You told Mr McKinnon that you have suffered manic depression since your teenage years and that you tried to kill yourself back then and were really depressed.  There was some other evidence that you have told other medical or health professionals of an attempted suicide when you were 19, but there is no actual diagnosis in any of the material before me, of you suffering manic depression, or bipolar disorder.

53You told Mr McKinnon that in 2012/13, you initiated treatment with a psychiatrist in Shepparton, and had attended about four sessions, and with a psychologist under a mental health care plan in Kilmore, and were told that you had ADHD.  Those are consistent with what is disclosed in a GP medical report from a Kilmore clinic you had been attending, as to referrals to that effect and the diagnosis of ADHD. It is consistent with a report from a Dr Dan Riddle, psychologist–life coach, as to consultations in 2012. Dr Riddle reports having consultations with you in mid-2012 on five occasions, over a two month period, and I take that to have been in anticipation of your court appearance for assaulting Ms D'Aspromonte, as your presenting concern was a “blow up” with her, which was said to have been started because of disagreements to do with the then five month old baby Bailey.

54As I have said, he thought you had ADHD as well as substance abuse and impulse control disorder.  He considered you should urgently consider alcohol detox services at that stage.  You expressed a strong motivation to get your life in order and wanting to become a better father to the new baby.  He considered that the history you gave that included a suicide attempt at age 19, and your reporting that you have a mind that never settles, or switches off - that that was consistent with his view that you suffered ADHD.  Further therapy sessions were recommended for focusing on relaxation and coping skills therapy.

55You subsequently told Mr McKinnon that you had undertaken a twelve week anger management program whilst imprisoned.  I take that to be a previous term of imprisonment, although on your record, that could only have been either in Queensland which I do not think is likely given the timing there, or more likely when in your first period of remand for these charges. 

56The reports from the GP clinic treating you in March 2014 reflect that you had been diagnosed as suffering from depression, anxiety, as well as anger since a young age, that there were three periods when medication was prescribed, and at that stage, you were on medication for your psychiatric problems. 

57Mr McKinnon conducted his assessment of you by video link.  After taking the history I have outlined, and in discussion with you, he was of the opinion that you met the clinical criteria for what he described as three major diagnosable psychological disorders - firstly, post-traumatic stress disorder; secondly, polysubstance abuse disorder; and thirdly, intermittent explosive disorder. He concluded that under the influence of these psychological disorders, your ability to reason and make sound judgment was probably significantly degraded. 

58I have already referred to my views about your polysubstance abuse, whether it is diagnosable as a disorder or not, and that I do not consider it applies as mitigatory in this case.  In relation to the intermittent explosive disorder, Mr McKinnon states that this fits with your propensity to react to personal stressors in an uncontrolled rage, out of proportion to the context, and sometimes with violence.  He felt that the later remorse after such events that you described typically feeling, is also a classic component of this order.

59I said during the hearing that I have previously, in the context of a sentencing plea hearing, expressed doubt about whether this order is mitigatory of violent offending, and in particular, that I would need further expert evidence before accepting such diagnosis to be mitigatory, in any particular case.  It is also characterised as a personality disorder, which would normally not be mitigatory.  Further, I would want a cogent explanation as to why a particular individual's loss of temper or rage was something beyond lack of control, even if fuelled by drugs or alcohol, so as to be a psychological disorder, when, as here, the very essence of the offending is uncontrolled rage and violence.

60This leaves the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, arising from significant developmental traumas.  As I have already said, some of those I am not satisfied that they occurred on the balance of probabilities.  I do accept that your childhood was made more unhappy by successive uprooting of family and repeated loss of friendships and new school placements, but that does not seem to me to be a full basis for a diagnosis of PTSD, such as described with nightmares, flashbacks, vulnerability to environmental views. I have already said that I do accept that there is other evidence of depression, anxiety and mood swings.

61I note that you also told Mr McKinnon that you suffered elevated fears of personal rejection, abandonment, chronic interpersonal relationship difficulties, and I accept that your disrupted childhood may have contributed to those.  I take into account that some of your behaviour, including later in the afternoon after the confrontations at your mother and step-father's house on 26 December 2013, when you injured yourself with a knife in front of your partner and said that you wanted her to watch you do it, is indicative that you were in a disturbed mental state of mind at the time.

62The difficulty for me in this case is whether there is sufficient evidence of a diagnosed disorder that is any way mitigatory so as to attract what lawyers call “Verdins principles” in mitigation, so as to reduce the need for general or specific deterrence in a sentence, or to lower your moral blame worthiness for what you did.  I am not satisfied that any formal disorder of that type is diagnosed in this case, but I have taken into account overall, that there are disturbances in your behaviour, diagnoses from time to time as depression and anxiety, and that you have also abused alcohol and drugs. It is certainly in your best interests for the future, to address all of those conditions, take medication when prescribed, and undergo what programs are available for you to try to turn your life around by addressing those problems.

63I was told at the hearing you are no longer taking any medication for depression and anxiety.  I infer from that that you are not currently experiencing significant symptoms from those mental health conditions, that is depression and anxiety.  So there is nothing from that to make me conclude that you are finding your current period of imprisonment more onerous as a result of any such condition.  I take into account that you might be more vulnerable with that history of those conditions to experiencing such symptoms in the future.

64I do take into account that, as you told Mr McKinnon, you were very concerned at the inability to have contact with any of your children.  I take into account that that has weighed heavily on you during your time in prison and indeed, your concern as to whether that will alter when you are released.  It was submitted on your behalf, that your greatest concern in your life now is for your children, and your wish to have further contact with them.  I am told that you are aware that both of your younger children with Ms D'Aspromonte suffer from conditions with which you would like to assist, and which are a source of worry for you.  Bailey has learning difficulties, and apparently the younger baby Jayden required a pacemaker to be inserted last year, although his health is more stable now. I accept that these concerns, both for them directly in relation to your separation from them whilst in prison, and wondering about the future, will have been weighing on you and causing your time in custody to be somewhat more onerous than it would otherwise have been. 

65In your favour, you do appear to have acknowledged that you are an alcoholic and you say you have resolved to stay totally clear of alcohol in the future.  You wrote to that effect in a letter to your mother and Larry, now some years ago.  The letter also, as I have said, acknowledges that you are at fault, except for denying the more serious allegation which was subsequently withdrawn.  I accept that that letter and the one you asked Larry to read to your son reflects that you genuinely care about and were missing that child.  I also accept that you have undertaken more recently some courses, although there were not certificates available, in prison, to address both drug and alcohol abuse, and other matters that could assist you to build or rebuild a life on your release from prison.

66Finally, I turn to your history after these offences which is of some relevance.  You were arrested on 26 December 2013 and remanded in custody.  You did not obtain bail until 8 August 2014.  You were still awaiting trial on the more serious charge I gather at that stage, but by January 2015, you had absconded.  In fact, you had apparently reunited with Ms D'Aspromonte. The child with whom she was pregnant at the time of these offences had been born in mid-2014. You and she and your two young sons lived together, avoiding your facing these charges until March of this year, when she alleged further offences by you and you were taken back into custody.  You have been on remand ever since.  The total time you have spent on remand, in those two periods, will of course count towards your sentence. 

67I am told that you have apparently been moved quite frequently within the prison system during your present period of remand.  I accept that would have made more onerous your conditions and your inability to engage with programs.  You have also apparently been in protection for some of the time and that similarly, I take into account as making your time in prison more onerous, in some modest reduction of your sentence.

68With the prospects of employment on your release from prison, your apparent acceptance of the need to address your alcohol and drug abuse and indeed, to abstain from both, your willingness to continue if advised and referred by a GP to address any diagnosed mental health condition, and also taking into account that your relevant prior criminal history is not so extensive as to indicate that you are very likely to offend again, I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as fair.

69You have now served almost a year of presentence detention in respect of these charges, and I was urged to sentence you to no more than twelve months imprisonment, to be followed by a Community Corrections Order, that through rehabilitative and therapeutic conditions could address your underlying problems, and what are said to be the causes of your offending.

70I requested a presentence report and you were found suitable for such an order, with the types of conditions I had anticipated might be appropriate. However, when I requested that report, I stated that I had not yet decided whether to make such an Order, or whether a longer period of imprisonment than twelve months followed by a Community Corrections Order was required. 

71Having read the further materials tendered at the hearing, and reconsidered all of the circumstances of this case, I have decided that a longer term of imprisonment than 12 months or that so far served by you in prison, is required to adequately meet sentencing factors of denunciation of all such types of offending and in particular, the domestic violence with the threats to kill, and also the assaults of police and resisting arrest.

72I regard community denunciation, just punishment and general deterrence as of the most importance in your case.  While specific deterrence, that is to deter you from further offending still plays a real role in your sentence, it would have been satisfied in my view, by the term so far served, followed by a Community Corrections Order.

73I intend to impose a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period.  If you are granted parole at or soon after, the minimum term I will fix - and it is up to the Parole Board whether you are - it should still allow you to re-establish your life in the community, hopefully more stable than the last few years. If that occurs, then you might be able to work towards establishing contact with your children in the future, although that will be up to you and their mothers and them when they come of age.

74Will you stand up now please. 

75Parrish Lafsky, on each of the charges on the indictment, you are convicted and sentenced as follows.  On Charge 1, intentionally causing injury to Ms D'Aspromonte, eight months imprisonment.  On Charge 2, a threat to kill Ms D'Aspromonte, twelve months imprisonment and that is the base sentence.  On Charge 3, recklessly causing injury to
Cherie Deegan, five months imprisonment.  On Charge 4, threatening to kill Cherie Deegan, nine months imprisonment.  On Charge 5, criminal damage, fourteen days imprisonment.  On Charge 6, false imprisonment of
Ms D'Aspromonte, three months imprisonment. 

76I direct that three months of the sentence on Charge 1, two months of the sentence on Charge 3, and one month of the sentence on Charge 4, be served cumulatively on each other and on the sentence on Charge 2.  That creates a total effective sentence of eighteen months imprisonment, on the charges on the indictment.

77On the summary charges, I sentence you as follows.  For assaulting police, two months imprisonment.  For unlawful assault of Lawrence Deegan, two months imprisonment.  For resisting police, three months imprisonment.  I direct that one month on each of the summary charges be served cumulatively on each other and on the total effective sentence imposed on the indictment charges.  Otherwise these sentences will be served concurrently with each other and those on the indictment.

78The total overall sentence therefore is twenty-one months imprisonment.  I set a minimum term before eligibility for parole of fifteen months.  I declare, and I stand to be corrected on the arithmetic, but what I calculate to be 362 days, not including today, of presentence detention as reckoned served.  I direct that that be recorded in court records.  It will deducted administratively.

79I am required under s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act to state what your sentence would have been had you not pleaded guilty.  I state that had you not pleaded guilty, but been found guilty of each of the charges on the indictment, and all other circumstances had been similar, the total effective sentence would have been two and a half years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years.  That does not include the summary charges, and in my view, it is artificial to include the summary charges as you would not have been tried for them in this court and two are rolled up charges.  Therefore, it is the plea of guilty that has brought them before the court in that form.

80You can take it from me though that if I had been sentencing you, such as on a conviction appeal for those matters, you could expect them to have been higher on each and indeed where the maximum was three months imprisonment for unlawful assault on Mr Deegan, you can expect it to have been closer again to the maximum than the two months I have imposed.

81I am prepared to make a disposal order and a forensic sample order.  I have not had a draft of those handed to me. 

82In respect of the forensic sample order, I do order that a forensic sample be taken from you.  The purpose is for your DNA to be placed on the state's database.  The reason I order this is the nature of the offending and I believe it is in the public interest. I limit that order to a sample by - they call it a scraping of the mouth.  It is a saliva sample taken by putting a wad or like an extended cotton bud against the inside of your cheek, and that should not be painful or intrusive, provided you do not resist.  I warn you however as I must, that if you resist the taking of that, authorised officers may use reasonable force to take that sample.  But I still limit it to saliva or scraping from the mouth sample.

83While those orders are being prepared, you can take a seat Mr Lafsky.  Is there anything, in particular, the technical arrangement of cumulating from the summary charges onto the indictment.  I did not impose a non-parole period on the total effective sentence on the indictment because the minimum term overall would not be 6 months lower than the total effective sentence. It is once the summary charges are added that a sufficient gap occurs. I stand to be corrected if it does not work technically that way.

84MR CORDY:  Yes, it's submitted Your Honour's adopted the correct approach and ‑ ‑ ‑

85HER HONOUR:  All right.

86MR CORDY:  ‑ ‑ ‑ arithmetically the matters are as Your Honour's stated.  I remind, Your Honour, that in respect of Charge 4, that Your Honour needs to note on the court records that the accused is sentenced as a serious violent offender.

87HER HONOUR:  Yes, that's the second threat to kill.  Yes, I did overlook that.  Thank you for the reminder.  I declare and require to be recorded on court records that Parrish Lafsky is sentenced on Charge 4 as a serious violent offender.

88MR CORDY:  As Your Honour pleases.

89HER HONOUR:  I do not believe that would have changed my sentence on that charge, or any aspect of the cumulation from it.  Although I note that I would have been required to - sorry, it does, because I have to order concurrency rather than cumulation?  Don't I have to ‑ ‑ ‑

90MR CORDY:  It's clear that Your Honour's intention is to cumulate only one month of the sentence on Charge 4, on the base count.  But perhaps it might be worth noting that eight months ‑ ‑ ‑

91HER HONOUR:  I think I have to formally order concurrency ‑ ‑ ‑

92MR CORDY:  Eight months.  Yes, eight months.

93HER HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ of eight months rather than the cumulation order that I made.

94MR CORDY:  Yes.

95HER HONOUR:  I think I will amend my order.  So omitting the reference to the one month from Charge 4 where I talk of directing cumulation, and further direct that eight months of the sentence on Charge 4 be served concurrently with all other sentences imposed this day.

96MR CORDY:  Yes, so we'll achieve what I understand to be Your Honour's objective.

97HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  Mr Kozlowski, is there anything further you need to raise?

98MR KOZLOWSKI:  No, Your Honour.

99HER HONOUR:  All right, I am just signing the ancillary orders and then I will look at the main order.  All right, the disposal order is sought in respect of the star picket, the radiator and a leather dog collar and those having been used as part of the offending, I will order the disposal of those. 

100Ms Deegan do you wish to remain - all that is happening now is the formalisation and my signing of an order.  If you have seen enough, we can have the video link discontinued, but you are allowed to stay watching if you would prefer?

101VICTIM:  No, you can disconnect the link.

102HER HONOUR:  All right, you're happy that you've seen enough?

103VICTIM:  No, let me ‑ ‑ ‑

104HER HONOUR:  You've seen as much as you wanted to?

105VICTIM:  Let me see it right through to the end.

106HER HONOUR:  You want to see it? 

107VICTIM:  Thank you.

108HER HONOUR:  All right. 

109VICTIM:  Thank you.

110HER HONOUR:  Sorry, the computer has a pre-set way of entering orders which this type of matter, particularly when serious offender provisions require a direction for concurrency not cumulation.  It's a bit of a fight to make it in accordance with what we would say was the proper way ‑ ‑ ‑

111MR CORDY:  Yes.

112HER HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ of ordering it and that's what might take a bit longer.  All right, I'll now ask that Mr Lafsky be removed from the courtroom.  We'll now disconnect the video link and I'll stand the court down for ten minutes, although I - we can disconnect from Ms Deegan, I'm going on to talk about the next case Ms Deegan.

113VICTIM:  Okay.

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

115HER HONOUR:  Sorry Mr Kozlowski, you don't need to stay for this.  You're excused.

116MR KOZLOWSKI:  Thank you, Your Honour.

117HER HONOUR:  Do you get access to your client now?

118MR KOZLOWSKI:  Yes, I will now I'm told.

119HER HONOUR:  I need you to be able to.

120MR KOZLOWSKI:  Yes, thank you Your Honour.

121HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  You're excused.

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

123HER HONOUR:  I'll stand the court down now for ten minutes and see where we stand.

‑ ‑ ‑