Director of Public Prosecutions v Lamb

[2019] VCC 187

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

AT LATROBE VALLEY
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 18-01849

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

SHAUN LAMB

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE COISH
WHERE HELD:	Latrobe Valley
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 February 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Lamb
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 187

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr A. J. Moore	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S. Anger	Robert Davis

HIS HONOUR:

1Shaun Rodney Lamb, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary; one charge of causing injury intentionally and two summary offences:  Charge 10, impersonate a police officer and Charge 12, assault police.

2These offences carry the following maximum penalties; aggravated burglary, 25 years' imprisonment; causing injury intentionally, ten years' imprisonment; impersonate a police officer, 120 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment; assault police, 60 penalty units or six months' imprisonment.

3It is unnecessary for me to recount the facts in detail as they are on transcript and contained in Exhibit 1, the summary of prosecution opening on plea.  That opening was accepted by you through your counsel.

4I proceed to sentence you on the basis of the facts as opened by the prosecutor which I shall now briefly summarise.

5You and the co-accused Kevin Chapman were friends.  You resided with Kevin Chapman at his home in Yarram.  The victim Nigel Lucas and his partner and six children also resided in Yarram.  On 22 February 2018 Kevin Chapman's six year old son, Dean, alleged that the victim Nigel Lucas was a paedophile and he had touched his sister Kiara inappropriately.

6In the early hours of the morning of 24 February 2018 you contacted police in order to report to the police that Nigel Lucas was a paedophile.  You and the co-accused decided to take matters into your own hands and your drove to the victim's home at about 5 am, banged on the front door and yelled, "Yarram police, open up, we have a warrant for Nigel's arrest".

7The two eldest children were woken by you and you were able to enter the victim's home.  You said,  "We're the Yarram police and we're taking your dad for a drive, get him now".  There was a physical altercation with the victim, Nigel Lucas, during which you put him in a headlock and tried to drag him out the door.  You had said once again, "We're the police, you're coming with us, we're taking you for a drive", or words to that effect.  You struck the victim on multiple occasions.  He fought back and managed to shrug you off and eventually return to his bedroom.

8The victim Nigel Lucas suffered injuries which included pain the ribs, shoulder, chest area, bruising to the right arm, chest area, and left hip and face, together with a lump on the back of the head.

9During the altercation Jacquelyn Lucas, an 18 year old female was attempting to assist the victim and young Dylan, a 16 year old male became involved.  He was waving a kitchen knife around.  You and the co-accused left the victim's home, but you returned a short time later and said words to the effect of, "This is Sale police, we have a warrant out for Nigel Lucas' arrest, if you don't let us in we'll use brute force to enter".  There was a further attempt to enter the premises, but you did not gain entry.

10The police became involved at about 6 am on this morning.  They attended at your address, there was a confrontation between the co-accused and the police, and there was a further confrontation with you when the police were arresting you.  You began throwing punches at police, you were brought to the ground and you then became cooperative and you were apologetic for your behaviour.

11A record of interview was conducted with you.  You admitted attending the victim's premises, but you significantly minimised your role in this offending.

12I state to you that I have taken into account the following matters in mitigation of sentence.  You have pleaded guilty.  You are entitled to have that fact taken into account in your favour and I do so.  The community has by your plea been spared the time and cost of a trial, witnesses have been spared the ordeal of giving evidence upon your trial.  You pleaded guilty at a relatively early stage.   You indicated an intention to plead guilty at the committal hearing on
11 September 2018.  I accept on all the material before me that you are genuinely remorseful.

13I have been told something of your person circumstances.  You are 31 years of age, having been born on 7 January 1988.  You were born in Morwell.  You were educated to Year 7 level.  You had significant learning difficulties as a result of attention-deficit disorder and dyslexia.  You had a disrupted and difficult childhood.  You witnesses much violence and your father was murdered when you were 12 years of age.

14You were in a long term relationship with Louisa Symington.  That relationship ended after 11 years in about late 2017.  There are three children of that relationship aged eight, five and three years.  You have not seen your children since your incarceration on 24 February 2018, this has weighed heavily upon you.  Upon your eventual release from custody you hope to re-establish a relationship with your children.  This is a strong positive motivating factor.

15You have a good work history having been engaged in fairly continuous employment since leaving school.  You have never received unemployment benefits.  You have worked as a fencer and farmhand and in local abattoirs and a knackery.

16A letter from a past employer, Nicholas Murphy, dated 7 February 2019, was tendered on your behalf.  He describes some of your good qualities, which include a friendly and polite disposition, punctuality and attention to detail whilst at work, and an ability to get on well with your fellow workers.  He has indicated a preparedness to offer you fulltime employment upon your eventual release from custody.  This is a very significant matter.

17I accept that you have been using your time in custody in a constructive manner.  Whilst there were no formal certificates tendered I accept that you have attended three drug and alcohol courses.  These were of 48 hours, four hours and six by two hours duration.  You have also attended a course directed to anger management.

18I have had regard to the psychological report tendered on your behalf from David Winfield dated 21 November 2018 and the medical report tendered on your behalf from Dr Jill Hosking dated 18 April 2016.  Whilst these reports do not specifically address many of the issues raised in Verdins case I have taken into account the material contained in these reports as part of your personal background.  It is relevant that you had a traumatic childhood and have had a degree of PTSD as a result of your exposure to chronic domestic violence as a child.

19You did participate in three counselling sessions with Mr Winfield in 2016.  He was generally happy with your progress, although he indicated that there was a great deal more work to be done with you in addressing many of the issues that you exhibited at that time.

20Dr Jill Hosking has diagnosed you as having suffered from Bipolar II disorder.  You have been prescribed medication in the past.  She describes the difficulties which have arisen in relation to your various mental disorders and medication, together with illicit drug use.  She also confirms that you have had ADHD in the past and dyslexia.

21As indicated to your counsel during the course of the submissions made on your behalf having regard to the material before me, which is of a fairly general nature, I do accept that as you have the various mental conditions described in these reports you will find imprisonment more burdensome than a person in normal health.  I do not, however, accept that this evidence enables me to find any reduction in your moral culpability, nor is it appropriate that there be any reduction in the weight to be placed on both specific and general deterrence in these circumstances.

22My overall assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation is that they are reasonable, particularly having regard to the strong support from your immediate family, who have attended court today, and having regard to your good work history in the past.

23Against these matters in mitigation, however, your actions were very serious indeed.  This was a violent home invasion, in company, in the early hours of the morning.  The victims included adults and a number of children.  They were all asleep in their home.  You sought to act in the manner of a vigilante, taking the law into your own hands.  You impersonated a police officer in order to gain entry into the victim's home.  You assaulted the victim.  This was no doubt a terrifying ordeal for all involved.  When the police were attempting to arrest you, you assaulted police.

24There are victim impact statement from Nigel Lucas, Joanne Buckley, Malcom Lucas, Jaquelyn Lucas and Dylan Buckley.  The overall thrust of the victim impact statements is to the effect that this was a terrifying ordeal for the victims.  They each in their own words describe the emotional trauma suffered as a result of your actions.  They have each endeavoured to express their feelings of much suffering and distress in the aftermath of this home invasion.

25I have had regard to all of the victim impact statements.  They must not overwhelm other relevant sentencing considerations.  Whilst the victim impact statements are relatively lengthy, I do not intend to summarise them, save to say that this was clearly a terrifying ordeal for each and every victim.

26You have admitted before me numerous prior convictions.  There are approximately four court appearances between 1 November 2017 and 28 September 2015, involving convictions for a range of offences which included offences of violence, offences of dishonesty, contravention of court orders, motor vehicles offences and property damage.  The nature of the prior convictions for offences of violence is highly relevant to my task of sentencing you today.

27You were remanded in custody on 24 February 2018.  There are 362 days of pre-sentence detentions.

28As well as the matters to which I have referred, I must also take in account the need for general and specific deterrence.  Specific deterrence is relevant in view of your prior criminal history.  General deterrence is also of considerable importance in a case such as this.  This type of offending must be discouraged.

29I am called upon by the Sentencing Act to manifest the communities denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment.  It was not in issue that an immediate custodial sentence with a head sentence and non-parole period must be imposed.

30The most serious offence is Charge 1, aggravated burglary.  It is appropriate that there be some degree of cumulation in respect of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, causing injury intentionally.  In all the circumstances I have, however, directed concurrency in relation to the two summary matters.

31Having regard to all relevant facts and appropriate sentencing principles, I sentence you as follows:  Charge 1, aggravated burglary, convicted and sentenced to three years and nine months; Charge 2, causing injury intentionally, convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.  Summary Charge 10, convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment; summary Charge 12, convicted and sentenced to one months' imprisonment.

32The base sentence is the sentence of three years and nine months on Charge 1.  I direct that three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1.  Otherwise, the sentence is to be served concurrently.  The total effective sentence is four years' imprisonment.

33The non-parole period is the minimum term that justice requires you to serve, having regard to all the relevant circumstances that exist, for that reason it cannot be fixed automatically.  All relevant factors and sentencing principles are to be taken into account.  I have to consider when you should be eligible for mitigation of confinement, and in turn rehabilitation under conditional supervision.  In all the circumstances, I direct that you serve a minimum term of two years and six months before becoming eligible for parole.

34As prescribed by s.18(4) of the Sentencing Act I declare that the period of time you have spent in custody is 362 days, which is to be reckoned as time already served under the sentence.  I direct that such be noted in the regards of the court.

35There is an application made by the prosecution for a forensic procedure for the taking of samples, pursuant to s.464ZF(2) of the Crimes Act.  I intend to make an order that you undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of such samples.  The reasons for making the order will be published on the order, which I will sign.  I must inform you, as a matter of law, that a member of the police force may use reasonable force to enable the procedure to be conducted.

36Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I state that the sentence and non-parole period I would have imposed but for the plea of guilty is five years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years.

37Does that cover the formalities?

38MR MOORE:  That completes the matter, Your Honour.

39HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thanks.

40MR ANGER:  Your Honour pleases.

41HIS HONOUR:  Thanks.  We'll adjourn till 12 o'clock on ‑ ‑ ‑

42TIPSTAFF:  Monday.

43HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ Monday.  Thanks, I'll just give all that back.  Thanks, I'll just wait while the order are done.  I'll be out the back, thanks.

‑ ‑ ‑