Director of Public Prosecutions v Leggatt
[2013] VCC 1416
•25 September 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-13-01422
CR-13-01819
AT WARRNAMBOOL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DANIEL IAN LEGGATT |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MONTGOMERY | |
WHERE HELD: | Warrnambool | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 25 September 2013 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 25 September 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Leggatt | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VCC 1416 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms T. Saville | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms H. Spowart | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Daniel Ian Leggatt, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally cause serious injury and one summary charge which you have agreed to being uplifted of breach of an 18 month suspended sentence for a burglary which you breached 6 months into by committing this offence here.
2 The facts are contained the summary of the prosecution opening. Your Counsel has indicated you do not dispute those facts, I will not repeat them. Any reader of these reasons can refer to the exhibit to place the sentence in the factual context. You have also been given a summary of the original offence of burglary for which you received the suspended sentence.
3 The prosecution, after hearing the plea from Ms Spowart, obtained a range and submitted that I should consider a sentence in the range of a head sentence of five and a half years to three and a half years with a non-parole period of two and a half to three and a half.
4 You have admitted your criminal record which contains a very lengthy history of, in effect, offences of dishonesty and only one prior conviction for an assault which was an assault with a weapon on 16 August 2001 and the circumstances have been explained to me in relation to that by your Counsel. Clearly your criminal offending in both States reflects your view of the virtue of honesty.
5 On your behalf your Counsel made a number of submissions. She acknowledged that it was a serious offence and that a term of imprisonment was the only appropriate disposition. She submitted that the intentionally cause serious injury, whilst serious of course by definition, when looking at the range of offences that this type of offence can encompass this was towards the lower when one looks at the injuries. She told me that there are no permanent injuries resulting.
6 She pointed to your plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity for what is called its utilitarian effect. That is, there was no trial and no-one had to give evidence and also as an acceptance of responsibility by you for your actions in circumstances where it is put that you were affected by alcohol and Serepax and really had not a lot of memory or what happened. She pointed to your lack of convictions for violent behaviour and said this was inconsistent with your previous criminal record. The victim in the case is here today and she supports you. The instructions are that she has forgiven you.
7 In respect of your background, you are 33, you grew up in the Portland area, large family, nine brothers and sisters, you are the third youngest. You struggled academically at school and left during Year 8. Your father was an alcohol and abusive person. You, in effect, have only had one job but at around 15 when you left school as a packer for nine months. The place you were working at closed and you have not worked since. You have, in effect, no employment skills.
8 You began using the drug cannabis and alcohol around the age of 15 and then progressed an addiction to amphetamine. You have been in and out of gaol during period of your life to date. She told me that some time ago you actually conquered your addiction to amphetamine but still abused alcohol and Serepax. You have been in a relationship with the victim for some 12 months or so. This was an unprovoked argument, it was submitted, in which you "snapped".
9 Sandra Jeffrey says you are a supportive partner at times. You, in fact, helped her get off a habit she had of using prescription medicine because of the back problems she has. You visited her in hospital whilst she was dealing with her back problem. She has inherited some money from her mother and brought a property at Mount Richmond, which I am told is 30 kilometres out of Warrnambool, a leather maker farm. It will be settling later this month. It is intended that her two children will spend some time there at Christmas. She would like you, at the end of your term of imprisonment, to come back and live with her and she is prepared to support you on parole.
10 She urged me to look at concurrency with respect to the imposition of a suspended sentence and asked me to take into account the principles of totality and proportionality.
11 Sentencing considerations. In sentencing you I have taken into account ss.5(1) and (2) of the Sentencing Act. There are a number of things I have to look at. You have probably heard about these things before but I will go through them.
12 The first one is general deterrence, that is I have got to send a message to the rest of the community about this type of behaviour. Believe me, the community is sick of and this Court is sick of men bashing women. It has got to stop. Absolutely no excuse for your behaviour here. Unprovoked. The fact that you had drunk too much and taken too many Serepax is absolutely no excuse at all. Your partner supports you, she has forgiven you. Many would not. I have got to send a message to the community that we cannot keep tolerating this sort of behaviour. It is almost like a war of men against women.
13 Specific deterrence is another thing I have to look at. That is try and get into your mind you cannot just keep re-offending. You are on a suspended sentence and off you go again for a different offence. That clearly is a factor I have to take into account. I have to express my denunciation of your conduct, that is, my view of it and I think I have just done that.
14 I have to take into account your plea of guilty which I do and I give the appropriate discount for because it saved the community a trial and it is an acceptance of responsibility by you. Your Counsel has explained your background. When you get out of gaol, seriously , you just have to do something about your life. There is no point talking to your partner, it is up to you. Unless you want to back into gaol again. No doubt people are sick of you stealing things from them.
15 I take into account the principle of totality and proportionality and I agree that I should impose some concurrency with respect to the breach of the suspended sentence, taking that into account.
16 On the Charge of intentionally cause serious injury I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of two years. I refix the suspended sentence of 18 months and I direct that 12 months of that be served cumulatively with the two years on the intentionally cause serious injury which makes a total effective sentence of three years. I direct that you serve a non-parole period of 20 months.
17 I declare that but for your pleas of guilty to these matters you would have received a, under s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of five years with a non-parole period of three years.
18 I declare pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act that the period of time of 120 days you have spent in custody to be reckoned as a period of a term of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have just imposed. You can sit down, thanks. Are there any other matters or orders I need to look at?
19 MS SAVILLE: Yes, Your Honour, a sentence for the contravention pursuant to s.83AB.
20 HIS HONOUR: Didn't I just do that?
21 MS SAVILLE: Not restoring the actual breach. The charge of contravention is now a charge in its own right.
22 HIS HONOUR: Is that the charge before me or - - -
23 MS SAVILLE: Yes. It has a maximum penalty of three months.
24 HIS HONOUR: What'd I give the 18 months for?
25 MS SAVILLE: The restoration of the suspended sentence so the contravention now is actually - - -
26 HIS HONOUR: I am dealing with - I am being asked to restore the suspended?
27 MS SAVILLE: Yes.
28 HIS HONOUR: Yes I've done that.
29 MS SAVILLE: Yes.
30 HIS HONOUR: So there's an additional charge as well - - -
31 MS SAVILLE: Yes.
32 HIS HONOUR: - - - of the contravention?
33 MS SAVILLE: Yes.
34 HIS HONOUR: All right. Could you stand up again please, Mr Leggatt. I have to impose another sentence in relation to contravening the suspended sentence and I impose a sentence of six months to be served concurrently with all the other sentences imposed today.
35 MS SAVILLE: Your Honour, three months is the maximum.
36 HIS HONOUR: No? Three months, sorry. Going very well here. You shouldn’t put summary matters in front of County Court judges. Three months is the maximum?
37 MS SAVILLE: Yes.
38 HIS HONOUR: I'd hardly give him the maximum; would I? I impose of six weeks to be served concurrently with all sentences imposed here today. So have I got all that arithmetic right? Two, 18 months, six weeks, 12 of the 18 months cumulative making three. Non-parole period 20 months. S.6AAA, five with three. Section 18, 120; all right?
39 MS SAVILLE: Yes.
40 MS SPOWART: Yes, Your Honour.
41 HIS HONOUR: Right, nothing else?
42 PRISONER: if I can say, Your Honour, I've got three years to serve; is that it? Is that what you're saying?
43 HIS HONOUR: No, 20 months.
44 PRISONER: I've got 20 months.
45 HIS HONOUR: Less 120 days.
46 PRISONER: Cool.
47 HIS HONOUR: I'm not too sure about - Ms Spowart will talk to you about that and advise you appropriately. All right, you can remove Mr Leggatt, thank you. I'll give those back to you. Ms Spowart, you can have the case back if you want.
48 MS SPOWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
49 HIS HONOUR: And the photos are in exhibits, Geoff? Is there anything else? Ms Saville, I lose you, do I, for the duration?
50 MS SAVILLE: Yes, Your Honour.
51 HIS HONOUR: And Ms Spowart, have you heard anything from the Director yet?
52 MS SPOWART: Have I heard anything - no I haven't, Your Honour.
53 HIS HONOUR: I understand he actually did the committal.
54 MS SPOWART: Yes he did. Yes he came to Warrnambool for that purpose but we haven't heard from him about - - -
55 HIS HONOUR: I was - I know judges bore counsel stupid with silly stories but I was doing a drug trial when he was prosecuting one, a very length drug trial and in the middle of it he was made Director and defence counsel asked for a discharge. Somehow it was prejudicial. I couldn't' quite see it but there you go. All right, we'll adjourn the court until ten o'clock tomorrow.
56 MS SPOWART: Your Honour pleases.
- - -
0
0
0