Director of Public Prosecutions v Paulet

[2018] VCC 1861

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

(Not) Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Case No. CR 17-01989

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

V

SCOTT PAULET

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMALLWOOD
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 November 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Paulet
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VCC 1861

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Catchwords:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms J. McDonnell	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms M. Altman	Lethbridges

HIS HONOUR:

1       Scott Paulet, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary, one charge of theft and one charge of criminal damage.  Those crimes carry maximum penalties of 25 years, 10 years and 10 years respectively.

2       You pleaded guilty at an early opportunity and you are still only 27 years of age.  The offending happened in December of 2016 which is now some two years ago.  Albeit a significant part of that time was taken up with me deferring sentence to see how you went.  You must get the benefit of that plea of guilty in terms of remorse and also of course the utilitarian aspects of it. 

3       So far as prior convictions are concerned, you do have a significant number of prior convictions over a significant period of time.  You have done short gaol sentences before.  You are currently on a Community Corrections Order in the Magistrates' Court for very similar offending to this, indeed as I recall it is the same victim.  And you are to be breached for that.

4       Those matters I will take into account in terms of totality.

5       The circumstances of the offending were that you attended at premises looking for a Mr Shane Easton.  You have known him all your life and the friendship had fallen apart over drugs.  In December of 2016, Mr Doyle and Ms Sweet were sitting on their back patio when you came to the house.  There were two children in the house at the time.  You were looking for Mr Easton who was not present at the house at that time.  You went into the kitchen carrying a knife, Mr Doyle had not seen you before, he took the view that you were either drug affected or mentally unwell.  You asked to see Shane and you told the male your name.  There was then a dispute between you and Mr Doyle and it was at that point that it was noticed that you were holding the knife behind your back.  That gives rise obviously to aggravated burglary.

6       Mr Doyle closed a glass sliding door between himself and yourself, and you lunged at him with the knife hitting the glass door a number of times.  That gives rise to a summary charge of assault with a weapon.

7       The female there believed you were going to stab Mr Doyle and yelled for help.  One of the children at least saw you and recognised you and then hid in the bedroom.  You then left the house and exited via the front door. 

8       My recollection tells me that the CCTV said this whole incident only took about three minutes, so it was not a long one.

9       It does however have to be regarded as serious.  It is an aggravated burglary in frightening circumstances where children were present albeit for a short period of time.  I am well aware of the authorities in regard to all this sort of offending though each case depends very much on its own circumstances. 

10      I have read the victim impact statements of the people who were present in the house when you attended, and quite clearly it had a very frightening effect upon them.

11      General and specific deterrence have to play a part in the sentencing process as well as denunciation and appropriate punishment.  The usual sentence involving offending such as this is active custodial and that will be the situation here.  When I first heard the plea back on 31 May of this year, your counsel was submitting that a combination sentence was open, and the Crown were at that stage agreeing with that proposition.  I had some doubts about it all and it was in those circumstances it was adjourned for six months to see whether you were able to remain on the straight and narrow.  At that point in time you had not offended for something in the order of a year again as I recall it. 

12      Within a fortnight of me adjourning the matter it is clear that you offended in a fairly petty, if that word still has any place in the legal dictionary, way, involving motor vehicles and you were remanded for a couple of days in Morwell because of your exceptional circumstances.  And there is a shoplift involved and as I say pretty petty sort of offending, but nevertheless occurring within a week of me putting you on your "parole". 

13      The situation now is that you have breached your Magistrates' Court Community Corrections Order and they will be proceeding with that breach.  Your counsel on instructions has put that you wish to be given just a simple straight sentence that would fit within the sentences that apply to combination sentences, and I think that is the appropriate disposition.

14      At the time I was given materials in relation to you which were really quite encouraging.  I do not have an up to date corrections report so far as the CCO is concerned, but back at the time when I was sentencing you, they took the view that you were doing quite well.  In fact you had been bailed on a CISP bail and had done very well in respect of that.  The report from them back in October of 2017 said that you were being very positive and that you were doing whatever you could to rehabilitate.

15      The circumstances in this case are relatively unusual and the Crown position is that a combination is still technically open, but it seems to me a straight sentence is the appropriate way to go within that concept.  Clearly the magistrate is not going to simply let you go in respect of that other offending so I bear totality in mind.  The prospects of your rehabilitation are up to you, the risk of you re-offending has to be at least moderate.  Your instructions to your counsel are that the problems you have with a CCO, and indeed would have with a parole period is that you continue to mingle with former associates who lead a lifestyle involving this sort of conduct, and unless you escape from that, you are really going to end up going nowhere. 

16      In those circumstances what I propose to do is on the charges on the indictment I will give you an aggregate sentence of nine months.

17      On the assault with a weapon charge two months concurrent.  That is an effective sentence of nine months. 

18      I direct that 132 days be reckoned as having been served under that sentence. 

19      Pursuant to s.6AAA I say that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to be imprisoned for a period of 12 months.

- - -