Director of Public Prosecutions v Monks
[2013] VCC 1465
•27 September 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No CR-13-01042.
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| LEANNE MONKS |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMALLWOOD | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | ||
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 27 September 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Monks | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1465 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr N. Goodenough | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr G. Chisolm |
HIS HONOUR:
1 You can stay seated, Ms Monks.
2 Leanne Dawn Monks, you have pleaded guilty in respect of Indictment ending 661 to one count of damaging property and one charge of aggravated burglary. Those crimes carry maximum penalties of five years and 25 years respectively.
3 In regard to Indictment ending 144 you have pleaded guilty to one charge of common assault, two charges of threat to kill, one charge of recklessly causing serious injury, one charge of damaging property, one charge of recklessly causing injury, one charge of threat to destroy or damage property and one charge of possess a drug of dependence. On that charge, which carries a monetary penalty, you are simply convicted and discharged.
4 Those other crimes carry maximum penalties of five years, 10 years, 15 years, five years, five years and five years.
5 You have pleaded guilty at a reasonably early opportunity, and you are now 43 years of age. I accept that within your own capacities you have expressed appropriate remorse, and obviously in a situation such as this you must get the utilitarian benefit of that plea of guilty.
6 These matters started in the summary stream and were then uplifted, and I take that into account. You do have a very significant criminal history, and your counsel, and we are all fully aware of that. There are a number of incarcerations for dishonesty and for violence. The most significant of all those is that which I just discussed with your counsel.
7 In February of 2006 you were gaoled for a period of four years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and six months for intentionally causing serious injury. That crime, I am now informed took place with the use of a knife, and to get a sentence like that, it must obviously have been a serious crime. The prior history does not fill one with confidence in terms of prospects of rehabilitation.
8 The circumstances surrounding the offending, firstly in regard to what I will call the short indictment. On 25 March 2012 the victim was at her home. Also present in the house were two daughters, who were aged 11 and nine, together with two friends who were aged 11 and nine. They were sleeping on a mattress in the living room towards the front of the house. At about 2 am the victim heard a noise at the front door and she went outside to investigate. She saw walking towards her. She went back inside the house and locked the security door. She was looking through the security door and she saw you a couple of steps away holding a black-handled serrated steak knife in your right hand, and you were pointing it at her stomach level You said, "Open the fucking door, you're dead. Where's Mark?"
9 Mark is a man known to each of you, and I accept that there had been prior ill-feeling in regard to comments that he had made. You stabbed at the window and the security door and tried to open it. You picked up a round concrete paver. The victim at this stage yelled at the sleeping girls to go to the kitchen, which they did. You then threw the paver through the front side window causing it to smash, which gives rise, as I understand it, to the damage charge.
10 The victim yelled, "Please, Leanne, there are four little girls here. Please stop, I'm begging you, you're scaring them." Your reply was not heard. There is an answer in the record of interview which is ambiguous as to whether you were aware of the children being present or not, but in any event, as I pointed out to counsel, that is the risk you take when you commit an aggravated burglary, that there will be other people present.
11 You then put your arm through the broken window and opened the inner door. The victim kicked at your arm as it went through and returned through the hole holding the knife. You stabbed the knife towards the victim four or five times. You then took your arm out and put it back in through the hole without the knife and tried to open the internal door again. She managed to lock the door. You then reached through the hole with the knife and stabbed towards the victim a further three times, yelling, "I'm going to kill you." You smashed the large front window and a smaller front window, causing broken glass to enter the lounge room. She called 000 and police arrived soon afterwards.
12 You made admissions to being present but did not admit, as I understand it - well, you admitted to an aggravated burglary, we will simply leave it at that. The aggravated burglary charged being the finite charges based on Paragraph 11 of the Crown opening which is the arm through the window stabbing at the victim four or five times.
13 That is obviously serious offending, and I take into account your priors. Of course the application of general and specific deterrence in the normal course of events as well as punishment. In your particular situation it was submitted that public protection is a significant factor, and that has to be so.
14 The victim impact statement in relation to that matter describes the terror that that victim felt, having four small children in the house, and you with your arm through the door threatening to kill people waving a knife around. It is, in my view, a serious example of an aggravated burglary and the psychological sequelae that are described in that victim impact statement are hardly surprising.
15 The second matters occurred on 5 July 2013, and if I have not already mentioned it, it was March 2012 for the first indictment. You were at a pub in Dandenong, and there was then a series of incidents which occurred. What I will do is annex the Crown opening to these, my sentencing remarks, rather than have to go through it in great detail.
16 You went with others to your home. Your daughter, Page, was there just having been released from psychiatric care due to self harming. You knocked on the door and she answered it wearing a towel. You attacked her by grabbing her with one hand around the neck and pushing her down the corridor. She was knocked to the ground. She stood up again, and you grabbed her with both hands around the neck and started pushing her down the corridor. You slammed her into a tap in the bathroom and yelled, "I'm going to kill you." She punched you and ran. She ran from the house and got into her car, into the car in which she had recently arrived, and drove away. That gives rise to Charges 1 and 2.
17 As I have indicated to counsel, in that particular situation, with your prior history, they warrant custodial sentences, but because of the nature of the relationship between yourself and your daughter, those sentences will be wholly concurrent, and wholly concurrent with the other sentences that I impose.
18 The vehicle drove to Wanda Street. A short time later you arrived at that address carrying a bread knife. It was about 30 to 40 centimetres long with a serrated edge. You waved the knife and you swung the knife at one person called Barrett. You then stabbed Barrett in the right leg causing a serious injury. This injury required medical treatment including stitches. That gives rise to the recklessly cause serious injury charge and the threat charge, No. 3.
19 You walked away saying, "If I see that fucker Beau again, I'm going to slit his throat." Police arrived, but you had gone to another address. You then went to an address in Mulgrave where you banged on the window yelling, "I'm going to fucking kill you." A Jason Walsh and his father were home at that address. Jason Walsh is a friend of your daughter's. You smashed the front window of the house. Some pot plants had damaged the front door. You were on the porch screaming. Jason Walsh told you to "fuck off" and "The police are on the way." You said, "I don't care, call them, I don't give a fuck."
20 You then lunged with the bread knife towards Fraser Walsh, who was pulled by his son inside and shut the door. The door would not shut completely as you had the bread knife in your hand which was stuck in the door. When you removed the knife Jason Walsh was able to shut the door completely. During that he received cuts to his fingers from the knife. You kept banging on the door for a time and then went away.
21 Soon after that, police arrived and you were taken to Monash Medical Centre due to injuries to your hands, and for psychiatric assessment. In any event, you were released later that night, and you then left a message for a Mr - I am assuming it is a Mr - (indistinct) Black on a mobile phone, saying that you wanted certain things or petrol bombs would be thrown. Those matters give rise to the remaining charges on that indictment. You were found with a small amount of cannabis, and I have already dealt with that.
22 There are no victim impact statements in relation to those matters, but again, they have to be regarded as serious, and in the normal course of events, general and specific deterrence play a part, as well as appropriate punishment and public protection. A significant gaol sentence is inevitable.
23 I note that your daughter was in court supporting you at the time that the plea was being made. Tendered on your behalf were a number of documents, and I think in this particular situation, I do not need to go through those in great detail. You are no stranger to the system. The most important of the documents, and obviously I have read them all, a report from a Dr Patel from March 2004, a report from Dr Danny Sullivan, the psychiatric, from September of this year, and a report from your psychologist, a Mr Pancenko, from March of this year. I do not think any useful purpose is performed by, for a person in your situation, sitting there yet again hearing your dreadful childhood outlined in public. I have no doubt that the matters that occurred to you as a child and in your later teen years are matters which have dreadfully affected you throughout your life; there is no doubt about that at all. Suffice to say this: you were abused by parents. You were the youngest, as I understand it, of eight siblings, the other seven being brothers. You were sexually abused between the ages of five and 12 by one of your brothers until you were old enough to fight back. Your mother and father both drank. By the age of 13 onwards you were using amphetamine and alcohol. You were using marijuana from the age of 12 and had used that for extended periods of time. I understand that you were able to give up the amphetamine use when you were about 33, which is now about 10 years ago. You have children; one child having died of cot death. You have three others. Your daughter, Page, supports you. One of your children is undergoing a sentence for defensive homicide for killing one of your brothers. I accept that the situation is that he will be eligible for parole later next year.
24 You have a Department of Housing house. That is going to be transferred, if possible, and I cannot see why it could not be, to your daughter, and it will also be somewhere for your son to live when he is released.
25 You have had periods where you have been able to abstain from alcohol and drugs, and I again accept that after the incident involving, or certainly the sentencing involving your son you lapsed back into the unfortunate pattern that has existed for years.
26 You are literate. Looking at the history, you have not had much of a chance. You were pregnant at 15; you were pregnant again at 17. You would appear to have been in basically abusive relationships. You went to Tasmania at one stage and endeavoured to support yourself, and resorted to prostitution. You have been able to work on many occasions and able to perform, and take some pride, I gather from this, in manual type of work.
27 Insofar as your mental condition is concerned, I accept the submissions of your counsel insofar as the principles of Verdins are concerned to a certain extent.
28 The report of Dr Patel still has weight even though it is 10 years old. I have no doubt that you suffer from depression and that depression is increased when you are in custody. On the other hand, it is getting to a stage where there must be a significant degree of institutionalisation involved in all this.
29 Dr Danny Sullivan also goes through your history, and as I said, I direct that these reports remain on file so that anyone with a genuine interest can go through that history, and as I said, I do not think anything is achieved by doing that sort of thing in public.
30 He points out that in 2006 for a period of time you were sent to Thomas Embling and you were then diagnosed with adjustment disorder, substance dependence, an unspecified psychosis and an anti-social personality disorder. In the end, his view is that it is a mixed personality disorder with anti-social and borderline elements. He points out that you do have a past history of post-traumatic stress disorder, although there is no information available supporting that diagnosis, and I say this, that on the balance of probabilities, with your childhood and what has occurred to you in terms of sexual abuse and other abuse in the way that you have had to live your lifestyle, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that the odds are that you do have at least significant symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and I take that into account. He described you as "remarkably resilient" given the traumatic experiences that you had in your childhood. I do not know how resilient it is when you have had to live the life that you have lived and the amount of custody that you have done and the general experiences that you have had to go through. He says he does not think that you satisfy that diagnosis, but as I said, I think on the balance of probabilities, I do. You have no cognitive impairment.
31 He said at the time of the alleged offending, it appears that a combination of intoxication and personality disorder was associated with your behaviour. It is not possible to separate these out. "Personality disorder predisposes her to belligerent and disproportionate responses and intoxication constrains her limited capacity to calm herself and consider alternative choices of response. Thus her judgment was impaired. She could not think clearly or make calm and rational choices, and there was a causal association between personality and substance use which was associated with the offending. She was disinhibited, likely through intoxication, rather than personality disorder."
32 This sort of situation is really difficult, and I appreciate the discussion that took place with your counsel the other day. There is clearly a history where, when you drink, this sort of violence occurs. I can understand, and I do make allowance for the Verdins aspect of that, of disinhibition and the difficulty that you had, but what has to be balanced against that Is the concept of public protection. It is a very difficult balancing exercise.
33 In the end I think that the appropriate sentences are within the Crown range but the bottom end of it because of those Verdins principles. It will be a matter for the Parole Board as to when they release you. You will have accommodation to go to. Hopefully there will be psychological and psychiatric treatment available to you.
34 Insofar as Mr Pancenko is concerned, I think it is important to read in the opinion that was given, as that was done slightly or not long prior to this last lot of offending. What he said was - and I take this into account obviously - "Psychologically Leanne has presented with symptoms of post-traumatic stress which include panic attacks. These symptoms have been untreated and long standing. It is to Leanne's credit that she is seeking treatment both therapeutically and psychopharmaceutically to treat the symptoms of post-traumatic stress. Leanne also has feelings of detachment from others and restricted range of effect. Restricted range of effect has been manifest in this depression, and experiencing difficulties sleeping and social withdrawal and panic attacks." He goes on to say that you have been treated for post-traumatic disorder and have expressed remorse. There are other people that you have expressed remorse to that have indicated it, and I accept that. He points out that lived a lot of your adult life in a state of powerlessness. That is probably a very, very accurate description.
35 The prospects of your rehabilitation obviously have to be guarded; it is really a matter for you and the Parole Board, I think. The risk of reoffending if you drink is going to be 100 per cent, I would say, and then it is going to end like this again. The real risk from your point of view and your daughter's point of view is - and you know this yourself - if you do not do something about it, you will end up killing somebody.
36 However, a most extremely unfortunate situation. All I can do is impose a sentence which I consider just in all the circumstances and I say this, I have had most helpful submissions from your counsel and also from the Crown.
37 On the short indictment, on the charge of criminal damage, three months. On the charge of aggravated burglary, 36 months, one month of the three months to be served cumulatively on the 36 months. On that indictment, there is therefore a sentence of 37 months.
38 On the second indictment, on the charge of assault, three months; threat to kill, six months. Those are to be served concurrently with each other and with the other sentences to be passed as they relate to your daughter.
39 Charge 3 of threat to kill, six months; Charge 4 of recklessly cause serious injury, 36 months; Charge 5, damage property, three months; Charge 6, reckless endangerment, six months; Charge 7, threat to damage property, three months.
40 I direct that three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3, one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 5, three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 6 and one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 7 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence imposed upon Charge 4. On my calculation that gives an effective sentence on that indictment of 44 months.
41 Are you okay with that, Mr Goodenough?
42 MR GOODENOUGH: Yes, Your Honour.
43 HIS HONOUR: I direct that 16 months of the sentence imposed upon the short indictment be served cumulatively, or in other words, 21 months concurrently on the effective sentence imposed on the longer indictment. That gives an overall head sentence of 60 months.
44 In all the circumstances and having heard the submissions of your counsel, even though I suspect this might have been done before, I am prepared to give you a longer opportunity for parole than might otherwise be the case. But as I said, public protection has to play a part. Accordingly, I direct that you serve a minimum term of three years before becoming eligible for parole, and I direct that 83 days be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.
45 So that you fully appreciate the benefit that you have received from pleading guilty to these matters and resolving them, as opposed to having been convicted by a jury, I say this: Whilst it is very difficult with two indictments, gentlemen, with the s.6AAA, the overall end result would have been seven and a half with a five.
46 No other orders that have to be made?
47 MR GOODENOUGH: No, Your Honour, I think Your Honour has already made the disposal orders.
48 HIS HONOUR: Yes, I did.
49 MR GOODENOUGH: So there's no other orders sought.
- - -
0