Director of Public Prosecutions v O'Loughlin
[2023] VCC 1740
•22 September 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Suitable for Publication | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 22-02436
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PATRICK O'LOUGHLIN |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE CHETTLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 September 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 22 September 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v O'Loughlin | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1740 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE
Catchwords: Sentencing – recklessly expose police officer risk - driving - plea of guilty
Legislation Cited: 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited: Bugmy V R (2013) 302 ALR 192
Sentence:Imprisonment – Total Effective Sentence – aggregate sentence of 12 months
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms D. Caruso | Ms J. Carpenter, Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Defendant | Ms E. Allan | Mr H. Middleton, Martin, Middleton, Oates Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Patrick O'Loughlin, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of recklessly exposing a police officer to risk by driving, three related summary offences of driving while disqualified.
2
You have admitted a prior criminal record which is at this stage fairly minor. Significantly, it was less than a month after you were disqualified in Mildura for a number of traffic offences. You have re-offended and you have a prior in Berry, South Australia, for assaulting a police officer, by the sound of it.
But other than that you have a minimal, you have no real prior history.
3 The facts of your offending are set out in Exhibit A of the prosecution summary, which was read to you this morning. I do not intend to dwell on it, other than to say that in September last year, you were observed driving around the Mildura area lairising. You were driving on a number of occasions when you should not have been and you were disqualified.
4 On 28 September, police officers sought to apprehend you out in 16th Street and you drove the car erratically into the police vehicle that was trying to apprehend you, hitting it in the side, thereby imperilling the two police officers inside.
5 That collision was low level. The risk to the two police officers seems to me to be low level and for the reasons I have discussed with your counsel, I think this is a low-level example of this offence.
6 Having said that it is a serious offence. It carries a 10-year maximum penalty, and you cannot imperil police officers. If you do it again with your prior history you will be receiving a substantial term of imprisonment.
7 Your personal history is set out in the submissions of your counsel and as I said, I accept that there are a number of factors that mitigate your offending.
8 You have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. By pleading guilty you have spared the community the time and expense of a criminal trial and the police officers and other witnesses the need to give evidence.
9 That plea of guilty has a greater value because of the effect that COVID-19 has had upon our justice system. You have facilitated the course of justice and are entitled to a greater reduction in sentence as a result.
10 Your counsel sets out your personal history and background, which I think does establish that the principles in Bugmy[1] are enlivened in your case. You came from a background that was severely deprived. It does not surprise me that you are in the position you are in. I think really the effect of Bugmy is it explains you really had little option in your life, to end up where you have.
[1] Bugmy V R (2013) 302 ALR 192
11 That said, you have limited prior trouble with the police. You have only been in trouble with the police on a few occasions, and it is up to you whether you, in fact, learn from the experience you have in the last 12 months.
12 If you re-offend with your history now you will go to gaol for a substantial period of time. If you decide to get a job, spend time with your family and stop lairising in motor cars you will have some prospects for your future.
13 I regard your prospects for rehabilitation as reasonable. You are still relatively young and you can learn from this experience. You hopefully are at an age now where you are developing consequential logic. Young men have no idea of the risks they pose when they behave in the way you did. But you are now getting longer in the tooth and hopefully have developed some consequential reasoning.
14 Accordingly, I have read the report from Christine Kennedy, in relation to your background. It establishes the matters which I say show you have had that deprived background enlivening the principles in Bugmy.
15 You have made good use of your time in gaol. I have got the certificates that demonstrate you have worked whilst you have been in custody and hopefully you continue to work when you are released from custody.
16 In my view, a term of imprisonment is appropriate. Although there is a presumption of cumulation, the two charges rely entirely upon the one course of conduct, the one act of driving the vehicle into the police car, imperilling both officers at the same time. And in my view, it is appropriate to make both sentences that I impose concurrent.
17 So, nothing other than a term of imprisonment is appropriate in my view to reflect the need to deter others from behaving as you did and to ensure just punishment and specific deterrence for you.
18 On the two charges of recklessly expose a police officer to risk by driving you are sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on each charge. I order that they be served concurrently.
19 On the three related summary offences of driving while disqualified you are sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of three months, and I order that that sentence be served concurrently with the other sentences imposed in this case.
20
That is an effective term of imprisonment of 12 months and I declare that
359 days of that sentence has already been served by way of pre-sentence detention.
21
I indicate pursuant to 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a term of imprisonment of two years with a
non-parole period of 18 months.
22 There are no other ancillary orders required?
23 MS CARUSO: No, Your Honour.
24 MS ALLAN: As Your Honour pleases.
25 HIS HONOUR: All right. Mr O'Loughlin, that means you will probably be released within a week.
26 OFFENDER: Thank you, Your Honour.
27 HIS HONOUR: All right. I wish you well. I will terminate the links.
28 OFFENDER: Thank you.
- - -
0