Director of Public Prosecutions v Mansfield
[2020] VCC 1606
•7 October 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No CR-20-00081
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| LIAM MANSFIELD |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE WRAIGHT | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 30 September 2020 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 7 October 2020 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Mansfield | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 1606 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE.
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – Two charges of intentionally cause serious injury – One charge of property damage – One charge of breach family violence intervention order with intent to cause harm or fear for safety – Offender attended mother and step father’s home and attacked both victims – Serious examples of the offence of intentionally cause serious injury – Offender on bail at time of offending – Relevant prior criminal history – Young offender – Genuine remorse – Insight – Offender sentenced as a serious violent offender – Circumstances surrounding COVID-19 taken into account.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act1958 ss 197(1), 16; Family Violence Protection Act2008 s 123A(2); Bail Act1977 s 30B; Sentencing Act1991 pt 2A, ss 6D, 6E, 16(1A), 16(3C), 18, 6AAA.
Cases Cited: Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43.
Sentence: Imprisonment for a period of 6 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr A Albert | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr M Dempsey Mr J Barreiro | Tony Hargreaves & Partners Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
Liam Mansfield, you have pleaded guilty to:
· One charge of damaging property contrary to s 197(1) of the Crimes Act1958, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (Charge 1);
· Two charges of intentionally cause serious injury contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act1958, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment on each charge (Charges 2 and 3); and
· One charge of breach of family violence intervention order intending to cause harm or fear for safety contrary to s 123A(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act2008, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment (Charge 4).
You have also pleaded guilty to the related summary offence of commit indictable offence whilst on bail contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act1977, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment (Summary Charge 18).
You have admitted your prior criminal history.
Circumstances of the offending
Background
A prosecution opening was tendered on the plea and may be summarised as follows:
The victims of Charges 2 and 3 are your mother Mary Barton[1], who was 48 years of age at the time of the offending and your stepfather, Steven Redgrave[2] who was 50 years of age at the time of the offending. The victims had been in a long term de facto relationship and resided together at a property in Woodend. You lived at the property on and off over the years but at the time of the offending you did not live there and had no place of residence.
[1] A pseudonym.
[2] A pseudonym.
On 17 June 2019, an incident occurred where you assaulted Mr Redgrave and a family violence intervention order was granted in his favour against you. The order prevented you from attending, contacting by phone, assaulting, harassing or intimidating Mr Redgrave. The order was served on you on 3 July 2019. Between 17 June 2019 and the night of the offending, you had not attended Mr Redgrave’s residence. You were also on bail in relation to this offending.
The offending
On 31 July 2019 at 9.50pm, Jessica Williams who lived at a nearby address, heard a person yelling and screaming outside her front fence. She recognised that the voice belonged to you and called triple zero but hung up as she thought you would leave. She told you to go away. During the interaction Ms Williams observed that you went from being upset and crying, to aggressive. Ms Williams described your behaviour as erratic.
You would stop yelling and leave, and then you would come back and start yelling again. Ms Williams became concerned and decided to call her father, Chris Hubert for help, whilst her partner, Boyd Mclean, contacted police. Mr Hubert was in Melbourne but was concerned enough to drive to Woodend.
As soon as the police attended, you jumped over the fence and ran away. Shortly after the police left, you returned and started banging and throwing something against Ms Williams’ house. Upon hearing that the police would be attending, you jumped the fence and ran off.
Jessica Shaw was at a residence in the same street. This residence is owned by Jacquie Deeble, who was not at the property at the time. Sometime between 10.30pm and 10.40pm, Ms Shaw heard someone knocking and yelling. It appears you attended this residence and tried to gain entry to the house, breaking a window and kicking in a rear sliding door. You cut your hand on the broken glass from the front window. You were unable to enter the premises which are 450m away from where the victims reside. It is these facts that relate to Charge 1, damaging property.
Mr Hubert arrived in Woodend at around 10.30pm. Ms Williams told Mr Hubert that you had told her that you had just come from your mother’s house. Mr Hubert and Mr Mclean decided to go to your parents’ house to warn them that you were behaving erratically.
Mr Redgrave and Ms Barton consumed a few alcoholic drinks as they watched television. Shortly after 10pm, Mr Redgrave took his medication and went to bed. Ms Barton went to bed a short time later and noticed that Mr Redgrave was asleep.
At around 10.40pm, Ms Barton heard banging and a male voice at her front door. She recognised your voice and asked Mr Redgrave to check what was going on. Mr Redgrave observed you standing at the front door with your hand bleeding. You said you had been stabbed. Mr Redgrave called out for Ms Barton to come over to help you. Ms Barton saw that you had a 2cm cut to your hand and assisted you by washing your hand before wrapping it in a tea towel. You kept telling your mother that you had been stabbed. It is these facts that relate to Charge 4, breach of family violence intervention order.
Mr Redgrave returned to the bedroom and called triple zero to get an ambulance as he was concerned about you. He noticed that you were in the kitchen trying to take alcohol from the fridge. He told you to ‘leave it alone’, at which stage Ms Barton had taken over the phone call to the ambulance and could see Mr Redgrave telling you to get away from the alcohol.
As Ms Barton was waiting on the line with the ambulance, she saw you ‘rush’ at Mr Redgrave. You started punching Mr Redgrave, who was trying to defend himself by putting his hands up over his head. Ms Barton dropped the phone and ran into the kitchen to help Mr Redgrave. At this stage, Mr Redgrave had been knocked to the ground as a result of being punched by you. It is these facts that relate to Charge 2, intentionally cause serious injury.
You then started assaulting Ms Barton and were punching her to the face. Ms Barton was slumped up against the fridge. She has a recollection of seeing Mr Redgrave passed out on the floor but also recalls that he was trying to get up to protect her but may have been unconscious. Ms Barton passed out quickly as she does not recall anything that occurred after. It is these facts that relate to Charge 3, intentionally cause serious injury.
The incident occurred at approximately 11.03pm. The ambulance operator could no longer hear or speak to Ms Barton. Ms Barton had dropped the phone in the lounge room as she went to assist Mr Redgrave. The phone line remained open to Ambulance Victoria and they continued to hear what was going on in the background of the call.
At around 11.06pm the ambulance operator continued to hear fighting and someone shouting ‘don’t’, before the phone call appeared to go quiet with limited yelling or shouting. The operator could no longer hear Mr Redgrave or Ms Barton yelling or talking.
The prosecution alleges that the nature of Ms Barton and Mr Redgrave’s injuries are such that you continued to cause injuries to them, but it cannot be established which injuries occurred before or after the victims were knocked unconscious. Neither victim has any recollection of what was occurring to them after they became unconscious. On both accounts the loss of consciousness happened quickly after you began to assault each of the victims.
At 11.10pm, Mr Hubert and Mr Mclean arrived at the victims’ house. The front door was wide open, and Mr Hubert could see you standing next to the kitchen bench, yelling and screaming. You were yelling ‘you are fucking cunts’ and ‘I’ll fucking kill ya’. Mr Hubert could see you frantically grabbing at the knives from the knife block. As you were doing so you slipped on the blood on the floor and fell over scattering the knives. You kept yelling ‘I’ll fucking kill ya’ directly into Mr Redgrave’s face.
You crawled over to Mr Redgrave, grabbed him by the shirt and started grabbing and yelling abuse at him. Mr Redgrave did not move.
Mr Hubert and Mr Mclean then entered the house and startled you. Mr Redgrave was lying on the floor and did not move and remained unconscious on the ground. Mr Hubert walked past you and checked on Mr Redgrave, at which point he discovered Ms Barton lying unconscious on the floor, covered in blood. Ms Barton’s shirt had been pulled up over her head and she was topless. Mr Hubert became concerned as neither Mr Redgrave nor Mr Barton appeared to be moving.
Mr Hubert got you out of the house as he was concerned that you would become aggressive towards himself and Mr Mclean. During that time you were mumbling and being aggressive and then would revert to being apologetic. Mr Mclean called the ambulance whilst Mr Hubert was dealing with you.
After Mr Hubert got you outside, you both got into a scuffle before you ran away from the house. Mr Hubert checked on Mr Redgrave and Ms Barton and noticed that they were now making small noises and breathing.
Mr Hubert then ran to the ambulance that was parked in the street and brought them to Mr Redgrave’s residence. Mr Hubert provided comfort to Mr Redgrave and Ms Barton while waiting for the ambulance. The Ambulance attended and took both Mr Redgrave and Ms Barton to the hospital.
Arrest and interview
On 1 August 2019 at 6.47am, Detective Senior Constable McDougall was stationed outside the property and was approached by you, covered in a white plastic sheet and shaking. Given your medical condition, police took you to the hospital via an ambulance. Whilst in the ambulance, you said that you ‘had been jumped by 20 blokes with machetes’ and that that is how you got your injuries and why you were out all night. You were interviewed by police and provided a mainly ‘no comment’ record of interview.
Injuries to the victims
Mr Redgrave suffered the following injuries:
· facial bruising and lacerations to the right side of head;
· bruising to the abdomen and upper body;
· bruising to the chest and fractures to the left, 5th, 6th,7th,8th and 9th ribs;
· fracture of the right transverse process of the L2 and L3 vertebra;
· non-displaced fracture through the scaphoid bone of the right hand. This required surgical fixation under general anaesthetic where wire and screws were inserted through the surgical wound and requiring the wearing of a splint for six weeks;
· fracture of the shoulder region of the upper left arm. This injury was complicated as the shoulder was broken and dislocated, and there were multiple bony fractures. The surgery involved inserting a plate, screws and wire, a bone graft and repair to the rotor cuff; and
· numbness in the underarm region two months post-surgery together with stiffness and limited movement in the shoulder as the fracture had not healed.
Dr Angela Williams of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine opined that the mechanism of the injuries is consistent with multiple blows or blunt force trauma. Dr Williams has also not ruled out sharp trauma given the open wounds on Mr Redgrave’s face. There are multiple wound types over multiple body sites (head, arms, back) and multiple body planes. Other explanations for such a widespread injury pattern would be a particularly complex fall or major vehicle collision. A simple or even more elaborate push and shove scenario is highly unlikely to account for the extent of the injuries seen and documented on Mr Redgrave.
Dr Williams opines that there was a minimum of at least four blunt force impacts to the head, one to the left arm, at least one to the right wrist, at least one to the chest wall and at least one to the lower back.
Ms Barton suffered the following injuries:
· bruising to the nose and forehead;
· wounds to the inner elbow;
· bruise/haematoma to the back of her head;
· loose teeth 2.1 and 2.2; and
· fractured ankle requiring specialist orthopaedic surgery, a plate and a screw being placed inside her ankle.
Dr Williams opines that the mechanism of the injuries is consistent with the application of multiple blows or blunt force trauma, that the bruising to the medial side of her left arm represent defensive wounds, and that she sustained at least one incised wound secondary to sharp force. The overall pattern of injuries in this case is highly suggestive of an assault. Other explanations for such widespread injury pattern would be a particularly complex fall or major vehicle collision. A simple or even more elaborate push and shove scenario is highly unlikely to account for the extent of the injuries seen and documented on Ms Barton. Dr Williams is of the view that these injuries came from a minimum of at least five blunt force impacts and at least one sharp force impact to the left arm.
Nature and gravity of the offending
While there may have been an initial discussion with Mr Redgrave whereby he indicated he wanted you out of the house possibly adding to your already agitated state, your attack on him and then your mother was entirely unprovoked and unjustified. Following your initial attack that caused both victims to become unconscious on the floor, you then continued your assault while they each remained helpless. While it is not possible to determine when each specific injury was inflicted, it is not in dispute that some of the injuries occurred while the victims were incapacitated on the floor.
Your attack caused significant serious physical injuries and ongoing psychological injury to both victims. As is evident in the victim impact statements and in some of the references tendered on your behalf, the consequences of an assault of this nature not only impact the victims directly, but have ongoing consequences for the wider family.
Your conduct is aggravated by the fact that you were not permitted to be at the home of your mother and stepfather as a result of an intervention order, the breach of which is represented by Charge 4 on the indictment. You were also on bail at the time which is the subject of the related summary charge. Further, both the intervention order and the bail relate to an earlier assault on Mr Redgrave on 17 June 2019 some three weeks earlier.
While your personal circumstances will be discussed further below, it appears from the psychological evidence that the only explanation for your conduct was a combination of anger and alcohol. You stated to your psychologist, Mr Newton, that you said that you had been drinking heavily throughout the day preceding the offending and that you had become steadily more agitated. It appears that the disagreement you had with Mr Redgrave tipped you over the edge and you lost control.
The offence of intentionally causing serious injury is by its nature a very serious offence. It carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and has been classified by Parliament as a Category 2 offence, demanding a term of imprisonment unless a statutory exception is able to be established.
Mr Dempsey who together with Mr Barreiro appeared on your behalf, sensibly conceded that the offending is ‘unquestionably serious’ and ‘warrants a substantial term of imprisonment’.
In all the circumstances in my view your offending, represents a serious example of intentionally causing serious injury in relation to both victims.
Victim impact statements
Steven Redgrave and Mary Barton both prepared victim impact statements that were tendered on the plea and read aloud.
Mr Redgrave details the physical impact the assault has had. He notes that he used to be a very physical person however he is now unable to do the things he enjoyed like splitting wood or riding a bike. He is on medication for anxiety together with pain medication. Understandably, he states that the assault has adversely impacted his relationship with your mother. He remains scared of you, worried that you will come back and assault him when you are released.
Ms Barton is clearly conflicted as a result of your conduct. As your mother, she notes that while she still loves and supports you, the offence has affected her relationship with Mr Redgrave and how they relate to each other. Since the assault she has not lived with Mr Redgrave. She does not socialise or go out because it is physically challenging. Ms Barton also states that the incident has impacted on the broader family. As to her physical injuries, Ms Barton states that she spent three weeks in hospital and required a walking frame and wheelchair that she was required to use for six weeks. She also remains scared of you.
I have taken the content of both victim impact statements into account.
Personal circumstances
You are 22 years of age and were 21 at the time of the offending.
You have two older brothers and a younger sister. Your parents separated when you were an infant and you have had little contact with your father. Your mother was in a relationship with your stepfather until you were about 12. When your mother and stepfather separated you remained with your mother while your two brothers stayed with your stepfather. Your mother was an alcoholic and would form relationships with alcoholic partners.
You attended primary school in Kyneton and experienced behavioural problems from an early age. You commenced high school leaving in Year 9 and later attending a school for students with behavioural problems. You only attended that school for a short time before undertaking some TAFE training with a view to commencing a roof plumbers’ apprenticeship.
You were in a relationship from about the age of 16. You lived together for approximately two and a half years, however as a result of your drinking, the relationship broke down.
You have a long history of heavy drinking. You began drinking in your teens and quickly developed a habit of binge drinking. You acknowledge that your drinking from an early age has exacerbated problems with your schooling, your work, your relationship and your interactions with family. You also report abusing a range of illicit drugs including cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine although it appears that on the night of the offending, you were under the influence of alcohol.
In the period leading up to the offending you had experienced a number of events that caused you to fall into a personal crisis. A number of your family members had passed away, you had broken up with your long term partner, your substance abuse had increased and you were homeless.
Your criminal history commenced in 2013 when you were 15 with an appearance in the Children’s Court. While your criminal history is not extensive, it contains relevant prior offending.
A report was prepared by Patrick Newton, clinical and forensic psychologist, and tendered on the plea. Mr Newton provides a detailed personal and psychological history and I have taken the contents of his report into account. Mr Newton states that you present with severe and ongoing anger management problems. Further, that you have limited skills to manage conflict and to control your anger. Mr Newton states:
In short, Mr Mansfield presents with significant issues in the area of anger management. These would be intensified and rendered more problematic still in circumstances of intoxication. Not only would his potential for anger be significantly disinhibited by the consumption of alcohol and/or stimulants, but his already limited capacities for calm reflection, problem solving and rational decision making would all be further decreased at such times.
Mr Newton also acknowledged your instability in the time leading up to the offending as outlined above which he referred to as a ‘chronic personal crisis’.
While Mr Newton was unable to formally diagnose you, he is of the opinion that you present with prominent traits of Cluster B personality disorder, constituting criminogenic risk factors and requiring treatment and containment. However, based on your substance use, Mr Newton is of the view that you are suffering from a severe substance use disorder in relation to alcohol, cannabis and stimulants. Mr Newton concludes by stating that you require a comprehensive cognitive assessment, substance related treatment, anger management training and assistance with adaptive living skills when you transition into the community.
Five references were tendered representing family and friends. Your uncle Stephen Mansfield speaks of another side of your life where you have shown yourself to be a warm, intelligent teenager and young man. As such, while acknowledging your difficulties, he was shocked to hear of your offending. A further reference was tendered from your ex-partner’s mother, Anita Battersby. Ms Battersby has been visiting you while in custody until the pandemic restrictions and offers her continued support. She states that she too has seen another side of you that is respectful to others, however, acknowledges that you require professional help.
You wrote a letter to the court where you acknowledge the pain you have caused to your mother and stepfather. You apologise for your actions and state that you are gaining insight into your behaviour and your need to change. You note that you are involved in as much education as possible in prison and now appreciate that alcoholism is your primary addiction. You also apologise to your wider family. While letters such as yours are often viewed with caution by the courts, I accept that your letter is sincere and demonstrates that you are gaining insight and have started on the path of your rehabilitation.
Also tendered where a number of certificates in relation to courses you have undertaken in custody, together with four clean urine screens.
Relevant sentencing considerations
I take into account your pleas of guilty. While the matter has taken some time to resolve, you have not subjected the victims to any cross examination at any stage. In cases such as this the plea of guilty takes on greater significance as it avoids the need for victims to have to relive an extremely traumatic event. Your pleas also save court time and expense and have thereby facilitated the course of justice. The utilitarian value of your pleas in the current circumstances of the restricted capacity of the Courts due to the pandemic, carries significant weight.
Over and above your pleas of guilty, it was submitted that you have demonstrated genuine remorse. Reliance was placed on the letter you wrote to the court. As I have already noted, I accept that with the passage of time and reflection since being on remand, you have been able to begin to gain insight into the nature of your offending and the effect on the victims. You have also commenced what will be a long road of rehabilitation and reintegration back into the community. In all the circumstance I accept that you have shown a degree of genuine remorse.
Mr Newton acknowledges that you have significant work to do. You will require assessment and targeted treatment and of course it is important that you remain substance free. In Mr Newton’s words he states that you will ‘require close monitoring to ensure that you remain abstinent from alcohol and illicit drugs’ and that you need ‘structured and intensive program of treatment and education’. That said, you do have the support of your wider family who have seen change in you since being in custody. In all the circumstances however, at this stage, your prospects of rehabilitation remain guarded.
General deterrence, denunciation of your conduct and protection of the community are prominent sentencing considerations in the circumstances. A message must be sent that despite the difficulties you have faced in your younger years, your anger cannot be played out in circumstances such as this where, while intoxicated, you lashed out at your mother and stepfather causing both of them serious injury.
As to specific deterrence, it too has a role to play. These offences were committed in breach of an intervention order and while you were on bail for previously assaulting one of the victims, both of those orders failing to deter you. Further, you have relevant and recent prior history.
You were 21 at the time of the offending and are now 22 and as such it was submitted that rehabilitation should, despite the seriousness of the offending, take a primary role in the sentencing discretion. While I accept the well settled principles in relation to young offenders and that they do have application in your case, I must weigh those considerations with the seriousness of the offending in this instance.
In Azzopardi v The Queen[3], having reviewed the established authorities in relation to young offenders, Redlich JA said:
The general propositions which flow from these authorities is that where the degree of criminality of the offences requires the sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community to become more prominent in the sentencing calculus, the weight to be attached to youth is correspondingly reduced. As the level of seriousness of the criminality increases there will be a corresponding reduction in the mitigating effects of the offender’s youth. But only in the circumstances of the gravest criminal offending and where there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation may the mitigatory consideration of youth be viewed as all but extinguished.
[3] (2011) 35 VR 43 at [44].
As noted, in my view the other relevant sentencing considerations such as general deterrence, denunciation of your conduct and protection of the community must also carry weight in the sentencing discretion in this instance and therefore the mitigating effect of your youth is necessarily reduced. However, as you are still a relatively young offender, it was submitted that a longer than usual period of parole will offer you a level of supervision as you continue you rehabilitation once granted parole. I accept that submission.
I take into account the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. From information provided by Corrections Victoria it is clear that the personal visits to prisons have been suspended, there has been a reduction of services and programs and some prisoners are experiencing increased lockdown periods. You have been subjected to these conditions from the outset and in your case, where you have been committed to engaging in education and programs to assist you in your rehabilitation, I accept that the restrictive conditions have made your time in custody more difficult.
As you are being convicted of two serious violent offences, each of which you will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, you fall to be sentenced as a serious offender pursuant to Part 2A of the Sentencing Act1991 on Charge 3.
Section 6D of the Sentencing Act1991 provides that when sentencing you as a serious offender I must have regard to the protection of the community as the principle purpose for which the sentence is imposed. I have taken this into account in the sentencing discretion.
Section 6E provides that, unless otherwise directed by the court, every term of imprisonment imposed on a serious offender be served cumulatively. In all the circumstances I do not consider that a disproportionate sentence should be passed, and the prosecution does not seek a disproportionate sentence.
I also take in to account the provisions of ss 16(1A) and 16(3C) of the Sentencing Act 1991 as to the fact that the offences were committed while you were on bail and thus any presumption of concurrency is displaced unless otherwise ordered by the court.
Finally, while there must be a degree of cumulation in respect of the assaults against separate victims, I am also mindful of the application of the principle of totality.
Sentence
Liam Mansfield, on Charge 1, damaging property, you will be convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment.
On Charges 2 and 3, intentionally causing serious injury, you will be convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment on each charge. Charge 2 will be the base sentence.
On Charge 4, contravention of family violence intervention order intending to cause harm or fear for safety, you will be convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
On Summary Charge 18, commit indictable offence whilst on bail, you will be convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment.
I direct that 18 months of the sentence on Charge 3 be served cumulatively on Charge 2 making for a total effective sentence of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment. I direct that you serve 3 years and 6 months before becoming eligible for parole.
Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that 433 days be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed. That does not include today.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, if not for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a period of 8 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 5 years.
- - -
2
0