Director of Public Prosecutions v Peters

[2018] VCC 1859

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 18-01627

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

STEPHEN PETERS

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE STUART
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 November 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Peters
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VCC 1859

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr P Pathmaraj
For the Accused	Mr J McLeod

HIS HONOUR:

1Stephen Phillip Peters, you have pleaded guilty to 15 charges of aggravated burglary, which carries with it a maximum penalty of 25 years, 16 charges of burglary, which carries with it a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment,
19 charges of theft, which carries with it a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment, one charge of attempted aggravated burglary, which carries with it a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment, one charge of attempted burglary, which carries with it a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, one charge of making a threat to inflict serious injury, which carries with it a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, and one charge of making a threat to kill, which carries with it a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment.

2Born on 2 October 1968, you are now 50 years old.  You were 49 years old at the time of the offending, which occurred between January 2018 and 19 April 2018.  The 15 charges of aggravated burglary, one charge of attempted aggravated burglary, 16 burglaries, and one charge of attempted burglary, and the 19 thefts, occurred across 25 Catholic churches and presbyteries in the Victoria region, spanning from Swan Hill, Echuca, Bendigo, and various Melbourne suburbs.

3During two of the incidents you encountered members of the public and made threats towards them.  One was a cleaner, the other a priest.  In total, you stole approximately $100,000 worth of property; in the main, cash, from the presbyteries, the offices associated with the church or the church itself.

4I do not intend to set out every incident of your offending.  Rather, I have selected them based upon the notion that the selected incidents will give some appreciation to the offending that you engaged in.

5Charge 1 relates to an aggravated burglary at the St Scholastica Roman Catholic Presbytery in Burwood.  You went to the fuse box at the front of the presbytery and disconnected the circuit breakers to the premises before forcing entry via a bathroom sliding window.  In the process, you cut yourself and left blood on the bathmat.  You went through various cupboards in the presbytery before leaving empty-handed.

6Father Thanh Tran, who resided at the presbytery, was asleep inside at the time.  He woke at 4 am to use the bathroom and noticed the drawers in the parish house had been opened and there were things on the ground.  He reported the break-in to the police.  Police officers attended and swabbed the blood left on the bathmat, which was later matched to you.  Thus the Charge 1, of aggravated burglary.

7Charges 2 and 3 relate to burglary and theft which occurred on 17 February 2018 between 9.30 pm and 8 am the following day.  You there attended the church in Clifton Hill.  You disconnected the power at the switchboard to the residence, disabling the CCTV, before forcing entry via a window.  Once inside, you rummaged through offices inside the premises, locating keys to further offices.  You found and stole $2,100 of church donations from two envelopes in the desk drawer before leaving.

8Father Peter Hoang arrived at the church at 8 am and noticed that his office door was open with the keys in the lock.  He saw the cupboards and drawers inside the officer were open.  The two envelopes that had contained the cash were torn open, and the key to the safe was on the floor.  The stolen cash had been for the Sunday choir, the charity and the church.  He later contacted the police.

9Charges 24, 25 and 26 are charges of aggravated burglary, theft and a threat to inflict serious injury.  This offending occurred on 9 April 2018 between 8 am and 7.30 am.  You attended the Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Ringwood.  You cut the power to the presbytery where Father Anthony Doran was asleep at the time.  You entered the presbytery by jimmying open a rear sliding door to the premises.

10Inside, you rummaged through the parish office, stealing $120 cash and offerings kept in envelopes in the secretary's desk.  You then forced holes in various plaster walls in order to gain entry into other rooms inside the building and jimmied open a fireproof safe.

11At about 7.30 am, Father Doran awoke and discovered that his home had been broken into.  He also found your wallet, which you had dropped on the ground outside the presbytery.  He called police who advised him to leave the wallet where it was.  He then went inside to wait for the police to arrive. A short while later, he heard the front gate rattling and went outside.  He saw you, who had returned to collect your wallet.  He said, "Oi you." You turned around, took a step towards him, and raised a fist above your head in a threatening manner.  You were two to three metres from Father Doran.  You said, "I'm going to punch your fucking lights out", to which he responded, "Please don't do that”.  You then jumped over the gate and ran away.

12Charges 27 and 28 relate to another aggravated burglary and theft, and that incident occurred on 9 April 2018 between 12 am and 9 am.  You attended the Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Kew.  You gained entry to the presbytery, where Father John Madden was asleep by forcing open a window, causing damage to the locking mechanism of the window.

13Inside, you rummaged through several offices.  You stole Father Madden's wallet from the kitchen bench, an envelope containing $150 in cash, and his car keys.  You then left the presbytery and used the car keys to steal his 2017 Subaru which was parked outside, valued at $30,000.  When Father Madden awoke, he discovered his home in disarray and called police.  His vehicle was located some 11 days later on 20 April, dumped in Box Hill.

14Another incident involving theft of a motor vehicle relates to an aggravated burglary, theft and burglary the subject of Charges 35, 36 and 37.  On 15 April, between 4 am and 5.40 am, you attended St Gregory's Church and Presbytery in Doncaster.  You again cut the power to the presbytery, where Father Vin Nguyen was sleeping at the time, and gained entry by breaking the front window and sliding open another window.

15Inside, you rummaged through various filing cabinets, taking the set of keys to the church safe.  You were unable to open the safe but stole $800 from the parish secretary's office.  You then left the presbytery and used the stolen keys to access the church building, which is separate to the presbytery.  Inside, you located another safe and you attempted to force the dial lock on the safe but were unsuccessful.  You then left.

16Father Nguyen woke at 5.44 am and found the power was off.  Fearing someone might still be present, he remained in his room for some time. 
He sent text messages to the parish priest monsignor, notifying him of the burglary, before contacting police.  Officers attended the scene and located a latent fingerprints on the window, matching you.

17Charges 42, 43 and 44 involved two burglaries and a threat to kill. 
This offending occurred on 15 April 2018 at approximately 3 pm.  You attended the Parish of Our Lady Church in Balwyn and entered the administration by unknown means.  Inside, you rummaged through several offices and took numerous sets of keys.

18You then entered the main church building, which was unlocked, and open to the public at the time.  Inside, you forced entry to the church sacristy and tried to open a safe using keys you had stolen from the administration building but without success.

19At 3.10 pm, a cleaner arrived at the church.  As she walked in, she saw that lights were on and the front doors were open.  Thinking it was someone she knew, she shouted out:  "Hello Kat."  She then saw you come out of the sacristy, about 15 metres in front of her, carrying a hammer.  You started coming towards her with the hammer lifted above your head and said “if you don't leave I will kill you”.  The cleaner then ran out the door and notified police and Father Brennan Reed, who was away at the time.  Officers attended the scene and located a latent fingerprint on a silver box in the administration building, matching yours. 

20Finally, for my purposes, Charges 50 and 51 relate to an aggravated burglary and theft that occurred on 18 April 2018 between 10.55 pm and 11.35 pm. 
On that occasion, you attended St Gabriel's Parish Presbytery in Reservoir.  You gained entry to the presbytery, where Father Shane Hoctor was sleeping at the time, by forcing a window to the parish office, causing damage to the locking mechanism of the window.

21You then rummaged through various office drawers and cupboards inside, stealing $125 in cash.  You then left via the front door, activating a light sensor.  Father Hoctor discovered the burglary the following morning and was so shaken he was not able to preside at a parishioner's funeral that morning.

22I return to the incident relating to you committing the offences the subject of Charges 24, 25, and 26, which are aggravated burglary, theft and threat to inflict serious injury.  The threat to inflict serious injury was in relation to the confrontation between yourself and Father Anthony Doran, who has provided a victim impact statement which became Exhibit 2 on the plea. It is to be recalled that on this occasion, you dropped your wallet and returned to regain it, in the process of which you came face-to-face with Father Doran.

23It is little understood how profound the effects of a burglary are on the victims.  Father Doran's victim impact statement gives appropriate insight into consequences of the type of criminal activity that you have regularly engaged in.  In that victim impact statement, he says, among other things, the following:

"When the offender returned I was very frightened.  I thought to myself, 'he means business, and he's going to hurt me.'  I didn't know whether he was going to carry through with his threats.  I have never experienced this type of verbal or physical threat before.  I was fearful and my heart was racing.  When I spoke with friends shortly afterwards, they told me I was speaking rapidly.  I won't forget seeing his face, and that was really unsettling and frightening for me.  He knows that I have seen his face, and it worries me that there may be repercussions because of that.  I felt unsettled that he saw my face.  Even though 700 people a week at church see my face, this is a very difficult context and I feel uneasy about it, it worries me.

“I didn't stay in my home for a few nights after this happened.  It took
48 hours to get the insurance company to undertake the ‘make-safe’ for the property.  When I came back in the morning, I was physically sick wondering what I was going to find, and what was going to be there.  When I was comfortable enough to go back to sleep, I had people come and stay in the house with me for about 2 weeks afterwards.  Even though time does dull things a little I still don't feel completely safe at home.  As night draws in I am very apprehensive and hypervigilant.  If I hear a noise or think I see something outside, or the security light comes on, I keep checking if anyone is there.  I have had a lot of trouble sleeping, and when I wake up in the night it is hard to get back to sleep."

24Later on, he continues:

"I have worked very hard to make this my home and the violation of his actions have undone all that hard work.  I used to enjoy gardening, cooking, and hobby and leisure activities.  These activities were all part of my sense of feeling secure and nurtured and connected to home.  I have lost interest, motivation, and enjoyment in all these things.  I haven't had anyone come to visit, and that used to be a reasonably regular occurrence.  I couldn't see the point in doing things at home anymore."

25Later, he continues:

"The week this happened to me I had been scheduled to preside at a funeral.  I had to ask another priest to preside in my stead because
I couldn't set to task.  I have been a priest for 15 years and this is the first time that I haven't been able to undertake one of my duties because of a low level of functioning."

26Such is what you did.

27The pattern of your offending is that, in the main, you have attended these premises at night time.  You did not care whether persons were present or not in their own homes.  You would frequently disconnect the power in order to immobilise security cameras.  You then would gain entry, jimmying open doors or windows or whatever was required.  You would then ransack the presbytery in question or associated office building, looking for cash moneys, in the main, probably from donations, and looking for keys to the safes.  You would endeavour to open the safes and you were often successful.

28In short, you knew these places to be insecure.  You knew that if you were confronted, there was little harm that was likely to come to you.  You knew that there was potentially large sums of cash available.  These were, for you, soft targets, targets that you had in the past also burgled.

29On four occasions, the subject of Charges 16 and 17, Charges 35, 36 and 37, and Charge 39, and Charges 42, 43 and 44, you left behind latent fingerprints that were identified as being yours.  On two other occasions, DNA was obtained; first, in relation to Charge 1, where you cut yourself, and also in relation to Charges 27 and 28.  Finally, there was the incident where you dropped your wallet where also a fingerprint was located, the subject of Charges 24, 25 and 26.  Thus on seven occasions, there were forensic matches to you.

30The offending for which I must sentence you involves no less than 33 incidents, all directed at church premises, offices associated with a church premises, and more particularly, the homes of priests, their presbyteries.

31On two occasions, the subject of Charges 27 and 28 and 33 and 34, you also stole the priests' cars.

32On two occasions, when you came upon persons, you made a threat to inflict serious injury and made a threat to kill.  Charges 26 and 44, respectively. 
In relation to the charge of threat to kill, you are to be sentenced as a serious violent offender.

33Your prior criminal history is an extensive one.  There are no less than 11 pages in relation to offending that occurred in Victoria alone, and eight further pages in relation to offences committed in South Australia.

34On 27 November 2012, you were sentenced by her Honour Judge Rizkalla in relation to 25 charges of burglary, 21 charges of theft, 12 charges of aggravated burglary and one charge of attempted burglary, that offending occurring between 23 October 2011 and 4 May 2012, a period of some seven months.

35In paragraphs four to six, her Honour set out some aspects of the offending and stated:

"In essence, the charges result from you breaking and entering various premises, generally owned by the Catholic Church.  Indeed, behind the motivation of this offending was the fact that you have asserted since you were a very young child of around six or seven, and I have heard evidence from your mother in relation to this, that you were abused by a Catholic priest and as a result you target churches or premises adjacent to them, for your offending.  That is not something new.  In fact you have engaged previously interstate particularly, in South Australia in such offending where you have been convicted of about nine sacrilege charges and I will return to those priors in a moment.

“In relation to these matters, in short, you had entered premises by breaking or finding ways of entering that did not actually involving breaking, and taking what you could find there by way of cash.  Often you stole envelopes that had cash in them, given by church parishioners that were in drawers or cupboards.  You generally ransacked through the building that you entered looking for anything that would give you some cash.  As I have said earlier, often there was nothing available.  On my reckoning that in fact applies to Charges 5, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27, 32, 35, 36, 37, 48, 49, 52, 56 and 57.  At some premises, you obtained as I said, significant amounts, up to $10,000; at others, smaller amounts.

“The charges of aggravated burglary result from you gaining entry to premises where there was one or more persons present.  On those occasions where there was somebody present or where you were seen by other people such in Charge 5, which is an attempted burglary charge, you immediately debunked the scene.  There was never any suggestion of you attempting to employ violence against any person.  Generally, the persons that were present were residents, clerical or otherwise, who were asleep during the time that you entered because you entered then in the early hours of the morning or late evening."

36Her Honour's descriptions therefore match, almost to a T, the offending that is before me.

37At paragraph 14, her Honour continues in relation to your motivations and said:

"There is however reliance upon the fact that evidence was called from your mother, that you had on at least two occasions when you were about the age of six or seven, told her of a molestation by a priest at the time.  The first time she said she did not take any real steps about it, but the second time she took you to police because at that point she had heard from others that they had also received complaints in relation to their children about the same person.  In your mother's words, police unfortunately swept it under the carpet, which was not unusual at the time.  As a result it seems that you have harboured a great resentment against the church since and indeed, have no doubt suffered some psychological harm from these episodes.”

38She later observed, at paragraph 19, that:

"At the time despite having spent, as he said, 20 of the last 43 years in custody, you had reached a reasonably stable period in your life."

39That historian was your brother-in-law, Mr John Cassidy.

40At paragraphs 26 and following, her Honour details evidence from the report of Dr Sullivan, which report has not been tendered before me but was available to the psychologist who I will come to in due course.  At paragraphs 26 and following, her Honour notes:

"Dr Sullivan goes on to consider your medication as being very high dosages.  You reported a gambling habit to Dr Sullivan and you told him a lot of the money, apart from food and other items, went to gambling.  Because of your mental health status it does seem that you are not a greatly reliable historian.  On one occasion you reported your mother had died of cancer; that your father was a schizophrenic.  It appears neither of these were accurate.

“Dr Sullivan notes that on his view of you and the material that he has been provided, that you have had as I said, a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, an established history of severe personality disorder which manifests itself in aggression, antisocial behaviour and self-harm when distressed.  He notes further, a diagnosis of epilepsy but he was unclear about that aspect of it, although I was told in the plea that you have had epilepsy since your 20s."

41Continuing at paragraph 28, her Honour observed that Dr Sullivan found no clear indication of mental disorder apart from the gambling that was associated with the offending.  He noted that you had received no counselling in terms of any sexual abuse and he felt that that should occur.

42Her Honour later notes other diagnoses from Dr Wood and Dr Lester Walton at paragraphs 30 and 31, and then continued at paragraph 32, saying:

"The relevance of all this in terms of this matter, is that your counsel submits that whilst there is no argument that you have a Verdins’ type situation in relation to the offending, in that it is not suggested its casually connected to the offences or that you did not know what you were doing, or that you were not aware or fully cognitive, but rather it is the background and it is why you targeted churches as you did.  It is why you have the history that you have and come to court with a lengthy history of offending that I should accept also that at the time and for some years, it has led to a very disordered lifestyle which is representative at the very least, of a severe personality disorder and irrespective of various diagnoses that you have been treated with very high doses of significant medication."

43Insofar as that paragraph 32 is concerned, I adopt her Honour's reasoning and conclusions.  Her Honour was also provided with a handwritten letter, as adverted to in paragraph 40 of her Honour's sentencing remarks.  The end result in relation to those matters was that Her Honour sentenced you to a total effective sentence of four years' imprisonment and directed that you be eligible for parole after two-and-a-half years.

44Before I turn to some of the other aspects of the sentencing process, it is useful to refer to some further materials.  Firstly, a joint letter from your sister, Jodie Cassidy and your brother-in-law, John Cassidy, which became Exhibit SP3 on the plea.  In it, there are many insightful views expressed.  For my purposes,
I extract some portions of that letter.  It starts:

"This is a letter from the family of Stephen Peters. 

“Stephen was only out just over 12 months, when he succumbed to temptation to re-offend.

“We were contacted by police asking if we knew Stephens whereabouts as they wished to speak with him in relation to being a person of interest. 

We advised that this is a cycle and during these times he would just disappear without contact.  But he had recently sought help due to an injury acquired.  During the brief visit we told Stephen that he could not continue living like this, the worry and stress on the family not knowing where or what he was up to was very stressful for all. 

“We said that this must stop and that he should hand himself in voluntarily so as to avert a more tragic outcome which seemed inevitable in his current state.  He agreed and said he would."

45A little later in the letter, the following appears:

"During conversations with Stephen over 12 months he was free he would often talk about the fact that he was drugged up whilst incarcerated.  He was never happy about this and as soon as the order was no longer valid he was happy to be drug-free.

My conversations seemed to reveal a few points about Stephen: 

1) That he was quite normal off medication.

2) The fact that he is almost 50, mentally he is not.  I believe this stems from nearly 30 years of incarceration, living in a limited environment. 

3) His offending is a form of lashing out against the church for what he suffered as a child.

4) I believe counselling rather than medication is what's required, this would be anger management and gambling the two things which always seem to return after his short spell back into society. 

5) He would be better served by a Psychologist rather than a Psychiatrist, talking through his issues rather than masking them with medication."

46The letter continues:

"The fact is, Stephen is a man with no job, no future, and no direction.  He is a creature of habit, from smoking & gambling to re offending which in turn supports the latter! 

“No-one depends on him, so he has no grounding."

47Later, they continue:

"What he is missing is a sense of purpose. 

“We as a family will always be there for Stephen but history has shown that is not enough for him in his current state."

48Returning to the amended summary of prosecution opening upon the plea, which became Exhibit 1, in relation to the investigation and interview of you.  Investigations carried out by Victoria Police into incidents reveal that you were linked to a number of incidents through forensic evidence, which I have adverted to.

49On the same day as the last aggravated burglary, on 19 April 2018, police contacted your sister and arranged for you to attend Heidelberg police station, which you did three days later on 22 April, where you were placed under arrest.

50You then participated in a recorded police interview in which you made full admissions to each incident - indeed, confessions, I should add - recalling the details of each, such as the mode of entry, the location of cash inside the premises, and the amounts of cash stolen.

51I interpolate that only in seven of the 33 incidents do the police have evidence connecting you to those burglaries or aggravated burglaries and associated offences.  During the course of your interview, you told the police:

"I've done a lot of burglaries on churches in the last two months.  Probably about 15, 20."

52You said that you had broken into the presbytery, rather than the church, knowing that the priest would be asleep inside.  You had a bad gambling habit and if you made money, you would go to the races:

"I mightn't do a job for three or four days or a month until I blow it all."

"I said to my mother, 'I'll get revenge till they apologise.  If they apologise, I'll stop."

53You also told the police that you were sexually abused by priests for three months as a child, and that the burglaries were not about money but were about retribution for what they do to people.  You continued, saying:

"It'll stop if they apologise to me."

54You indicated that at one of the burglaries, you left your wallet behind and threatened "him", a priest, and "just jumped the fence."  On one occasion, you watched a priest inside the kitchen lounge, "watching him like a movie." 
You said you stalked the place.  You said:

"I thought he'd go to bed, and I'd wait an hour and then cut the power."

55You said you looked up the churches in a phone book, and one time, you saw a cleaner and "told her to fuck off."  You said that:

"I did a burglary in Burwood", Charge 1, "two days after my Corrections order finished, because I knew they couldn't touch me."

56That is a reference to, as I have said, an aggravated burglary the subject of Charge 1 that occurred on or about 23 January 2018, a matter I will come back to shortly.

57You were remanded in custody and the matter resolved at the committal mention on 13 August 2018, at which time numerous police briefs were listed.  You indicated an intention at that time to plead guilty on that date and made an application for summary jurisdiction, which was refused by Magistrate Rozenscwajg, and you were remanded in custody.  Having been arrested on 22 April 2018, you have remained in custody.

58Your reference in paragraph 57 to committing the aggravated burglary the subject of Charge 1 two days after your community corrections order finished is noteworthy, although there is some uncertainty about the precise date of your commission of Charge 1, it occurring on or about 23 January, I am satisfied that your recollection is correct and that it was two days after the conclusion of the community corrections order that you committed that offence.  It is a curiosity that that was the only thing that held you back.

59Since her Honour's sentencing on 27 November 2012, you have returned to the Magistrates Court on 3 April 2013, charged with burglary for which you were sentenced to six months' imprisonment concurrent with your sentence imposed by her Honour.  Then, on appeal from Ararat Magistrates' Court, you were sentenced, as I have said, by a judge of this court on 19 September 2016 to the eight months' imprisonment together with the 12 month community corrections order I adverted to.

60I have not endeavoured to count how many times you have been in court.  You have, however, what is plainly an appalling criminal record, almost exclusively in relation to committing burglaries and thefts on church properties.

61Exhibit SP2 is a handwritten letter prepared by another at your direction. 
In it, you write:

"I feel a great deal of regret to be appearing before the courts again and
I want to firstly apologise to the victims as I feel a great deal of guilt remembering what I have done and the trauma it might have caused them.  It was never my intention to confront anyone and for this I am truly sorry.

“The truth is I was unmedicated and extremely unwell at the time.  Somehow in the frame of mind I was in I wanted to get revenge on these Catholic priests somehow for molesting me over a 5 month period back in 1975.  I was only in grade three at school and was an altar boy at St Michael's Ashburton.  During this time Father Smith, Father Donnelly and an unknown perpetrator took turns at molesting me in the presbytery (house). 

“The abuse went on for five months every Sunday until I finally mustered the courage to tell my mother (who the priest warned they would kill if
I spoke out)."

62You continue, later in this letter:

"Throughout that time I’ve never received proper counselling or had closure for what occurred."

63In your concluding paragraph, you state:

"It is now my passion in life to wish to talk to the youth of our society to create awareness about sexual abuse, and to encourage to speak up and seek help.  In conclusion I wish to acknowledge to this court that I am no longer a victim but a survivor... who after many years of adversity and selfdestructive behaviours is finally ready to heal and contribute to this society."

64It was pressed by your counsel, Ms Lynch, that this change in your approach is of significance, that you have now abandoned your requirement that they apologise for you to stop your offending.  This indeed is a welcome development, and hopefully has content to it.

65In the psychological report of Carla Ferrari dated 6 August 2018, which became Exhibit SP1, she also recounts at paragraph 24 the sexual molestation by a Catholic priest and not the plural.  Nonetheless, she notes that you are illiterate and, at paragraph 40, she notes a diagnosis of schizophrenia at age 13 whilst at a youth training centre.  And at paragraph 41, she opines:

"There has been some question as to the veracity of this diagnosis  however it would appear that he has responded well to antipsychotic depot medications and reports these manage his positive symptoms of perceptual disturbances, primarily auditory hallucinations.  There is also evidence of cognitive and functional impairment, often associated with schizophrenia; Mr Peters has a limited education history, has been unable to maintain employment, struggles to live independently and without support of his family, and has limited support systems or friendships outside his immediate family mainly due to mistrust of others and difficulty sustaining interpersonal connections.

“He is currently in the psychiatric unit of the prison (Erskine) and indicated that he usually remains in the psychiatric wing for the majority of his time in prison, rather than being in mainstream due to his history of volatility and risk when unwell.  He has stabbed a fellow cellmate in the past, due to command hallucinations."

66She also noted that you have been stabbed twice in custody at the Melbourne Assessment Prison and that you have attempted suicide on one occasion, suffering extensive injuries, having jumped off a building in 2011.  In paragraph 51, she states:

"He admitted to issues with gambling, which he usually funds through his crime sprees.  He has engaged with Caraniche in the community to address his alcohol and gambling addictions, reporting that he attended six months of counselling whilst under a recent Community Corrections Order."

67At paragraphs 68 and 69 she states:

"He was able to communicate his thoughts and feelings coherently; there did not appear to be evidence of thought disorder, nor any perceptual abnormalities such as hallucinations, delusions or any obsessive or repetitive thinking style.  He is however, heavily medicated on an antipsychotic depot which may be keeping his symptoms stable. He has experienced recent auditory hallucinations, at times has ideas of reference and has suffered persecutory delusions in the past.  He denied current suicidal ideation, though denied any intent to harm himself or any other person. 

“He appeared to have full cognitive capacity - he was alert and orientated in time, place and person. Mr Peters displayed low average intelligence, although this was not formally tested and is consistent with his limited educational history.  There did not appear to be any significant memory issues.  Mr Peters demonstrated reasonable insight and judgment was intact at the time of assessment."

68At paragraph 77, she continues:

"Mr Peters' scores on the DASS-42 indicate that he is currently experiencing mild levels of acute psychopathology in relation to depression, anxiety and stress.  It is likely that this may become exacerbated depending on the outcome of his sentence."

69A little later, she continues:

"Precipitating factors for Mr Peters' role in the commission of the offence include a history of repeated infractions with the law as a result of poor decision-making and his perceived injustice by the judicial system against child sex offenders, specifically those who are clergy of the Catholic Church. He has spent a significant portion of his lifetime in and out of juvenile detention and prison for similar patterns of offending against Catholic churches which appears to be motivated by unresolved anger and hostility that he and countless innocent children have had the course of their lives altered by the trauma they suffered due to molestation.  Research has evidenced the emotional and psychological damage resulting from deprivations caused by a loss of liberty, material impoverishment, personal inadequacy, loss of heterosexual relationships, loss of autonomy, and loss of personal security, as has been experienced throughout Mr Peters' lifetime."

70She continues, at paragraph 78, in portion:

"His extensive forensic history is testament that this individual is institutionalised and finds it extremely difficult to function without extensive support out of custody, as he cannot manage his emotions, is prone to succumb to acopia with stress which increases his potential to engage in thoughtless and careless actions resulting in this misconduct."

71She then says, at the beginning of paragraph 79:

"Mr Peters has a poor prognosis for rehabilitation unless he is assisted with intensive 1:1 support upon his release into the community.  Whilst he has identified protective factors such as his family, this alone cannot safeguard his behaviour or reduce his risks, and there is extensive history of institutionalisation and trauma to overcome in order for his reoffending risk to be mitigated."

72She continues, at paragraph 80:

"He is considered a chronic moderate risk of reoffending on the basis of severe mental health issues and his previous history of criminal offending of a similar nature against Catholic churches, however this risk is moderated through his willingness to comply with medication regime, engage with case management through a mental health service and his motivation to engage in trauma counselling."

73She continues, at paragraph 81, relating to your symptoms of PTSD.

74In your counsel's submissions, Ms Lynch, in paragraphs 6 to 10, wrote:

"All of the offending was committed on Presbyteries and Churches - chosen not only because they were often easily penetrated and very lucrative - but also because of Mr Peters' desensitised and distorted view of the Catholic Church. 

“Mr Peters' view of the Catholic Church seems for sexual abuse he endured as a child at the hands of Catholic Priest.

“Whilst the aggravated burglary charges were committed in circumstances where persons were home Mr Peters never entered with an intention to confront or assault any person.  On the two occasions where threats were made they were a spontaneous reaction and used only to facilitate escape.

“His offending is linked to a gambling addiction. 

“The offences were committed during a period when Mr Peters was suffering from a significant decline in his mental health due to ceasing use of his medication."

75As to those submissions, I accept all of them.

76It was further submitted that these were early pleas of guilty and I accept them as such.  They are relevant, therefore, in two ways, first, the utility of the pleas of guilty, avoiding the committal hearing and avoiding any criminal trials, and second, I am prepared, despite your history, to accept those pleas of guilty as being evidence of remorse.

77This is particularly so because, as I have said, you confessed not only to the charges in which there was some forensic evidence totalling some seven incidents, but to 33 charges, 33 incidents.

78The Doran principle is articulated in Rosario Latina v The Queen [2015] VSCA, in the joint judgment of Redlich and Kyrou JJA.  At paragraph 12, their Honours observed:

The right to a significant discount where an offender, by his or her admissions, provides proof of an offence which was otherwise unknown and which the prosecution could not otherwise have established is now relatively well settled. However the principle has not always been expressed in precisely the same way.  In R v Ellis, Street CJ said that an element of leniency will enter into the sentencing discretion ‘[w]here it was unlikely that guilt would be discovered and established were it not for the disclosure by the person coming forward for sentence’.  The principle rests upon the policy of the criminal law to encourage a guilty person to come forward and disclose both the fact of an offence having been committed and make a confession of guilt of that offence.  It was the disclosure of an ‘otherwise unknown guilt of an offence’ which the Chief Justice considered merited significant added leniency, the degree of which would vary according to the degree of likelihood of that guilt being discovered by investigators.  These observations were referred to with approval a McHugh J in Ryan v The Queen.  McHugh J treated the observation in Ellis as ‘statements of a general principle or perhaps more accurately of a factor to be taken into account’.  It was not a rule to be 'qualitatively, rigidly or mechanically applied'. Kirby J also spoke of the public interest that would be served in encouraging offenders to acknowledge and bring to official notice offences not previously known to the authorities.  Kirby J emphasised the benefit to a victim from public vindication arising from the offender’s acknowledgement of unknown crimes.  He also eferred with approval to the need for a ‘considerable’ or ‘significant added’ element of leniency when sentencing an offender in respect of offences disclosed that were otherwise unknown to the authorities. Subsequently, in R v Doran, Buchanan JA (with whom and Nettle JJA agreed) observed that the appellant had voluntarily provided the prosecution with all the evidence necessary to convict him of the majority of the crimes.  His Honour considered it necessary that ‘the appellant should receive a demonstrable discount in his sentence in order to encourage others to make like admissions’.  He referred to the observations of Kirby J in Ryan as to the public interest served in the revelation of additional offences which it would have been difficult to prove without confession’.  The principle is now often described in Victorian courts as the 'Doran discount'

79In this case, the majority, if not the vast majority, of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty arise solely because you made a clean breast of your offending during this period of time.  The Doran discount, in my view, must be considerable, not only because of the sheer number of incidents that you have confessed to, but also because there is a need to encourage others to come forward and confess their guilt.

80Ms Lynch had sought to enliven the principles articulated in Verdins [2007] 16 VR 269, but they are clearly not applicable in your case. There is simply no causal connection between your offending and any schizophrenia or personality disorder in the latter event, that being outside the principles articulated in Verdins.

81Nonetheless, one cannot escape from the fact, and I accept it, that you were sexually abused as a young child around the age of seven, that you were then and have since been significantly traumatised, and that this has led to your offending over the years and becoming institutionalised from a very early age to the present time.

82In those circumstances I am satisfied that you are a less appropriate vehicle for general deterrence, deterring others.  It is not insignificant that you accepted the advice given by your sister and brother-in-law to surrender yourself, thus further cooperating with the authorities.

83General deterrence is still however the principle sentencing factor I must take into account.  Persons such as you must be discouraged from further offending, and you also must be discouraged from further offending.  This cycle must end.  Hopefully, your recent understanding of your offending cycle and waiting for an apology that will never come has stopped.

84There is also a need for just punishment and denunciation of your offending. 
If the sentence that I impose speaks to some leniency in addition to the application of the Doran principle, so be it.  This has been a particularly difficult sentencing exercise.

85Stand.

86On the charges of aggravated burglary, being Charges 1, 4, 10, 16, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 40, 45, 48, 50, 52 and 53, I sentence to you be imprisoned for an aggregate period of four years.

87On the charges of burglary, being Charges 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, 39, 42, 43 and 46, I sentence you to be imprisoned for an aggregate period of three years' imprisonment.

88On the 19 charges of theft, being Charges 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 17, 20, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 41, 47, 49, 51 and 54, I sentence you to be imprisoned for an aggregate period of two years' imprisonment.

89I should add that those sentences for aggravated burglary include Charge 4, attempted aggravated burglary, and in relation to burglary, that sentence of three years' imprisonment includes the attempted burglary the subject of Charge 38.

90On Charge 26, making threat to inflict serious injury, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of six months' imprisonment.

91On the charge of threat to kill, Charge 44, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of 12 months' imprisonment.

92Pursuant to s.6F the Sentencing Act 1991, in relation to Charge 44, you are to be sentenced as a serious violent offender.

93I direct that the sentences of imprisonment in relation to the burglary and attempted burglary, that one year of the sentence of three years be served cumulatively with the sentence on the charges of aggravated burglary and attempted aggravated burglary.

94I direct that the sentences on the charge of theft be served concurrently with the base sentence in relation to the aggravated burglaries and attempted aggravated burglaries.

95I direct that two months of the sentence on Charge 26, being make threat to inflict serious injury, be served cumulatively upon the charges in relation to the base sentence of charges of aggravated burglary and a charge of attempted aggravated burglary.

96I direct that eight months of the sentence on Charge 44 of making threat to kill be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on the base sentence in relation to the aggravated burglaries and attempted aggravated burglary.

97This produces a total effective sentence of five-and-a-half years.

98I direct that you be eligible for release on parole after having served three years of imprisonment.

99But for your pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of seven-and-a-half years and fixed a minimum five-year non-parole period.

100In addition, in relation to Charges 28, theft of a motor vehicle, 34, theft of a motor vehicle, and 49, theft of a motor vehicle, I order that with conviction, all your licenses and permits be cancelled and that you are disqualified for obtaining any such license or permit for a period of three years from today's date, 12 November 2018.

101I declare that your pre-sentence detention, excluding today, is 204 days, which will be administratively deducted from the sentences that I have imposed.

102Mr Pathmaraj?  I have mispronounced your name.

103MR PATHMARAJ:  That's all right.  It happens all the time, Your Honour. 
Mr Pathmaraj.

104HIS HONOUR:  How is it?

105MR PATHMARAJ:  Pathmaraj.

106HIS HONOUR:  Pathmaraj.  Mr McLeod, any matters that remain outstanding?

107MR McLEOD:  Just the matter of the suppression order, Your Honour, that was raised.

108HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  Take a seat, Mr Peters.  Yes, what is the situation there?  An interim suppression order was granted by me last Thursday in relation to naming of Mr Peters because of the connection to him being a victim of sexual abuse.  Yes, Mr McLeod.

109MR McLEOD:  Yes, Your Honour.  I'm instructed to make application to finalise a suppression order in relation to Mr Peters, in relation to the same terms, simply preventing the disclosure of Mr Peters' name.

110I would note that subsequent to the discussion of the suppression order, our offices discovered a further article naming Mr Peters in the context of the offending.  It was published in the Herald Sun on 21 July 2018 with the headline, "Offender attacks 21 Catholic churches' in $100,000 thefts over grudge."

111Dominic Care, who has carriage of this matter, did email the Herald Sun on Friday at 2.45 pm requesting that the article be taken down and received a response some 15 minutes later advising it had been forwarded to the News Director.  However, as at a little after 10 am this morning, it seemed the article was still available online.

112There's also some issues in terms of the Google search.  I did test this earlier today, where an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, although it doesn't specifically name Mr Peters ‑ ‑ ‑ 

113HIS HONOUR:  I do not think I have got jurisdiction over the Sydney Morning Herald.

114MR McLEOD:  Yes, Your Honour.  It is a Fairfax organisation, but in any event, it was more in the context of the Google search because the article doesn't specifically name Mr Peters but still is one of the top search results when that name is input into Google.

115In any event, the concern is really that two of the most popular and I suppose fairly well-regarded news outlets in the state of Victoria, the Herald Sun and
The Age, have published Mr Peters' name.

116HIS HONOUR:  The judicial proceedings reports that s.3 precludes it, prohibits it, absolutely.  I do not need to issue a suppression order.  It is automatic, as
I understand it.

117MR McLEOD:  It is.  The only, I suppose, benefit, in my submission, is it seems that, for whatever reason, the articles - the organisations either do not understand or have not complied with their obligations under that Act.

118My understanding is that under the Open Courts Act, a suppression order would involve notification of all of the news outlets, or media organisations, within the meaning of that Act, would cause them to be notified that Mr Peters' name is not to be published.  And in my submission, that may prevent any similar such articles being published going forward.

119HIS HONOUR:  If there is a statutory provision which creates a criminal offence, it may be that the direction that can only be launched with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is entirely, in my view, unnecessary to issue a suppression order for the benefit of news organisations having that matter being brought to their attention.

120I made the opening available to the only member of the media who was present at the beginnings of this matter, and mistakes can happen but they cannot be repeated.  So I do not intend to do other than - unless you have something to say, Mr Prosecutor?

121MR PATHMARAJ:  No, there's nothing from our end, Your Honour.

122HIS HONOUR:  The interim order, I revoke.

123MR McLEOD:  As Your Honour pleases.

124HIS HONOUR:  Thank you for your assistance.

125MR McLEOD:  Thank you, Your Honour. 

126HIS HONOUR:  Anything else?

127MR PATHMARAJ:  No, Your Honour.  That's all.

128MR McLEOD:  Nothing further from this end.

129(At this stage the court proceeded with another matter.)

130HIS HONOUR:  Yes, you can remove Mr Peters, please.  That order stands,
Mr Brown, with the addition of the interim order being revoked.  Yes, temporary adjournment.

‑ ‑ ‑