Director of Public Prosecutions v Mizzi

[2023] VCC 1116

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 22-02052

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

PARIS MIZZI

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LYON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 June 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 June 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Mizzi
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 1116

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  Criminal Law

Catchwords:

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:  DPP v Finn [2019] VCC 891

Sentence:  57 months imprisonment; non parole period of 38 months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms E. Failla	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Weinman	David Tamanika & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

1Paris Mizzi, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges which carry the following maximum penalties:

Charge No.	Offence	Maximum Penalty
1	Arson contrary to s 197 Crimes Act 1958	15 years imprisonment
Related Summary Charge 1	Unlicensed driving contrary to s 18(1)(a) Road Safety Act 1986	6 months imprisonment or 60 penalty units
Related Summary Charge 3	Failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident contrary to s 61(1)(b) Road Safety Act 1986	14 days imprisonment or 5 penalty units
Related Summary Charge 4	Make false report to police contrary to s 53(1) Summary Offences Act 1966	1 year imprisonment or 120 penalty units

2You have admitted your prior criminal history, which is relevant to the sentencing consideration in this case. I shall say more about it later in these remarks.

Circumstances of Offending

3The Crown tendered the summary of prosecution opening as Exhibit A. A summary of your offending is as follows:

4On 22 February 2022 your car was observed by police driving through the Ballarat area. You were driving the car and you evaded police interception. You were not the holder of a valid driver's licence at the time (Summary charge 1 of unlicensed driving).

5A short time later whilst you were still driving, you collided with another car. You fled the scene, leaving your car at the collision site. You failed to render assistance after the accident (Summary charge 3).

6When you were later spoken to by police, you falsely told police that your car had been stolen at a time earlier than the collision (Summary charge 4).

7Your car was towed to a car yard to be held for evidentiary purposes.

8You attended with an unidentified male at the car yard later that afternoon. You requested the return of your wallet from an employee. You were told that you would not be permitted access to your car without police authority. You stated that they would 'pay' for this.

9You returned to the car yard on 23 February at approximately 4.30 am. You were captured on CCTV footage. You took items from the car and then used accelerant to set fire to it (Charge 1 of arson).

10The fire spread to other parts of the shed and caused in excess of $2m damage to the building, cars and business.

11You were arrested on 15 April 2022 and made an no comment record of interview. You were remanded in custody and you have now spent 439 days on remand by way of presentence detention. I will reckon that period as already served

Objective Gravity and Moral Culpability 

12I now turn to a consideration of the objective gravity of your offending and an assessment of your moral culpability. 

13The crime of arson carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment, which indicates how seriously it is taken by Parliament.

14In this instance, the following factors must be taken into account:

a)Your offending appears motivated by the desire to retrieve your wallet and to cover that fact by destroying the car. This goes to the false statement that you made to the police about the car being stolen;

b)Your offending was premeditated and planned over the 12 hour period since you previously attended at the yard to retrieve your wallet;

c)You attended the yard in the company of another person;

d)You used accelerant to start the fire; and

e)The fire caused in excess of $2m damage.

15I note that the fire was started in the middle of the night with no one around, in a commercial premises. Fortunately, the fire did not spread to neighbouring properties.

16I take into account the devastating effect that your actions have had on the business owner. The consequences of your actions go well beyond the financial cost to the victim of your callous act.

17Your offending must be met by principles of general and specific deterrence, just punishment and a measure of protection of the community.

Personal Circumstances

18You are 33 years old, being born in March 1990.

19You were born and raised in Victoria, residing with your mother, father and great aunt at various points in your childhood.

20You have one older sister, one younger half-sister and one younger half-brother.

21Your family history can be described as turbulent.  You felt neglected by your father; and your mother was good but was more of a friend than a mother. Both your parents used drugs, and you describe being surrounded by drugs for most of your upbringing.

22You yourself began using cannabis regularly from the age of 12, until you were 21.

23You completed Year 8 education at Mount Clear Secondary School. You report that you struggled with learning at school.

24After leaving your mother's home at age 15, you resided with your then-girlfriend and her parents. Your counsel submitted that this was the only period of stability in your childhood. This relationship lasted eight years and ended at the age of 22 when your partner committed suicide. You describe your life being on a 'downward spiral' from then on.

25After the death of your partner, you commenced a five-year relationship in 2012. You have two children from this relationship aged 6 and 7 and another child with a more recent ex-partner aged 3. You recommenced developing a relationship with your children after being paroled in 2019.

26You commenced using methylamphetamine following the death of your partner. You ceased using in 2019 during your parole and later relapsed in 2021, when you began using substantial amounts of methylamphetamine, GHB and cocaine.

27You have an extensive criminal record dating back to November 2013. On  May 2018, you were sentenced for a large number of dishonesty, drug, dangerous and reckless driving offences, a bail offence and resisting and assaulting an emergency worker. You were sentenced to a period of imprisonment of three years with two years to serve. Although you successfully completed the parole period, this offending occurred within a relatively short time of the completion of that parole time.

28Nevertheless, during this time you have maintained a number of periods of full-time employment working as a labourer, and most recently being employed as a plasterer prior to being imprisoned again.

29You are now currently supported by your partner, with whom you were living at the time of this offending.

Report of Doctor Aaron Cunningham

30I have read the report of Dr Aaron Cunningham, psychologist dated 15 May 2023. Dr Cunningham carefully reviewed your upbringing and medical history.

31Dr Cunningham concludes that you present with PTSD precipitated by the death of your partner. Dr Cunningham reported a significant deterioration in your mental state after this event and states that your trauma has been exacerbated by having not engaged in suitable treatment from professionals.

32Dr Cunningham further opines that your substance abuse is the main contributor to your offending behaviour; and that your PTSD and underlying personality problems increase the risk of reckless, self-destructive and antisocial behaviour, with the risk increasing significantly when you are drug and alcohol affected.

33Dr Cunningham concludes that ceasing all drug and alcohol abuse would be the main factor in reducing your risk of re-offending, and treating your trauma and underlying personality problems through mental health interventions in a community setting would also reduce the risk of drug abuse as a form of escape.

Sentencing Submissions and Analysis

34Mr Weinman who appeared on your behalf submitted that the following factors should operate to mitigate your sentence:

a)The plea of guilty has a utilitarian benefit, and was made during the COVID pandemic. Both factors should operate to mitigate your sentence;

b)He submitted that although the objective seriousness of your offending was conceded, it was not alleged that the property was occupied at the time of the fire, or that your offending was sophisticated. No neighbouring properties were damaged and you were readily identified as the culprit;

c)He submitted you have some prospect for rehabilitation with some support from your partner and contributing to this;

d)You have a reasonable work history and you were last employed as a plasterer;

e)He submitted the sentence must take into account Dr Cunningham's report and your diagnosis of PTSD developed in part by your traumatic childhood and exacerbated by your previous partner's death; and

f)Finally, Mr Weinman in all, submits that you have some prospect for your rehabilitation.

35I will address the question of your prospects for rehabilitation separately; but I otherwise generally agree with the submissions made on your behalf.

36Mr Cookson who appeared for the Crown submitted that the only appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and non-parole period.

37The Crown submits, like Dr Cunningham, (and I have arrived at the same conclusion) – that your prospects for rehabilitation are almost entirely predicated upon you addressing your drug issues.  Whilst Mr Weinman submitted that you successfully completed a period of parole, Mr Cookson pointed out that you offended soon after completing that period of parole. Unless you address those issues with purpose and determination, I consider that your prospects for rehabilitation will be bleak. However, it is apparent that you have some support, you some work ethic and you have some determination to comply with at least parole when you put your mind to it.

38The Crown provided me with a number of comparable cases. I have considered the cases provided by the Crown. In the end I must not be overly influenced by sentences imposed in other cases.  Of those provided, I consider the case of Finn[1] to be of the most assistance.  As I stated at the time of ruling on the Sentence Indication Hearing, I arrived at a sentence independent of, but similar to that in Finn, notwithstanding the differences between your personal circumstances and those of the applicant in Finn.

[1] DPP v Finn [2019] VCC 891.

39As I stated on the sentence indication hearing and at the plea hearing, I do not intend to exceed the sentence indication I gave on 31 May 2023. I note that Mr Cookson did not have any specific submissions to make in relation to the indication I gave.

Orders

40Accordingly, Mr Mizzi, the orders I make are as follows:

41On the charge of arson, you are convicted and sentenced to 55 months imprisonment.

42On the charge of unlicensed driving you are convicted and sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment and I make 1 month of that sentence cumulative, taking it up to 56;

43On the charge of failing to render assistance you are convicted and sentenced to 5 days' imprisonment to be served concurrently with all other sentences;

44On the charge of making a false report to police you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment and I make 1 month of that sentence cumulative.

45That brings you up to a total effective sentence of 57 months.  I order that you serve a non-parole period of 39 months before you are eligible for parole.

46I reckon the period of 439 days pre-sentence detention, excluding today, reckoned as already served.

47The 6AAA indication - which is the indication that if you had not pleaded guilty the sort of sentence you would have been looking at - I would have imposed a sentence of 6 and a half years with 4 years to serve.

…

48HIS HONOUR:  All right, thank you, we will adjourn now.

49COUNSEL:  Thank you, as the court pleases.

‑ ‑ ‑