Director of Public Prosecutions v Large
[2019] VCC 2195
•18 December 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT GEELONG CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-19-00201
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CAMERON LARGE |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL | |
WHERE HELD: | Geelong | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 December 2019 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 December 2019 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Large | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 2195 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Sentence – recklessly cause serious injury – gross violence – continuing to cause injury after incapacitation – Category 1 offence – mandatory minimum non-parole period – no statutory exemptions applicable – youthful offender – moderate prospects for rehabilitation – imprisonment
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms R. Harper | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr N. Hanos | Irwin & Irwin Law |
HER HONOUR:
1 On the evening of 21 February 2018, on three occasions a motorcycle stopped outside the house that you, Cameron Large, were living in with your wife in Toyne Avenue, Hamlyn Heights. On the first occasion, the driver, Mr Feetham, revved the engine loudly and yelled abuse at your wife, Ms Fenell. He drove away and returned about half an hour later and again at about 1:20am in the morning.
2
On the third occasion, that is about 1:20am on 22 February,
Mr Feetham again slowed down as he approached the house. Your wife
was, at that stage, outside or at the door with the front porch light on. You were at home and you saw the motorcycle, with Mr Feetham on the back of it, drive past on this third occasion. You were apparently enraged to see him or to see the bike there. You did not, at that stage, know who was on it. You got into your car and followed Mr Feetham on the motorbike down the street. You caught up with him and, as you were driving at somewhere between45-50 kilometres, rammed the rear of his motorbike. That had the effect of knocking him off the bike and onto the bonnet of your car. It also wedged the motorbike onto the front of your car.
3 You braked hard, which caused Mr Feetham to slide back from the bonnet onto the bike, wedging both him and the bike on the front of your car. You continued to drive down Toyne Avenue accelerating until you were travelling at about 60-70kph and swerving hard from left to right, apparently in an attempt to dislodge the bike and Mr Fenthom.
4
Eventually, after you travelled about 150 metres at about 60-70kph and swerving hard from left to right, you collided with the rear of a parked car, a Toyota Yaris that was outside 12 Toyne Avenue. As a result, Mr Feetham's left foot was crushed between the two cars and he sustained significant breaks. He fell onto the curb and the bike dislodged at the same time. Because of his injuries, he was unable to get up. You stopped your car, got out and started kicking Mr Feetham. You kicked the motorcycle helmet he was wearing. The first kick dislodged the visor. The next kick hit Mr Feetham in the eye. So he still had the helmet on but the visor was removed. You were seen to continue to kick and stomp on him for about 25 separate kicks.
Mr Feetham at the time was using his hands to cover his face.
5 You stopped kicking and stomping for a moment, jabbed Mr Feetham in the back and then kicked him a few more times while he was still down. You were seen to not only kick Mr Feetham but also punch him in the face through the visor opening of his helmet.
6 You then stopped and went back to your car and armed yourself with a pole that was in there, went back to Mr Feetham who was still lying on the ground unable to escape. Whilst you were wielding the pole, but before you had actually used it, somebody drove past on a motorbike and apparently spoke to you. You got into your car and drove up the street, did a U-turn, came back and slowed down as you approached Mr Feetham, who was still injured and lying on the ground, and said, 'I am coming to get you dog', blowing the horn of the car as you did.
7 Before you started chasing Mr Feetham, but as you got into your car, you were heard by a neighbour to say, 'Let's go get him, stomp his head in', and that is exactly what you did.
8 It is those circumstances that give rise to the charges to which you have pleaded guilty before me. Charge 1, of recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. The circumstance of gross violence being continuing to cause injury to Mr Feetham after he was incapacitated.
9 You have also pleaded guilty to two related summary offences, one of which is drive whilst authorisation suspended. Your licence had been suspended in October 2017, that is four months earlier, for a period of 12 months as a result of offences of driving at an excessive speed. And you have also pleaded guilty to a further related summary charge of failing to give your name and address to the owner of property damaged. That relates both to the Toyota Yaris that you damaged and the motorbike. Both the motorbike and the Toyota Yaris sustained considerable damage and although you got out of your car to assault Mr Feetham, you made no effort to identify yourself as the person who had caused the injury to Mr Feetham or to find the owner of the Yaris and identify yourself to them.
10 Having driven away from the scene you then went and hid the car at the house of a friend of yours and then went home where some time later police arrived and questioned you. When questioned you acknowledged that you had chased the motorbike and rear ended it, which caused the rider to fall off. You acknowledged that you had got out of your car and thrown punches at the rider. You said that angry was not the word to describe your feelings, that you would use the word aggressive. You said that you did not know who the rider was, but said that you believed that he was related to some dispute that had arisen between your girlfriend's mother and a person called Steven and you had a belief that Steven had been sending people around to your house to be loud and disrespectful. You said that your intention when colliding with the motorbike was to stop the driver and ask him what his problem was. You said you had reacted within the heat of the moment because what had happened had made you upset.
11 You acknowledge punching the rider five to six times and kicking him in the ribs, and then trying to kick him to the head. You said you did not know why you had done that. You acknowledged that you knew your driver's licence was suspended. You said you thought you may have hit another car, that is the Toyota Yaris, but seemed to be more concerned about the damage to your car, saying that the front of your car had been written off.
12 Mr Feetham suffered significant injuries. He had fractures to three toes and the fifth metatarsal bone of his left foot. That required surgery, with pins or wires to hold the bone in place and then surgery to remove the pins once the foot had stabilised. Mr Feetham also suffered cuts, bruising and grazing to his face. He had a black eye, tenderness and grazes to the face and grazes to the knee.
13 Mr Feetham filed a victim impact statement or provided a victim impact statement in which he detailed the effect of this on him. He said it has made him fearful for his safety. That he is angry, he feels isolated and does not like to go out because he is afraid of being unsafe. He cannot enjoy the activities he used to as a result. He lost his job as a result of the incapacitating injury to his foot and even now he is only back to a stage where he can work four hours a day and carry no more than 20 kilograms. He was working in casual employment at the time and has struggled to get another job. He is enrolled in a course to try and give him more employment options because of the limitations resulting from his injuries.
14 This was, as Ms Harper described it, horrendous violence which calls for the sentence to reflect denunciation and deterrence.
15 In response to somebody, at the time unknown to you, stopping their motorbike outside your house, revving it and yelling abuse at your partner, you chased them with homicidal fury, deliberately ramming them from behind as they drove down the road and, having rammed them, kept driving at speed as they were wedged on their bike on the front of your car and you swerved to try and throw them off. Because of the swerving, you rammed a parked car and the rider and the bike took the impact. The rider fell off and was lying injured on the ground, incapacitated and unable to escape when you continued to attack him. You kicked him repeatedly to the head, face and body. You punched him and, not content with that, you then went and armed yourself with a pole and were shaping up, it would appear, to inflict even more injury when, for some reason, you were called off, or you responded to a call off and stopped. But even as you drove away, you were making further threats to cause harm to the victim.
16 It was, as Ms Harper, with commendable understatement, said, a disproportionate response to a modest provocation. As your account to the police makes clear, it was a provocation directed not at you and of which you were not a part. There was apparently some verbal slanging match or feud between your partner's mother and somebody else, which had resulted in other people coming to your house.
17 Although you are young, you were only 20 at the time, and you are now 21, it is clear that specific deterrence, as well as denunciation and general deterrence must be given weight. At the time of this offending, you were serving a community correction order for an offence of violence, of intentionally cause injury. I have been provided with the police summary in respect of that. On that occasion, you punched a stranger to the head a number of times outside a licensed venue, because you had taken exception to a perceived insult. The final punch, of the four or five that you threw to the head of this stranger, knocked him out and he fell to the ground, striking the back of his head on the road. Even after you had knocked him out, and as he lay out on the road, you were yelling insults at him before you ran away.
18 After being charged with this offence, and whilst on bail for it, you were dealt with for another offence involving the infliction of personal violence. Mr Hanos was unable to tell me whether that offence was committed before or after this offence and was unable to tell me anything about the circumstances of it. The prosecution was not in possession of the summary in respect of it. All I know is that you were sentenced on 12 December 2018, whilst on bail awaiting your hearing in respect of this matter, to a term of imprisonment of one month and 28 days for an offence involving the infliction of personal violence. It is unclear whether that later matter was also committed during the operational period of your community correction order or whether it was committed before or after the commission of this offence. It is also unclear whether the whole of the sentence of one month and 28 days was imposed for the personal violence matter as your driving record, which was also provided to me, reveals that, on that same day, 12 December, you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment on three charges of driving whilst disqualified.
19 The charge of driving whilst suspended also calls for a sentence which gives weight to specific deterrence. By the time your licence had been suspended in October 2017 for the 12 months period for driving at an excessive speed, to which I have already referred (and that is the suspension that is relevant to the charge of driving while suspended before me), your record shows that you had already been fined twice for driving whilst authorisation was suspended. The VicRoads record also reveals that on 12 December 2018, that is the day that you were sentenced for the later offence of personal violence, you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 days for three charges of driving whilst that authorisation was suspended. The record shows that those three charges were committed between the October 2017 suspension and 22 February 2018, that is the commission of this offence. It is unclear whether the 14 day sentence for drive whilst authorisation was suspended was an aggregate sentence for the three charges or whether individual sentences were imposed and, if so, whether they were ordered to be served concurrently or cumulatively.
20 In any event, the convictions recorded before February 2018 put you into the higher penalty regime for this offence, that is 240 penalty units or two years' imprisonment, instead of 30 penalty units or four months’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence for recklessly cause injury in circumstances of gross violence is 15 years' imprisonment and it is a category one offence. I will come back to dealing with what that means shortly. The maximum sentence for fail to give name and address to owner of property damaged under the Road Safety Act is 240 penalty units or imprisonment for not less than four months and not more than two years and that carries with it a mandatory licence disqualification of at least four years for a first offence. There is a discretionary licence cancellation for the charge of driving whilst authorisation suspended and also for recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence because the commission of the offence involved the use of a motor vehicle.
21 This sorry record indicates that you have shown scant regard for the law and you have not been discouraged from reoffending by being detected and charged. In both driving and personal violence offences, you come before me as a repeat offender who has not learnt from earlier experiences.
22 The maximum penalty for recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, as I have noted, is 15 years. But because it is a category one offence, under the Sentencing Act, the court must impose a custodial sentence for the offence and must fix a non-parole period of not less than four years unless special reason exists.
23 In the course of his plea submissions Mr Hanos acknowledged that a custodial sentence was appropriate, but submitted I should find that special circumstances existed and I should fix a non-parole period of two years and allow for a lengthy period of release on parole to be supervised in the community. He submitted that a four-year non-parole period would be crushing.
24 When asked to identify what he relied on to establish special reason Mr Hanos identified your youth, that is that you are now only 21, a background of disadvantage and the risk that incarceration would entrench your criminal and violent behaviour. He submitted that you were at the crossroads and that imprisonment would expose you to the risk of committing increasingly violent offences, perhaps even murder, and risk the result of you spending the rest of your life in custody. He submitted this was a case which calls for mercy and that a softer approach would provide a better prospect for a better outcome.
25 Whilst for young offenders it is clear that a sentence that encourages rehabilitation is to be preferred and indeed that greater weight should be given to encouraging rehabilitation than it might for an older offender, the submissions made are difficult to reconcile with established principles concerning submissions on sentencing range and with s 10 of the Sentencing Act.
26
As to the submission that a should fix a non-parole period of two years rather than the four years required by s 10 of the Sentencing Act, I note that in
Barbaro v The Queen[1]the High Court made it clear that a submission about a sentencing range was,
[1](2014) 253 CLR 58.
A statement of opinion. Its expression advances no proposition of law or fact which a sentencing judge may properly take into account in finding the relevant facts, deciding the applicable principles of law or applying those principles to the facts to yield the sentence to be imposed. That being so, the prosecution is not required, and should not be permitted, to make such a statement of bounds to a sentencing judge (at 66).
27 The principle outlined by the High Court in Barbaro applies equally to a submission about sentencing range made by defence and if a submission about range is inadmissible and inappropriate, then a submission about a particular term is even more so.
28 As to the submission that there were special circumstances justifying the imposition of a sentence with a non-parole period lower than the four years prescribed by s 10, Mr Hanos submitted that it was a matter for me what constituted special circumstances. Whilst ultimately that may be so, I must of course do so in accordance with legislative direction.
29 Section 10(1) of the Sentencing Act provides,
In sentencing and offender for an offence against s.15A or B [that is what is before me here] a court must impose a term of imprisonment and fix under s 11 a non-parole period of not less than four years unless the court finds under s 10A that a special reason exists.
30 Special reason is itself defined in s 10A.
31 Section10A(2), provides, for the purposes of s10,
A court may make a finding that special reason exists if:
(a) the offender has assisted the enforcement authorities'.
…
(c) at the time of the commission of the offence the offender had impaired mental functioning causally linked to the commission of the offence which substantially reduces their culpability, or would result in the offender being subject to substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risks imprisonment.
32 It is clear that subsection 10A(2)(a) does not apply and it was not specifically submitted by Mr Hanos that subsection 10A(2)(c) applied, that is that you had impaired mental functioning causally linked to the commission of the offence which substantially reduced your culpability. I have been considerably assisted by the report of the psychologist Mr Newton. There is nothing in his report which provides an evidentiary foundation for a finding of impaired mental functioning causally linked to the commission of the offence. Nor is there anything in Mr Newton's report which would indicate impaired mental functioning which would subject you to a burden or risk of imprisonment substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risk of imprisonment.
33 Section 10A(2)(e) also identifies a special reason as being,
Where there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare and that justify departing from the legislative requirement to fix a non-parole period of not less than four years.
34 Section 10A(2B) sets out the factors relevant to determining whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances under subsection 10A(2)(e) and s10A(3) sets out what the court is required to take into account in determining whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances under subsection 2(e) in making that assessment.
35 Under subsection 2(b), the court must regard general deterrence and denunciation of the offender's conduct as having greater importance that the other purposes in s 5(1), give less weight to the personal circumstances of the offender than to other matters such as the nature and gravity of the offence and must not have regard to the offender's previous good character (other than an absence of previous convictions or finding of guilt), an early guilty plea, prospects of rehabilitation or parity with other sentences. And in determining under subsection 3 whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances under subsection 2(e), the court must have regard to the Parliament's intention that a sentence of imprisonment should ordinarily be imposed for an offence covered by section 10(1) and that a non‑parole period of not less than the length specified in section 10(1), being 4 years, should ordinarily be fixed in respect of that sentence and whether the cumulative impact of the circumstances of the case would justify a departure from the sentence and the minimum non-parole period.
36 There is nothing in the submissions put by Mr Hanos which in my view bring this matter within substantial compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare and justify departure from the requirement imposed by s 10 to fix a non-parole period of not less than four years, having regard to the matters I am required to take into account under s 10A(2)(b) and (3). In coming to that conclusion, I have regard not only to the submissions made by Mr Hanos but to the report of Mr Newton and to the report provided by your counsellor, Mr Lane.
37 The first thing to note about Mr Newton’s report is its finding that you faked bad profiles on all tests administered. It was Mr Newton’s view that you had deliberately endeavoured to portray yourself in a starkly pathological and disordered light.
38 He said:
Mr Large's answers to psychological testing were in stark contrast to his presentation during clinical interview. While he understood the item content he presented a markedly disordered and pathological picture of himself on all tests which were administered. The severity of his distress, as reported on testing, was at odds both with my observations of his mental state during clinical interview and also with his descriptions of symptoms in that context. For instance, the validity scales of the
MMPI-2-RF [that is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory on version two RF] indicated that he produced a distorted and exaggerated profile. His responses were characterised by an endorsement of many items which are unusual in genuine clinical patients, but which are common in those feigning mental illness for secondary gain. His profile on this test is invalid.To explore his response style further Mr Large was administered the SIMS [or the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology]. His scores on this test exceeded the cut off for feigned mental disorder by almost
100 per cent, with all facet scores being elevated substantially above their cut off scores. Thus he failed reasoning tasks that even an intellectually impaired or severely dementing patient would usually pass. He described unusual and bizarre neurological symptoms and endorsed peculiar and implausible psychotic symptoms and described symptoms of mood disorder which are almost never seen in genuinely depressed patients.Mr Large's profile on the PSA was also invalid [that is the Personality Assessment Screener] and his responses to the BSI [the Brief Symptom Inventory] were distorted.
39 As a result, Mr Newton made it clear that the opinions offered in his report were based on his observations of your mental state, confirmed by collateral information when that was available.
40 With those limitations carefully in mind Mr Newton concluded that your mental state was essentially normal. He did not consider that you would meet diagnostic criteria for any mood disorder, anxiety-related disorder or adjustment disorder. Nor was there any indication to suggest that you were suffering from the effects of any of these disorders at the time of the offending conduct. There was no indication that you suffered from any form of thought disorder or psychosis.
41 He noted you are reportedly in remission from severe substance addiction. You reported abuse of cocaine, cannabis and alcohol between the ages of 16 and 19. Although you asserted you had been abstinent since 19, including at the time of the offending, Mr Newton noted that that had not been objectively confirmed. Assuming your history of substance abuse was a truthful one, Mr Newton concluded that your reported drug use would have been sufficiently severe to meet DSM-V criteria for a diagnosis of severe substance use disorder with regards to cocaine, alcohol and cannabis. Assuming your abstinence could be objectively confirmed your condition would then be specified as being in early remission. It was Mr Newton’s view that your risk of relapse remained elevated and that substance-focused treatment was warranted.
42
Mr Newton also concluded that you were immature for your age. On your report, you suffered a conduct disorder in childhood and he considered the development of your personality had been problematic. He said you reported drug use and connection to other disaffected young people led you to internalise a view of the world that sees it in cynical and competitive terms.
He was of the view that your social reasoning had been particularly affected by those issues. You tend to be impulsive and to make decisions without fully considering the implications. In his view, you have internalised dysfunctional mores from your peer group and place a high premium on being able to amuse or impress them. These tendencies were exacerbated by your reported drug use and underpinned your difficulties with anger management.
43 Mr Newton used an assessment tool, the HCR–20, which is a structured professional judgement instrument for assessing the risk for further violent offending. It includes a detailed consideration of historical factors, clinical factors and risk management factors. He concluded your risk of future violence was at least moderate. The bulk of the risk factors identified relate to your disturbed and unstable personal history and to the problematic behavioural and personality adjustments you have manifested in response.
44 On a more positive note, clinical and risk management factors suggested that with appropriate treatment your risk of recidivism should be able to be reduced over the medium term.
45 Also, more positively, Mr Newton noted that your problematic personality traits, which diagnostically are noted as prominent antisocial personality traits, fall short, at this stage, of a fully-fledged personality disorder.
46 In his view, those personality traits had been ameliorated in more recent times by four factors:
a) your stable marriage;
b) your acceptance of the responsibilities of parenthood;
c) your engagement with stable employment; and
d) your participation in counselling since March of this year.
47 At the time of writing his report, Mr Newton had not been provided with a report from your counsellor, Mr Lane. However, I was assisted by a report from him, which was provided to me on the hearing of the plea and confirmed your participation and active engagement in counselling with him over that period.
48 Mr Newton recommended that you continue to participate in appropriate treatment to address your personality issues.
49 He concluded that you presented with a range of ongoing and significant problems. To your credit you have reportedly made good use of your time on bail to establish a degree of stability in your life and to commence personal counselling to address your problems. He noted that you had been able to take responsibility for your actions and to recognise that you needed ongoing treatment to address those personal difficulties.
50 It was Mr Newton’s recommendation, which I wholeheartedly endorse, that a structured, multifaceted and relatively intense approach to treatment will be required to address the severity of your problems. He recommended specifically that you participate in a treatment program which incorporated the following components.
51 First, a violent offender program to address issues associated with your offending, anger management and impulse control. He said that ideally that should take place in a group based setting, of extended duration and include a strong emphasis on the development of victim empathy.
52 Second, personal counselling to assist you to work through the residual effects of your disturbed childhood and to address the dysfunctional personality traits that have resulted.
53 Third, to participate in drug and education counselling, in particular participation in a structured program of education and counselling with a particular focus on relapse prevention, harm minimisation and improving insight.
54 And fourth, in training and adaptive living skills. On release, Mr Newton considers that you will require support and assistance to engage more successfully in the community. He notes that your limited employment skills have reinforced your reliance on dysfunctional behaviours and problematic sub-cultures and it would be beneficial in his view if this could be reversed.
55 Mr Newton noted that, given the noteworthy psychological challenges facing you, it would be unrealistic to suggest that addressing them could be achieved easily or quickly. However, provision of a treatment program such as the one he has outlined would address the major criminogenic factors at work in your case. This would not only reduce the risk of recidivism, but also improve your prospects of continuing to live a productive life in the community. And this is of particular importance given your prominent antisocial personality traits and the risk they may be reinforced in a custodial environment.
56 Mr Newton concludes that, in terms of your rehabilitation, you would have the potential to benefit from the provision of a period of oversight in the community where you could be managed and you could undertake the required treatment whilst being subject to close supervision and unambiguous consequences of non-compliance.
57 All of these matters are of great significance and I add my urgings to those of Mr Newton that the correctional authorities take careful note of his report and recommendations. That is one of the reasons why I have taken the trouble to outline them in such detail in these reasons and I urge Corrections to provide you with the programs, support and structures you need, both in custody and upon your release into the community in order to build on the steps you have taken in the last months and to allow you to address the serious challenges that you and the community face if you are not assisted and treated.
58 These are all serious and significant sentencing considerations. I accept that you are at risk of having your antisocial personality traits reinforced in custody. However, the material before me does not indicate that this is a case where substantial or compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare justify departure from the Parliamentary mandate which has so circumscribed judicial discretion when sentencing for an offence of causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence.
59 In addition to the matters I have detailed from Mr Newton’s report, I take into account your youth and the importance in sentencing terms of structuring the sentence so as to encourage and promote your rehabilitation, to give more weight to encouragement of rehabilitation by reason of your youth than might apply to an older offender. I also take into account your plea of guilty and the early stage at which it was entered. You are entitled to the benefit of that for its utilitarian value and its advancing the interests of justice.
60 Having regard to the expressions of remorse made to Mr Newton, Mr Lane and through your counsel to the court, I accept that the plea of guilty is also indicative of remorse and that means I take that into account as a positive factor in considering the weight to be given to encouraging your prospects for rehabilitation.
61 Also counting in your favour, in terms of your prospects for rehabilitation, are that you have family support and stability. Your wife and other family members were at court yesterday and are here again today to support you. I am told you and your wife have one child together and another on the way. You have also stood as stepfather to your wife’s older child from an earlier relationship. I accept that not only is that family support and stability a positive factor but that imprisonment will, by reason of the existence of your young family, be more burdensome for you because you will not be there with them at this important stage of your children's life. I accept that the existence of your family, whilst not stopping you from offending at the time, is a positive factor to take into account in assessing prospects for rehabilitation and should encourage you to engage in such programs as are made available to you to address your risk factors so you will be able to, upon release, remain in the community and with your family. And I take into account that you have shown yourself in recent times prepared to undertake and to stick at employment. Again that counts in your favour and stand in contrast to what your reported to Mr Newton of your earlier attitude to work and training.
62 Those factors, particularly the importance by reason of your youth of the encouragement of rehabilitation, have led me to conclude that, working as I must within the constraints imposed by s 10 of the Sentencing Act, the sentence I impose is structured so as to acknowledge your youth and encourage your prospects for rehabilitation, whilst at the same time giving weight to imposing a sentence that is a just punishment and that reflects the needs of denunciation and deterrence, both general and specific, to which I have already referred and protection of the community.
63 Would you now please stand.
64 Cameron Large, on the three charges, the indictable charge and the two related summary offences to which you have pleaded guilty, you are convicted.
65 On Charge 1, of recklessly cause serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of seven years.
66 On Related Summary Offence 5, of driving whilst authorisation suspended, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of one month.
67 And on Related Summary Offence 7, of failing to exchange details after a collision where property was damaged, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four months.
68 That makes a total effective sentence of seven years. That is, the sentences for the two related summary offences are to be served wholly concurrently.
69 I fix a non-parole period of four years that you must serve before being eligible for parole and declare that you have spent 14 days in pre-sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served.
70
I declare that, but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and I would have fixed a
non-parole period of seven years and six months.
71 On Charge 1, of recklessly cause serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, all licences held by you are cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining a further licence for a period of five years, commencing today.
72 On Related Summary Offence 5, all licences are cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining a further licence for a period of six months, commencing today.
73 And on Related Summary Offence 7, the failing to give name and address to the owner of property damaged, all licences are cancelled and you are disqualified for the minimum statutory period of four years, commencing today.
74 So that means a total period of disqualification of five years commencing today.
75 Are there any further orders that are required to be made?
76 MS HARPER: No, your Honour.
77 HER HONOUR: Thank you. Could you remove Mr Large please?
- - -
0