Director of Public Prosecutions v Moore
[2012] VCC 757
•12 June 2012
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-11-00418
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| GRANT MOORE |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE COTTERELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 5 June 2012 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 12 June 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Moore | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 757 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms C. Picone | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr B. Malliek | Chris McLennan & Co |
HER HONOUR:
1 Grant Timothy Moore, you have pleaded guilty before me to one charge of attempted armed robbery. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment. You further pleaded guilty to one charge of recklessly causing serious injury. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment.
2 The facts of the matter were opened by the prosecution and a summary of the prosecution opening was tendered as Exhibit A on the plea.
3 On Monday 25 May 2009, the victim in this matter, Baljinder Singh, had just left the Carnegie Railway Station. As he walked in the darkened street, you and Jesse Donnachie was standing somewhere in the dark. One of you called out to Mr Singh and he went towards you. He could see that you were armed. You asked Mr Singh for money. He began searching through his bag and said something like, "I'll give you all the money, just please don't kill me".
4 You both held your weapons towards Mr Singh and your co-accused, Donnachie, stabbed him to the abdomen. Further attempts were made to stab Mr Singh as he fell.
5 You left him on the ground and his cries were heard by a Navdeep and Amandeep Singh who went to his assistance. Amandeep Singh called 000 and as he was making the call he saw two men going back towards the railway station.
6 Mr Singh was taken by ambulance to hospital. He received a serious injury, being a cut to the wall of tissue which contained his internal organs. The cut was one to two centimetres in length. However, there was no actual damage done to any of his organs so he would make a physical recovery.
7 A police tracker dog located a knife and long screwdriver stuck in the ground less than a kilometre away. Testing of those weapons indicated there was strong evidence that your DNA was the knife blade and weaker evidence that the handle of the screwdriver also had your DNA upon it. It is accepted that you were armed with the screwdriver and your co-accused had the knife.
8 You were arrested on 30 October 2009. You were interviewed and you admitted being in the vicinity of the events but denied any involvement in the armed robbery of an Indian man.
9 This is clearly very serious offending against a soft target. Mr Singh was stabbed in an act of gratuitous violence by your co-accused, Mr Donnachie, despite the fact that he was co-operative and made no attempt to escape.
10 Mr Singh made no victim impact statement but I accept that such a violent unprovoked incident would have a serious effect on him in addition to the physical injury that he received.
11 You have a criminal record and your most recent offending before this episode was dealt with at the Moorabbin Magistrates' Court on 19 January 2009. You were sentenced to an aggregate of four months imprisonment, partially suspended in relation to recklessly causing injury, criminal damage and failure to answer bail. These offences occurred in the context of a domestic dispute. You were ordered to serve one month immediately and the further three months were suspended. I note that this offending breaches that suspended sentence for which you will be dealt with in the future by the Magistrates' Court.
12 On 19 January 2009, you were dealt with again by the Moorabbin Magistrates' Court for failure to comply with a Community Based Order which had been imposed on 29 January 2008. You were re-sentenced in relation to the offences and received an aggregate of three months imprisonment, wholly suspended for 12 months, together with fines for lesser offending.
13 That Community Based Order had been imposed by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 29 January 2008 for various minor matters which included; resist police, criminal damage with intent to damage or destroy, and theft from a shop. It would appear there were numerous charges of criminal damage and damage to property and the lengthy Community Based Order was clearly designed to assist you in your rehabilitation but unfortunately you failed to take that opportunity.
14 You then had two very minor matters in 2003 and 2005, and beyond that, your offending was dealt with in the Melbourne Children's Court for matters such as burglary and theft and graffiti. I understand some of the later criminal damage matters also involved graffiti. Nothing in your record would indicate the significant increase in the scale of your offending to the extent that you face the charges, which are brought to you before the court today.
15 These offences, for which I am to sentence you, are now three years old. There was delay involved in the investigation and DNA analysis, which was not your fault. You were eventually charged 15 months after the offending occurred.
16 However, further delay can be attributed to you as you failed to appear in relation to this matter on 24 May 2011. A warrant was executed and you were back before this court on 16 June 2011. You were remanded in custody and have remained there some 14 months. You will be credited with the time served, with the exception of four and a half months during which time you served two minor sentences. However, the time that you have spent in custody will certainly be taken into account in your sentence and I take into account the principle of totality when I impose the sentence, which I will impose at the end of these remarks.
17 Your personal history is one of an unhappy upbringing and difficult family relationships. You are the only child of your parents, however, they were not in a relationship when you were conceived and born and you did not meet your natural father until you were 18. You have, as I understand it, no relationship with him at the present time.
18 Your mother re-partnered and your step-father was a difficult and violent man. Your mother suffered from very serious depression after the death of her own mother and that depression involved substance abuse.
19 You have two step-siblings, a sister of 16, who has been in trouble with the law, and a step-brother who has not been involved in criminal activity.
20 Your mother's substance abuse affected your education and resulted in you leaving school at Year 7. You began abusing alcohol at that time. Although you have been employed occasionally, you too have suffered from depression and you are currently on anti-depressant medication.
21 You have became a yard billet at the Metropolitan Remand Centre and during your time on remand, you completed a certificate with Community Corrections for work readiness training. Tendered together with the certificate and evidence of your status as a yard billet is a list of urine analysis test results, including random tests which are negative or indicate that you are on medication, except for one incident which says that you refused to take a test.
22 I also note that you have had a very isolated time in prison, in that you have no ongoing relationship with your mother or step-father and have received no visits during that time.
23 Your co-accused in this matter, Jesse James Donnachie, was sentenced in relation to another matter which occurred within two days of these events, which bring you before the court today. In a report dated 23 May 2010, Dr Adam Deakin stated that Mr Donnachie had a confirmed diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia, characterised by psychotic symptoms together with cognitive impairment and a past history of polysubstance use which, and I quote, "coarsened the psychotic condition".
24 It was conceded, at the time he was sentenced for that other matter, that he had acute paranoid schizophrenia which I have no doubt applied to him at the time which he committed the offence for which you are facing the court today.
25 At the time of his sentence, the principles in Verdins case were applied in relation to him. You on the other hand, do not have any such condition which would invoke the application of those principles in the reduction of your sentence. However, I note that although you were acting in concert with Mr Donnachie and must, therefore, take responsible for taking part in that armed robbery involving Mr Singh, it was Mr Donnachie who actually inflicted the injury to Mr Singh in circumstances where there was no resistance. As I mentioned earlier, it appears to be a completely gratuitous act of violence. I take into account that Mr Donnachie inflicted that injury while being psychotic and I do take that matter into account in sentencing you as you played a lesser role in the offending.
26 I must also take into account the principle of parity: that is, that like offending should receive like punishment. I do that whilst adjusting the difficulties in relation to the condition of Mr Donnachie at the time, being a mental condition, and also due to the difference in your ages. It is not possible for you to receive youth detention and I do note that although Mr Donnachie was sentenced to youth detention, he was sentenced to the maximum period that one could impose for that type of sentence. Further, he has completed the time he was required to serve, which was some 18 months and has been released for some time.
27 I now turn to the other matters that I am required to take into account. I take into account the seriousness of this offending. This is a situation where a completely innocent person going about their own business was attacked in this way in an attempt to rob him and he received a serious injury. It was a senseless, gratuitous act of violence and he did nothing whatsoever to provoke it, and offered no resistance at all.
28 I further take into account the principle of general deterrence: that is, that others who would go about inflicting violence and injury in order to rob people must understand that there are serious consequences which flow from such behaviour.
29 Further, I take into account the requirement that you, yourself, must be deterred from behaving in this way again and it is to be hoped that the lengthy time you have already passed in custody and the sentence that I will impose will deter you from participating in such offending again.
30 I am required to denounce your conduct on behalf of the community and I do so. It is unthinkable that a person cannot walk from a railway station without being attacked in the way Mr Singh was by you and Mr Donnachie. It is a terrible indictment on our society and the culture of violence among young men which is so prevalent and I denounce that behaviour absolutely.
31 I am also required to impose just punishment in all the circumstances. I need to balance all the matters that have been put in mitigation on your behalf, against the seriousness of this offending. I also take into account the sentence imposed on your co-offender and in doing so, it is clear that for offending of this type the only appropriate penalty is a term of imprisonment. I therefore sentence you, noting that you have not received a sentence for any serious violence before.
32 I further note that you have served four months of your time in custody in relation to a suspended sentence. I have taken that into account in applying the principle of totality to your sentence because you do not have any availability or any possibility of any consideration of concurrence between that sentence and the one that you have been serving and will be serving now.
33 I am going to ask you now to stand.
34 On Charge 1, attempted armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment.
35 On Charge 2, recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment.
36 I order that nine months of that sentence, imposed in Charge 2, is to be served cumulatively on the sentence in Charge 1.
37 That is a total effective sentence of three years imprisonment. I order that you serve 17 months before being eligible for parole.
38 I order that the 444 days of pre-sentence detention, that you have served, be deemed time served and that the orders of the court reflect that.
39 I further declare that pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to four years imprisonment with a minimum of two years to serve before being eligible for parole. I am giving you a longer period of parole, because I note that you are still a young man and it is in your interests and the interests of the community that you be released under supervision and that you be given some opportunity to assist you to rehabilitate. I am hoping that parole will allow you that.
40 Further, I make a retention order in relation to a mouth scraping that you gave during the investigation of this matter. I am making that order on the basis of the seriousness of the circumstances of your offending, your prior convictions, the fact that the order is not opposed and the granting of the order is in the public interest.
41 I also make a disposal order, and that is, that items referred to in the schedule, namely the orange handled flathead screwdriver and the black handled knife be forfeited and disposed of.
42 Those are the orders. Do you understand the sentence?
43 PRISONER: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you, Your Honour.
44 HER HONOUR: You have capability and you will be able to be a useful member of the community when you are released on parole.
45 MR MALLIEK: Thank you, Your Honour.
46 HER HONOUR: Thank you.
- - -
0
0
0