Director of Public Prosecutions v Markovich
[2021] VCC 1275
•6 July 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. 21-00300
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
STEFAN MARKOVICH
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 6 July 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 6 July 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Markovich | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1275 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords: Sentence –reckless conduct placing persons in danger of serious injury – attempted aggravated carjack – criminal damage – failing to stop on police direction – contravening bail conduct condition – unlicensed driving – commit indictable offence whilst on bail - drug use – dead time – COVID.
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms M. McDonald | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr N. Brown | Nelson Brown Legal |
HER HONOUR:
1Stefan Markovich, in the early hours of the morning of 1 November 2020, you were seen by police driving a Mercedes along Ballarat Road in Footscray. A check revealed the car was stolen. The police followed you. You ignored their direction to stop, instead doing a U-turn, and driving away at speed. This gives rise to the charge of failing to stop on police direction, a related summary offence to which you have pleaded guilty.
2At one stage, before pursuing police lost sight of you, you were seen to cross over to the wrong side of the road, before turning west along Ballarat Road to evade them. For the next hour and 20 minutes, you drove across a wide sweep of Melbourne, seeking to avoid apprehension. Police units across the suburbs were alerted to look out for you, and to try to stop you.
3At various times during that hour and 20 minutes you were seen either by the airwing, or police vehicles driving erratically, at excessive speeds. You travelled through Tullamarine, Preston, Brunswick, Richmond, South Yarra, and back to Hoppers Crossing, before the third set of stop sticks that had been laid to try to stop you finally disabled the car that you were driving. You abandoned the car under the Western Ring Road overpass at Hoppers Crossing. At an earlier stage of your attempts to avoid apprehension, when in Richmond you had abandoned the car briefly, before returning to it and driving off again when you saw police units nearby.
4During the time that you were on the road you were seen twice to dangerously overtake, crossing to the wrong side of the road to do so. You drove through a red light at an intersection on Chapel Street, South Yarra, only narrowly avoiding a collision with oncoming traffic. On Derrimut Road in Hoppers Crossing, you were seen to drive on the wrong side of the road for over three minutes. These are just examples, but it is this driving over that period from 2.26 am until 4.47am on the morning of 1 November that gives rise to the charge of reckless conduct placing persons in danger of serious injury to which you have pleaded guilty.
5The front tyres of the car were blown out by the stop sticks that had been placed on the off ramp on the Western Ring Road at Hoppers Crossing. Even after the tyres were blown out, you kept driving along the off ramp and onto Ballarat Road before finally stopping under the underpass. You then abandoned the disabled car, and, armed with a machete, approached a man who was sitting at the wheel of his car, waiting at the traffic lights at the intersection of Ballarat Road and the Ring Road. With the machete clearly visible, you yelled obscenities at him, repeatedly directing him to get out of his car. As he tried to drive off, you smashed the windscreen of his car with the butt of the machete, still yelling at him to get out. You opened the car door and pulled him out. He feared for his life. You got in and tried to drive off, but the car had stalled and you could not restart it. You abandoned his car and returned to the stolen Mercedes that you had been driving. It is this conduct that gives rise to a charge of attempted aggravated carjacking to which you have also pleaded guilty.
6Yelling obscenities on your way, you returned to the Mercedes, and smashed the windscreen of that car too with the handle of the machete. That constitutes the charge of criminal damage to which you have pleaded guilty.
7By then, police had arrived and you were arrested. In addition to the machete with which you were armed, police found a knife, a mobile phone wrapped in foil, and a Mastercard in your name in the car.
8Further checks revealed that in addition to the fact the car was stolen, you were unlicenced, and on bail, with a curfew condition requiring you to stay home between 9 pm and 6 am. It is of course a condition of bail that you not commit any indictable offence. So it is those circumstances that establish the related summary charges of unlicenced driving, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail and contravening a conduct condition, namely curfew of your bail.
9And finally, the use by you of the stolen car gives rise to the charge of car theft to which you have also pleaded guilty.
10Following arrest you were assessed, due to substance impairment, to be unfit to be interviewed, and you were remanded in custody, where you have remained ever since.
Victim impact statement
11No victim impact statement has been filed by Mr Benham, the driver of the car you tried to carjack, or for that matter the owner of the stolen car or any of the road users who were imperilled by your conduct. It is not necessary for victim impact statements from the people directly affected by your conduct to be filed in order to understand the gravity of the offending and the likely impact on the victims.
12In his statement, for the purpose of the brief, Mr Benham said, understandably, he feared for his life.
13He suffered some minor injuries, cuts to his hands from broken glass from his windscreen that shattered over him when you smashed it.
14He was a man just sitting in his car waiting patiently and lawfully at the lights on his way to work. He did not deserve any of that.
Objective Seriousness of the Offending
15The maximum penalties for these offences are one measure of their seriousness.
16Reckless conduct endangering serious injury carries a maximum penalty of five years; attempted aggravated carjacking, 20 years; car theft and criminal damage 10 years maximum each, and for the summary offences, six months' imprisonment or 60 penalty units for a first offence for failing to stop, as this one is, and for a subsequent offences as this is of unlicensed driving, and three months maximum for each of the bail breach offences. In addition, there is a mandatory licence cancellation of not less than six months for the fail to stop charge and a discretionary licence cancellation for car theft charge.
17Factors relevant to assessing the seriousness of the offending and coming out of the circumstances which I outlined are these.
18For Charge 2, the reckless conduct endangering serious injury, this was a protracted course of conduct, over a period of just under one and a half hours, you were sleep deprived and substance impaired when you drove across a large swathe of built up areas of Melbourne at a time when, although traffic was generally light, you clearly posed danger to all road users unfortunate enough to be on the road in your vicinity. This together with the combination of driving in excessive speed, driving on the wrong side of the road, once for over three minutes, dangerous overtaking, driving through a red light and through an intersection at speed, and continuing to drive after tyres had been blown out, all combine to make this a serious example of an offence of this type.
19For Charge 3, attempted aggravated carjacking features which make it a serious example of a serious offence, are these: it was when you were finally unable to drive the stolen car because it had been disabled by the stop sticks that you armed yourself with a machete. You had already by then spent an hour and 20 minutes trying to evade police and driving in the manner you had. You tried to carjack a car that was just waiting at the lights. You used the machete to smash the windscreen, showering the driver with broken glass. You dragged the driver out of his car, yelling obscenities at him the whole time. And again you were substance impaired which meant you had impaired judgement, and impaired impulse control. All of that adds to the seriousness of the conduct. For Charge 4, when you were unable to work out how to start the car that you tried to hijack, you inflicted further wanton damage on the car you had already literally driven into the ground. This was a car that you did not own, and relevantly for Charge 1, you had used as your own. You later explained to the psychologist Mr Coffey that you had been using it drive 'on business' and had intended to drive, it would appear, to Latrobe Valley on business that day. It would also appear, from what you told Mr Coffey and from the fact that you have been unemployed for many years, that your business was not a lawful business.
20You were clearly substantially impaired by drugs. Your driving, your judgement and your impulse control were all impaired. You were unlicenced and you were on bail, for, amongst other things, car theft. Your undertaking of bail contained conditions which you had to agree to, not to commit indictable offences whilst on bail and the curfew condition to stay home at night. A condition designed to reduce the prospect of you committing further offences or imperilling people while substance impaired.
21You, as much as the other people I have mentioned in this recounting the events, are a member of our community and you must understand that you will be held accountable for imperilling other members of your community, our community, by driving as you did, in a stolen car, abusing someone else's property, attempting to carjack another vehicle as you did when you had rendered the first car undriveable, and when you were as impaired as you were. That you were unlicenced, impaired, and under an obligation to obey the laws, because of your bail, and to stay home also are relevant to your understanding of why you need to be held accountable.
22People are entitled to expect that all road users will have proper care and respect for the safety of other road users, that they will drive safely, obey the road rules, and obey lawful police directions to stop. People are entitled to trust that other drivers will not be substance-impaired when driving, or will not threaten and imperil people and try to steal their vehicles. Out of control behaviour of the type you engaged in must be roundly condemned and punished in a way that will send a clear message to everyone that such conduct is not acceptable.
23Clearly therefore, subject to considerations personal to you, deterrence, denunciation and just punishment weigh heavily in the sentencing mix.
24You are 32 now, and you have a criminal history dating back to your 2015, when you were in your mid 20s, for a wide and recurring range of offences. Your criminal history includes another charge of reckless conduct endangering serious injury, a number of charges of theft of motor vehicles, of committing offences on bail or failing to answer bail and unlicensed driving, and single charges of criminal damage and resisting police, and multiple charges of possession of weapons including one for possession of a firearm and ammunition, and a number of charges for possession of a variety of drugs. They demonstrate a widespread disrespect for the law and for the rights of others, of doing what you want, when you want, of flouting court orders made to reduce your risk of reoffending or made to enable you to serve a sentence, or await trial, in the community. Sentences that have been imposed on you since 2015 have ranged from a non-conviction bond through to a community correction order (which you breached) and imprisonment.
25Neither being held accountable through criminal charges and sentence nor the maturing that one hopes will occur between mid 20s and your early 30s has deterred you or would appear from Mr Coffey’s report, motivated you to change your ways.
26Given that you were in your mid 20s when you first came before a court, and that your background, although having some disadvantage also had some considerable supports in it, yours is not a case where you can rely on immaturity or the impulsivity of youth to explain embarking on and then continuing of a course of offending behaviour. This offending, like, it would appear, most if not all of your other offending, is related in some way to substance abuse, lack of gainful employment and a lack of desire to change your ways.
27It follows therefore that specific as well as general deterrence must be given weight in the sentence.
28What then are the matters that I relied on to temper those sentencing considerations?
Matters relied on in mitigation
29Mr Brown addressed submissions first to what he said were mitigating features of the offences themselves. It was put that your culpability for the car theft was less than if you were the actual thief because the car theft was constituted by use of the vehicle stolen by somebody else. That is that you were not the original thief. In my view is no mitigator in the circumstances. It would appear that you were using the car, as your own, but clearly by your plea acknowledging that you knew it was stolen. I do not consider that reduces your culpability compared to that of the original thief of that car.
30Next it was put that you were substance impaired and experiencing auditory hallucinations. Self-induced intoxication is no mitigator. And it is no mitigator that you were, in my view, experiencing auditory hallucinations or commands because that was a risk well known to you to accompany your use of the substances that you so regularly used. In the circumstances, if anything, it is an aggravating feature. You have a long history of substance abuse and you were well aware of the effect of the drugs on you and that you were at the time of this driving in that cycle of high energy and sleep deprivation that accompanied your pattern of drug use. You were aware of your impaired judgement generally that accompanied your use. Similarly, you were aware of the auditory hallucinations and paranoid or delusional beliefs that accompanied your substance abuse. Mr Brown said that you were driving as you did in response to commands to be careful. In the cold light of day, driving in the manner you did and for the time you did, approaching another car to steal it and drive away when armed with a machete and smashing the windscreens of two cars with the machete is hardly consistent with responding to a voice telling you to be careful.
31Although in his written submissions Mr Brown described the offending as not prolonged, he acknowledged that was inapt to describe the offending, in particular the driving. That is was not planned, premeditated and occurred over a single day is in my view also not a relevant mitigator. The features that characterise the gravity of these offences, and which make them, particularly the reckless conduct endangering serious injury and the attempted aggravated carjack serious offences of their type, and, are the uncontrolled, impulsive and recklessly reactive conduct in which you engaged.
Personal background
32Coming then to your personal background.
33You had in some ways advantages in your background but there were clear and significant disadvantages as well. Your parents, it would appear, were well educated, had good jobs and shared parenting of you and your brothers without acrimony after they separated when you were only six. They relocated together to Amsterdam for two years where you apparently flourished undertaking Years 7 and 8 in an international school. You appear to be of at least average intelligence and completed your secondary schooling, obtaining your VCE ultimately at Swinburne. All this, despite a childhood diagnosis of ADHD and a period of taking Ritalin as medication for that.
34Upon leaving school your mother assisted you to obtain administrative employment which you did for about six months but finding that not to your liking obtained a security licence. For the next six years you were in steady employment as a nightclub bouncer, that is up until your mid-20s.
35You told Mr Coffey, the psychologist, that you enjoyed the nightclub scene, the nocturnal lifestyle, and the drugs, predominantly at that stage methamphetamine and cannabis.
36It was in your mid-20s that things started to unravel. You had apparently been estranged from your father since you were about 18, and it would appear from what you told Mr Coffey that was because you did not get on with his new partner. When you were in your mid-20s your father was diagnosed with terminal cancer. You reconciled and you moved in with him and cared for him. In addition to the cancer, he was suffering from depression. As his illness advanced, he took his own life. Shortly after that your relationship with your long term partner broke up. Those two were obviously both devastating experiences for you. So far as the relationship break up is concerned though, your conduct resulted in you being placed on an intervention order and being charged with and released ultimately on a non-conviction bond for criminal damage. The effect of the intervention order and the criminal damage charge meant that you lost your security licence and that meant you lost your job as a bouncer. You have not been in gainful employment since then.
37You extended the range of drugs that you were using to include hallucinogens. You had abnormal experiences, voices, and experienced a feeling that an entity had been sent to watch over you following your father’s death. In 2015, as a result of a drug induced psychosis, you had a short psychiatric inpatient admission and were treated with olanzapine. You committed further offences, spent a short time on remand and embarked upon what has been then a steady cycle of offending, drug use, imprisonment, drying out, release, drug use, offending, returning to prison.
38So since 2014 or 2015, your life has revolved around drug use, crime and imprisonment. You report having no friends other than fellow drug users and offenders. You have not looked for work since 2014 and you have not had stable accommodation. A considerable time since then has been spent in custody. When in custody, you apparently abstain from drugs, but have evidenced no interest in benefiting on release from any study, work experience or rehabilitative courses that have been available to you in custody. When you were placed on a community correction order there were conditions that you engage in psychiatric treatment and drug and alcohol treatment. Your compliance with those conditions was desultory, you were ultimately breached on a community correction order and you told Mr Coffey that you were not particularly interested in what was offered, in terms of rehabilitation programs. So when not in custody you return quickly to a life of not working, mixing with fellow drug users and engaging in heavy polysubstance use.
39Your mother died not long after your father. You had been estranged from her, for some time it would appear, and you did not attend her funeral. You have had no contact with your two younger brothers since your mother's death. Each of them, like you, was diagnosed with developmental disorder. Yours was ADHD, from which you seem to have been able to overcome in adult life. Your two younger brothers have both been diagnosed with disorders on the autism spectrum disorder, both apparently not able to work and both in receipt of disability pensions. You are essentially without family and family support.
40
A comprehensive and very helpful report was provided by the psychologist
Mr Guy Coffey. Having described in some detail your response to the offending which may be relevant to remorse and rehabilitation he said:
'As described he recognized that his conduct was dangerous and reckless and that he often lacks empathy for others. He appeared however to be emotionally detached from the offending and its consequences. In particular he held a belief which caused him to diminish the level of risk to himself and others associated with the offending: that during the police pursuit he was protected by a spiritual entity. I would characterize this belief as abnormal ideation arising from psychotic like states induced by chronic methamphetamine use'.
‘With respect to rehabilitation, Mr Markovich said he had not yet determined the direction he will take but that he is not opposed to receiving treatment for his addictions. He acknowledged that methadone treatment he received in custody was useful and also believes the anti-psychotic medication he is currently receiving helps him sleep. He did not demonstrate a strong commitment to relinquish his drug centred lifestyle; on the contrary he described its advantages. On the other hand he said he could envisage working, improving his education and living a life free of drugs.’
41Mr Coffey was asked to express his opinion on your likelihood of recidivism. He said:
'Methamphetamine use is associated with increased probability of offending. In my opinion there is currently a moderate to high chance
Mr Markovich would relapse into drug use in the community if he did not receive comprehensive treatment. Further offending of the kind he has previously perpetrated is likely if he resumes the use of methamphetamine. At this point Mr Markovich is contemplating but is not committed to undertaking treatment for his addictions'.
42I accept Mr Coffey’s opinion and assessment that you are at moderate to high risk of further offending, if you return to drug use on release. If you abstain, you have the intelligence, the educational background and capacity to engage in further education, meaningful employment and meaningful relationships with people who do not commit offences and waste their days and nights, and whatever money they can get their hands on, on drugs. But it is up to you, Mr Markovich.
43Although you are not at present expressing any desire to address your drug use, I am structuring the sentence to allow you to engage in a structured, supervised, long term program both in custody, on parole, should you choose to do so. And I urge the corrections authorities to carefully consider the whole of Mr Coffey’s report and in particular the recommendations for treatment he sets out at paragraphs 85 and 86 of the report. He said:
'[85] A program of treatment and rehabilitation which is capable of making relapse into drug use and recidivism unlikely would need to be comprehensive and protracted. It would need to contain the following elements: measures to promote engagement and motivation to participate in the program.
-monitoring of progress, case management and close supervision;
-specialised drug service programs involving psychological, pharmacological and possibly residential components;
-psychological and psychiatric treatment for abnormal ideation and perception resulting from chronic polysubstance abuse and a predisposition to experience psychotic episodes;
-offence specific psychological interventions directed in particular at victim empathy, and abnormal, quasi-delusional beliefs which distort risk assessment;
-neuropsychological assessment to identify whether chronic methamphetamine use or brain trauma have resulted in cognitive impairment;
-vocational training adapted to his needs and capacity.
[86] Such a program of rehabilitation should last for as long as is required for Mr Markovich to demonstrate abstinence for at least eighteen months. The program should be able to be rapidly re-deployed at the first sign of relapse'.
44
That is a very helpful and comprehensive treatment program described by
Mr Coffey and I can only add my strong urgings that that be made available to you, should you wish to participate in it.
45In addition to these matters, Mr Brown relied on the following matters that are clearly relevant to sentencing and to reduce the sentence otherwise appropriate.
46You pleaded guilty at a very early stage. Both your plea of guilty and the early stage at which it was entered entitle you to a significant reduction in the sentence otherwise appropriate. So too does the fact that you have pleaded guilty and are being sentenced whilst we are still dealing with COVID-19. Your plea of guilty carries weight for its utilitarian value, particularly in these COVID times when delays in the courts are unprecedented. I accept and have taken into account the binding recent pronouncements from the Court of Appeal in Worboyes, Chenhall and Schaeffer[1] in relation to the additional weight to be given to guilty pleas in these COVID times as a result.
[1] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Chenhall v The Queen [2021] VSCA 175; Schaeffer v The Queen [2001] VSCA 171.
47I also accept that weight should be given to guilty pleas and the sentence reduced as a result of you sparing the victim of the ordeal of giving evidence and having to relive the circumstances and of having to live with the certainty as to whether he would be required to given evidence, and the long and protracted period that might have been had you pleaded not guilty, and in these COVID delays had to wait an even longer time for trial than people normally do.
48I also accept and take into account the added burden of imprisonment in these COVID times due to lockdowns and restrictions imposed to guard against the risk of spread of COVID in the prison system. And although management days are given for lockdown time I do not set that off against the added burden of imprisonment by reason of COVID.
49Accepting and giving full weight to these benefits of your guilty plea and to the burden of incarceration, I do not however consider your guilty pleas to be evidence of remorse. They do evidence acceptance of your legal responsibility and they get full credit for that. However, I accept Mr Coffey’s characterisation of your lack of empathy, lack of concern, and the minimising of the risk that you posed to others because of that delusional belief that you were protected. Having said I do not accept the guilty pleas as evidence of remorse. You are not punished for that and your sentences are not increased for that. All that means is there is an absence of one other feature which in other cases can lead to or would lead to a further reduction in the sentence.
50Consistently with what I have already said about the burden of imprisonment in these COVID times, I accept too that your time on remand has been more burdensome than otherwise it would be because of COVID restrictions and again I take that into account in arriving at the overall sentence.
51Mr Brown also relied on what he characterised as 'dead time' that is periods of remand, unrelated to this offending, which should be taken into account. Dead time is a strange concept. It is not intended to reward prisoners, that is give them a free pass to commit further offences, if they have spent time in custody which is not later consumed in a sentence for the offences for which they were remanded. But nonetheless, that law is that a subsequent sentence can, and generally should be reduced, without applying any strict mathematical formula of the sort that is applied to the proper calculation of pre-sentence detention referrable to the offences for which you are being sentenced. But dead time, it is said, can be taken into account and generally should be in a general sense if the time spent on remand for other charges has not been counted as part of a sentence for the offences for which you were remanded.
52I was told there are two separate components of dead time. The first is 75 days and dates back to late 2014 or early 2015.
53The second period is 339 days, left over after you were sentenced in October 2018, I was told, to a sentence which only took into account 250 days of a total of 589 days that you had spent on remand before those charges were finally dealt with in Sunshine Magistrates' Court. I have no evidence as to why it took so long for those later charges to be dealt with, or whether you had applied for bail and been refused during that time. Hence, it is difficult, without such knowledge, to know where, on that scale of taking into account in a general, but not mathematical sense, the dead time allowance should fall.
54Of real concern to me is whether any of the time from either of those two dead time periods was taken into account in subsequent sentencing hearings that you faced. There have been five sentencing hearings since the first period of 75 days dead time and there have been two subsequent sentencing hearings that you faced in relation to the 339 days.
55What is clear is that the amassing of two separate portions of dead time has not deterred you from further offending, let alone from committing further offences within months of release from a term of imprisonment shorter than the time spent on remand. Unfortunately, I was not referred to any statements or principle, or clear guidance as to how a sentencing judge in my position reconciles the no free pass principle with the general but not mathematical allowance for dead time.
56Absent such guidance, I am left with nothing other than an arbitrary picking of a percentage. I have determined, given the sorry evidence of your recidivism, and lack of motivation to change your ways, that I will make an allowance for 7 months, or approximately 50 per cent of the whole of the dead time, and reduce the sentence accordingly. For clarity, and ease of calculation, and pragmatical purposes I have reduced the sentence that I would have considered otherwise appropriate for the attempted aggravated carjack by six months and for the reckless conduct endangering serious injury by one month to take into account that dead time.
57The final matter to consider is the effect of imprisonment on your mental health. Again, I accept what Mr Coffey said,
'You have asked me to comment on how Mr Markovich might fare in custody. He expressed to me a pragmatic view of custody, maintaining that for him it is a time to recover from severe drug dependence. The forced abstinence imposed by custody has significantly improved
Mr Markovich’s mental health. In custody he eats and sleeps comparatively well, exercises, works and observes a daily routine. He has experienced extended imprisonment previously and told me he has learnt to adapt to the custodial environment. Alongside these positive outcomes must be considered Mr Markovich’s psychological vulnerability. He suffered a developmental disorder and his adulthood has been lived under the influence of polydrug abuse. He appears to be predisposed to experiencing psychotic episodes, at least when drug affected. In weighing up these competing considerations I conclude that owing to his mental disorder Mr Markovich’s time in custody will not be markedly more onerous than it would be for a person without psychological difficulties. However, in the event that he experiences significant stressors, such as extended periods of lockdown, or his mental health deteriorates to the point experienced soon after he was remanded, custody would become additionally burdensome for him'.
58In the circumstances, I do not consider the fifth or sixth limbs of Verdins[2] have been enlivened. But I take into account in a general sense in addition to addition to the added burden because of COVID, the risk that your mental health might deteriorate if there are extended periods of lockdown and you experience significant stressors.
[2] R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269.
59Synthesising these matters as best I can, I have fixed on sentences which in my view on their face do not in my view, looked at alone and without understanding these reasons, adequately reflect the objective gravity of the offending, balanced with what, in pre-COVID times, and without the allowance for dead time, would have been the proper weight to give to the mitigating factors operating in your favour. In other words, a post-COVID normal sentence is less than a pre-COVID normal sentence would have been and a COVID period sentence is less than a pre-COVID sentence would have been in your circumstances. The dead time factor also distorts the sentence, again making it lower than what otherwise might be thought to be the appropriate sentence reflecting the combination of the objective seriousness of the offence and the other mitigating factors to take into account.
60So balancing those matters as best I can I have arrived at the following sentences.
61Stefan Markovich, on all charges to which you have pleaded guilty you are convicted.
62On Charge 1, of theft, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 12 months.
63On Charge 2, of reckless conduct endangering serious injury, you are sentenced to be imprisoned to a period of two years and five months.
64On Charge 3, of attempted aggravated carjack, you are sentenced to be imprisoned to a period of four years.
65On Charge 4, of criminal damage, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of nine months.
66On related summary offence three, of fail to stop, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three months.
67On related summary offence five, of unlicensed driving, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three months.
68On related summary offence nine, of commit an indictable offence whilst on bail, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of one month.
69And on related summary offence 10, of contravene a conduct condition of bail, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of one month.
70I declare that Charge 3, of attempted carjack, is base sentence and I make the following partial or complete cumulation orders.
71On Charge 1, three months cumulative.
72On Charge 2, 11 months cumulative.
73Charge 4, three months cumulative.
74Related summary offence three, two months cumulative.
75Related summary offence five, one month cumulative.
76They are all partial cumulations. For related summary offences nine and 10 they are fully cumulative, that is the one month for each of those is cumulative.
77All of those partial or full cumulation orders are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence. That makes a total effective sentence of five years and 10 months, and I fix the period that you must serve before being eligible for parole at four years and four months.
78I declare pursuant to s6AAA that but for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you for a total effective sentence of nine years and nine months and I would have fixed a non-parole period of eight years.
79
What is the pre-sentence detention as of today but not counting today,
Ms McDonald?
80MS McDONALD: Your Honour, I have it at 247 days pre-sentence detention.
81HER HONOUR: Mr Brown, do you agree with that?
82MR BROWN: Yes, Your Honour.
83HER HONOUR: I declare that you have spent 247 days in pre-sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served.
84On Charge 1, of car theft and related summary offence three, of failing to stop, all licences held by you are cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any further licence for a period of 12 months.
85Now is it just a forfeiture order or is it disposal and forfeiture orders, Ms McDonald?
86MS McDONALD: Your Honour, I understand that there's a disposal and forfeiture order, as I understand it.
87HER HONOUR: Yes. All right, I make the disposal and forfeiture orders sought. There was no opposition to those, was there, Mr Brown?
88MR BROWN: No, Your Honour, provided it's the most recent forfeiture order that was filed after the plea last week, there's no opposition.
89HER HONOUR: Right, thank you. Now can I ask counsel to check the arithmetic, the calculation for the total effective sentence and the cumulation. And five years 10 months is the total effective sentence.
90MS McDONALD: Your Honour, sorry, was that directed at me, Your Honour.
91HER HONOUR: Both of you.
92MS McDONALD: Apologies. Your Honour, as I understand it on my calculations that appears to be correct.
93HER HONOUR: Mr Brown?
94MR BROWN: Yes, just looking at it now, Your Honour.
95HER HONOUR: Yes, all right.
96MR BROWN: Yes, that's correct.
97HER HONOUR: All right, thank you.
98MR BROWN: Thank you.
99HER HONOUR: Any further orders required?
100MS McDONALD: No, Your Honour.
101HER HONOUR: Thank you.
102MR BROWN: Thank you, as the court pleases.
103HER HONOUR: Thank you, in that case please adjourn.
- - -
0
4
0