Director of Public Prosecutions v Price
[2021] VCC 1390
•15 September 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-21-00459
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| COREY PRICE |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MURPHY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 September 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 15 September 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Price | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1390 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Plea – Early plea of guilty – False imprisonment – Make threat to kill – Causing injury intentionally – Serious offending – Drug addiction – Mental health – Psychological reports – NDIS – Prior convictions – Specific deterrence – Deprived background – Community protection – Fair prospect of rehabilitation – Parole period
Cases Cited: DPP v Corey Price [2012] VCC 273 - R v Price [2020] VCC 587 - Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 - R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 - DPP v Natoli [2016] VSCA 35 - Lord v The Queen [2017] VSCA 29 - Cokacar v The Queen [2019] VSCA 178 - DPP v Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence: TES 3 years imprisonment, 1 year 9 months non-parole period.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr M. Regan (For Plea) Ms C. Teague (For Sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms A. Waldin | Bayside Solicitors |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Corey Price, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of false imprisonment, one charge of making a threat to kill, one charge of causing injury intentionally and two summary charges of assault with a weapon and unlicensed driving. The maximum penalties are set out in the prosecution opening which I incorporate by reference, but the indictable charges carry a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.[1]
[1]Exhibit A on the Plea.
2The complainant in this matter was your mental health care worker Ms Whitworth.
Circumstances of the offending
3The circumstances of the offending were set out in the prosecution opening which was read in open court on the plea and which I incorporate by reference. In brief outline, the offending occurred on 10 August 2020 on the Mornington Peninsula. The complainant, as I said, was your mental health care worker from an agency on the Peninsula. This agency had been engaged by your support coordinator at the DHHS to provide care five days a week for you, pursuant to an NDIS plan. She had known you for approximately two months.
4The day before the event, you contacted her asking for help, as you had been beaten up. You asked to meet her in the Point Nepean area. She was not surprised that you contacted her, as you had been quite erratic of late and you had been “spiralling” and “struggling”. She arrived there at 9 pm and noted that you were acting strangely. You had something down the back of your pants, which was a hammer, and she asked you to throw it away, which you did. You told her you had been beaten up and were having trouble breathing. She called an ambulance. Emergency services assessed that the police were also required and, in due course, the ambulance arrived. You got into the ambulance and, at that point, noted a police officer was present. You became agitated and would not comply with directions and had to be sedated and handcuffed. When you returned to the ambulance, you turned to Ms Whitworth and said, 'you're dead'. The ambulance then left. Apparently, you went into hospital and were discharged the next day.
5The following day, Ms Whitworth had a stale message on her phone from the police asking her to collect you. Later that day, you rang her and asked her to pick up some clothes from your mother's house and drop them off near the Eastbourne Primary School in Capel Sound. She borrowed a car, collected the clothes and drove to the school, arriving there at around 2.30 pm. You emerged from the undergrowth and she noted that there was another male present wearing a bandana, which was presumably a COVID mask. She handed the clothes to you. You were outside the vehicle on the passenger side. She saw you throw the clothes bag onto the ground and simultaneously pull out a knife. She noted that your eyes changed, as did your face and you looked scary.
6She reacted by locking the doors of the car but you ran to the driver’s side and reached through the window grabbing the car keys. She yelled, 'No,' but you kept yelling and jabbed the knife at her saying, 'Move, I'm gonna stab you.' You eventually got the car keys and opened the driver's door again, telling her you were going to stab her if she did not move over. Fearing that she would be stabbed, she resisted moving from the seat and you desisted. You then went to the passenger seat and handed the keys to Ms Whitworth and told her to drive. The other individual was also in the car. During the drive, you kept ranting, 'I'm going to kill you,' and 'You're a dog for calling the cops and dogs die.' At one stage, you ranted that she was driving too slowly and stabbed the knife into the dashboard.
7After about 20 minutes, you directed her to drive off a back beach track in the vicinity of the Rye back beach. At that point, she believed you were going to kill her because you had been telling her that non-stop. You made her get out of the car. She was crying. You grabbed her around the neck and started to strangle her. She was having trouble breathing and could not talk. Eventually, you stopped and stepped back, you were still holding the knife. You then told her, 'We are going.' You said you were going to the Port Nepean bunkers. You were driving erratically, including at one stage on the wrong side of the road, veering back to the correct side just in time to avoid an oncoming car. You told her that you had taken acid. Eventually, she convinced you to let her drive. After switching seats, you also said, 'Before I kill you, I'm going to lure Deb out because she dogged me too.' This apparently was a reference to a friend of the complainant who she had borrowed the car from.
8Eventually, after driving a distance of approximately 22-24 kilometres from the back beach area, you ended up near Gunner's Cottage in the National Park on the way to the Port Nepean bunkers. Ms Whitworth asked to stop to get a drink because her throat was sore. At that point, you got into the passenger seat of the car and were holding the knife to your own throat and seem to be thinking of killing yourself. You lowered the knife and Ms Whitworth saw that there was some handle available to be grabbed. She grabbed it and struggled with you and eventually broke your grip, left the car and threw the knife into the bushes. You said she was really strong. She could barely speak and had a very sore throat. You then quietened down and Ms Whitworth decided that she would drive you back towards Rye. She stopped at Subway at Rye and then dropped you off at your mother's house in Tootgarook at about 6.14 pm.
Characterising the offending
9The offence of false imprisonment was constituted by the period from when you first assaulted her with the knife and then sought to force her to drive the vehicle. It ended when she retrieved the knife from you. The charge of making a threat to kill encompassed all the threats that you had made over the period, until she retrieved the knife from you. The charge of intentionally causing injury encompassed the attempt to strangle the complainant when you stopped in the vicinity of the Rye back breach. The summary charge of assault with a weapon encompasses the whole period from when you pulled the knife on the complainant to when she was able to retrieve it from you. The unlicensed driving charge is encompassed by the period that you were driving the vehicle. You did not have a drivers license.
10The complainant was so traumatised by these events that the matter was not reported to the police until 16 August. She told the police that she was terrified of you and was certain that you would severely injure her. She also said that you were erratic. The police visited the various scenes after she reported the matter and were able to retrieve the knife.
11You were arrested on 24 August and undertook a record of interview. At that stage, you had your arm in a sling, as you had been self-harming. In the record of interview, at first you declined to comment but later agreed that you were involved. You claimed that you just wanted to die and wanted her to kill you. You also said that you had been engaging in self-harm and needed to be in a psychiatric ward. You said that you had had a bad birthday on 9 August and you had been using drugs and were angry about life. You have remained in custody since that time.
12The matter was the subject of a contested committal, after which you were committed for trial and different charges substituted and the matter resolved to a plea.
Seriousness of the offending
13The complainant in the matter has not been able to make a Victim Impact Statement. As indicated, however, she stated that she was terrified as a result of the event. Further, she had not resumed work as a mental health worker. It is clear from the circumstances of the event that it must have been a terrifying ordeal for her, notwithstanding, that she has not filed a Victim Impact Statement. I strongly commend her for the bravery of her conduct that day.
14Your counsel did not dispute the seriousness of the offending here. The complainant in the matter was a professional female and you abused the professional relationship by luring her to the school where the offending commenced. There was an element of premeditation in the offending in that you made the threat to her the previous evening, you had acquired the weapon and attended the school with another person. Although he did not participate in the offending, his mere presence added to the gravity of the offending.
15The seriousness of the false imprisonment charge is evidenced by the fact that it commenced with your assault on the complainant using the knife as a weapon, then directing her to drive the vehicle to a back road, then your physical assault on her, attempting to throttle her, then you driving the vehicle for a short time and then her resuming the driving and then, ultimately, when you were threatening
self-harm, she was able to retrieve the knife and end the ordeal.
Prior criminal history
16You are now aged 29 and have an extensive prior criminal history that commences more than 10 years ago when you are aged 19. This is the third time you have been before the County Court and your prior convictions are set out in the relevant sentencing reasons. On 9 March 2012, you were dealt with by Judge Douglas in this court on a charge of armed robbery and sentenced to 12 months in a Youth Justice Centre. You had earlier been sentenced to six months in a Youth Training Centre. In the period from 2012-2020, you accumulated numerous convictions for offences involving threats, recklessly or intentionally causing injury, unlawful assault, dishonesty offences, burglary, driving offences, and contravening intervention orders. You were sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment in September 2012 for a threat to inflict serious injury.
17On charges of recklessly causing injury on 4 June 2015, you were sentenced to 67 days imprisonment, and on 29 January 2016 on charges including a threat to inflict serious injury, you were sentenced to seven days imprisonment and a 12-months Community Corrections Order. You breached that order and it was subsequently cancelled. On 21 April 2016, you were sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for handling stolen goods, recklessly causing injury, burglary and assault and other offences. You breached that order but it was confirmed. In the period from January 2018, you had been sentenced to three months imprisonment on 12 January, six months imprisonment on 12 May 2018, five months imprisonment on 26 June 2019 for recklessly causing injury, intentionally damaging property, and separately for possessing a dangerous item in a public place, and then one days imprisonment for unlicensed driving, and 218 days imprisonment on 11 May 2020 by this Court on the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The full terms of your prior convictions to that date are set out in my sentencing reasons in that proceeding which I incorporated by reference.
18After being sentenced on 11 May 2020, where the sentence was declared to have been served, you were in the community until you committed this offence on
11 August 2020 and subsequently went into custody on 24 August last year. Your prior sentences thus indicate that in the last three years you have spent the bulk of that period in custody.
Personal circumstances
19Your personal circumstances are set out in your counsel's plea submission which I incorporate by reference.[2] They are also set out in the earlier sentencing remarks of Judge Douglas in 2012,[3] and by myself last year.[4] They are also set out in medical reports from a clinical psychologist Dr Kyriakoulis,[5] a consultant clinical neuropsychologist Associate Professor Brewer,[6] a clinical and forensic psychologist Dr Warren,[7] and an occupational therapist Ms Galvin.[8]
[2] Exhibit 1 on the Plea.
[3]DPP v Corey Price [2012] VCC 273.
[4]R v Price [2020] VCC 587.
[5] Exhibit 4 on the Plea.
[6] Exhibit 3 on the Plea.
[7] Exhibit 2 on the Plea.
[8] Exhibit 5 on the Plea.
20You come from a large, blended family. You were brought up in the Healesville, Lilydale and Rosebud areas. There was a suggestion of difficulties in your birth. Your parents separated when you were aged two or three and you remained with your mother. You suffered developmental delay and attended a special needs kindergarten. Your mother placed you with the welfare authorities at age nine but your father took custody of you and you remained with him until you were aged around 16 or 17. Your father was abusive, alcoholic and neglectful. Your early childhood was said to be characterised by emotional neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse. You were diagnosed with ADHD. There was early engagement in your life by child and adolescent mental health services in Lilydale and Frankston. You left school at year 7 and have a reading age of an 11-year-old. You have little work experience and no qualifications. You have been on a disability support pension since age 16 and, in recent times, upon your release last year, have been on the NDIS program. You have a significant psychiatric and medical history.
21You were introduced to drugs, namely cannabis, and alcohol at an early age and from the age of 17 became addicted to heroin and then later amphetamines. It is not surprising, given your dysfunctional childhood, that you learned early in life to self-medicate your distress with illicit substances. As is clear from your criminal record, you have spent the bulk of your adult life in and out of the criminal justice system.
Current medical condition
22On the plea, a key focus was the extent to which your moral culpability was to be reduced due to the principles articulated in the case of Bugmy[9] and the case of Verdins.[10] The prosecution did not dispute that, given your dysfunctional upbringing, amply evidenced in the medical reports before the court, that it is such that, pursuant to the case of Bugmy, there is to be some reduction in your moral culpability for this offending. The prosecution submitted, however, that insofar as you were under the influence of drugs at the time, this should have less salience and that protection of the community is also engaged.
[9]Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.
[10]R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.
23The NDIS obtained a report from Code Black Threat Management authored by a clinical and forensic psychologist Dr Lisa Warren. In the report, she notes,
'Mr Price's childhood was replete with trauma, given multiple adverse childhood experiences and an adulthood peppered with instability.' She notes that you have had no treatment addressing your trauma and sexual abuse history. She recommends a trauma informed approach. She notes, 'Mr Price has adopted maladaptive behaviours as a means of coping with his past experiences, such as impaired impulse control, excessive substance use and subsequent aggressive behaviour. He numbs his distress via a range of illicit substances, often using to excess.' She goes on, 'To change his story will require addressing at least his psychopathologies, extensive trauma, self-concept, the damage caused by using illicit substances, and his offending behaviours.'24It is clear from the report of Dr Warren that to reduce your risk to others in the community, you require treatment to address substance addiction and psychological interventions to address your impulsive and aggressive behaviours. The report of Dr Warren supports a reduction in your moral culpability pursuant to the considerations in Bugmy.
25Your counsel submitted that, due to your underlying psychological conditions, the various Verdins considerations were engaged. To reduce your moral culpability requires that there be a realistic connection between any condition and the offending.
26In the report of Dr Kyriakoulis, he indicates that he had seen you for 12 sessions commencing in July 2020. His report is dated November 2020. He notes that in the period between May 2020 and November 2020, you had had 13 episodes of inpatient and psychiatric care. He records that, prior to your arrest, you had injected yourself with heart medication stolen from hospital and had been hospitalised in intensive care. He undertook a number of assessments and found that you were suffering an extreme level of depression and mild stress. He found that your adaptive skills were in the extremely low range. He found you suffer from extensive and severe psychopathology.
27His recommendation was that you require rehabilitation from illicit drug use, anger and stress management and a combination of cognitive behavioural therapy and psychopharmacological intervention to target anxiety and depressive symptoms and mood instability. He also suggests a referral to a mental health social worker to access permanent housing. He recommends that you continue to attend psychological sessions whilst in custody.
28The NDIS obtained a comprehensive report from Associate Professor Brewer who found that you had generalised anxiety and suffer from mild to moderate depression. He found you were also suffering from PTSD that had never been treated adequately. In addition, he found you were suffering from polysubstance abuse and a mild to moderate acquired brain injury. He found that you did not have a diagnosis of intellectual disability. He found you had an IQ of about 75. He recommended a very nuanced program and, in particular, the need to have continuing engagement with a single professional to develop a close therapeutic attachment.
Assessment
29In considering whether there should be a reduction in moral culpability on the basis of Verdins, the difficulty is that none of the medical reports tendered directly address the impact of your various health conditions on your conduct at the time of the offending. The complainant notes in her statement that you had been erratic of late and that you had been spiralling and struggling. An inference can be drawn that your condition was unstable when you committed these offences. You had been engaging in self-harm at the time you were arrested and, indeed, at the end of the events, you were threatening self-harm in front of the complainant.
30Also relevant is that it is mentioned in a number of reports that you have impulse control difficulties. Thus, Dr Warren says, 'Mr Price's aggression appears to be exacerbated by his substance use, poor coping strategies and his mental health problems.' She says you adopted maladaptive behaviours as a means of coping with your past experience, such as impaired impulse control, excessive substance abuse and subsequent aggressive behaviours. 'He numbs his distress via a range of illicit substances, often using to excess.'
31Your explanation for your conduct in the record of interview was that you had had a bad birthday and then you proceeded to take it out on the complainant.
32I am satisfied that there should be some reduction in your moral culpability under the considerations of Verdins due to your psychological condition at the time and, indeed, now. I note, however, that there is to be no double counting between the factors accorded weight under the considerations of Bugmy and Verdins. Given your blighted background and upbringing, considerations of general deterrence and denunciation must be ameliorated, as you cannot be seen in any way as representative of a normal member of the community with a proper healthy family upbringing. However, as I have noted and it was emphatically put by prosecution counsel, considerations of protection of the community also must be salient.
Prospects of rehabilitation
33Your counsel notes that your prospects of rehabilitation are contingent upon you remaining free from substance abuse. You have indicated that you are committed to remaining substance free upon release, with the supports available through the NDIS. When I sentenced you in May 2020, it was envisaged that you would be provided with NDIS assistance upon your release. There is no doubt that this occurred. Notwithstanding the assistance provided by the NDIS, you reoffended. It is clear, however, that some progress was made before you committed these offences and subsequently since you have been in custody.
34It is clear from the reports of Associate Professor Brewer, Dr Kyriakoulis and
Dr Warren, that you require a very nuanced range of support in mental health issues, drug issues and criminality. A key issue identified is stable housing, which is articulated in the report of Ms Galvin. From the letter of Ms Murray, NDIS coordinator at the DHHS, the DHHS is fully aware of the requirements articulated in the various reports.[11] Indeed, the NDIS have a number of supports in place upon your release and they are best placed to assist your reintegration into the community.[11] Exhibit 8 on the Plea.
35Before the Court were a number of reports outlining what are perceived to be your needs and the NDIS programs available to you. In the letter of 16 August 2021, Ms Murray indicates that you have been accepted for a plan which will be reviewed upon your release. The plan allows up to 25 hours per week for support workers to provide assistance and you have already been seen by a counsellor from an organisation, It Starts with ME!, Ms Stojimenov.
36Ms Murray notes that the NDIS plan proposes to engage a specialist forensic support organisation to engage with you, and the NDIS has already engaged an occupational therapist for an occupational therapy housing assessment. In her report dated 30 April 2021, Ms Galvin opined that you effectively require the availability of 24-hour per day supervision, as well as a specialised living environment. Whether you are able to make use of the supports that will be made available will determine whether you are likely to relapse into criminality.
37Your counsel notes that people dealing with you under this forensic support will receive specialised training. She also notes that this is the first time that a proper plan upon release to the community has been proposed to be put in place. In all those circumstances, I would assess your prospects of rehabilitation as fair. It is absolutely essential that those involved in your release into the community absorb the nuanced analysis of your needs articulated by both associate Professor Brewer and Dr Warren and, indeed, Ms Galvin in their reports.
Comparable cases
38The Court brought the attention of the parties to the cases of Natoli,[12] Lord[13] and Cokacar[14] as possibly providing comparable cases for the purposes of taking into account current sentencing practices, which I am obliged to do. The learned prosecutor, having considered the cases, stated that the cases may demonstrate a range of sentences. He considered that there were factual differences in the duration of the false imprisonment: in Natoli it was nine hours, whilst in Cokacar it was two hours.
[12]DPP v Natoli [2016] VSCA 35.
[13]Aaron Lord v The Queen [2017] VSCA 29.
[14]Cokacar v The Queen [2019] VSCA 178.
39Defence counsel sought to distinguish each of the cases on the basis that Cokacar involved an armed robbery and thus more serious offending and the injuries involved were more serious and there were no Verdins considerations. In Natoli, the case involved family violence and the accused was on parole at the time. In Lord, the false imprisonment was more serious and there were no mitigating factors. Her submission was that the three cases were higher up the scale than the present case.
40My assessment is, that while each sentencing decisions are not precedents, the cases, particularly Natoli, do provide some evidence of current sentencing practices for the particular counts which I must have regard to in sentencing you.
Other matters in mitigation
41I take into account in sentencing you, a number of other matters put by your counsel in a comprehensive sentencing submission. First, you have pleaded guilty. It was an early plea and you will receive full credit for that. You have facilitated the course of justice and accepted responsibility. It is evidence of your remorse. There is little other evidence of remorse, although, you did attempt to contact the complainant after the incident and seek to re-engage with the agency.
42In the COVID environment, your plea is to be accorded further weight, as it relieves pressure on the criminal justice system and avoids risks to participants in the system, should the matter have proceeded to trial. You are to be accorded a perceptible amelioration of sentence on that basis in the light of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Worboyes.[15] In sentencing you I also take into account considerations of totality. This offending was effectively a single transaction, although there were individual components as represented by the individual counts. I also take into account the burden of a sentence of imprisonment on you. Sentences of imprisonment are more burdensome in the COVID environment as programs are more limited, movement within the prison system is more limited and in person visits have been strongly curtailed. This is likely to continue for an indefinite period. I take into account that you have been on remand in a state of uncertainty as to your future for the past 13 months in the COVID environment with less access to programs.
[15]DPP v Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169.
43In sentencing you, I also take into account that, given the period that you have been imprisoned in the last three years, there is a real risk of you becoming institutionalised. There is reference in the report of Ms Galvin that you require significant assistance to manage your daily housing and activities of daily living, which indicates the extent to which you do require assistance to just operate in the community. I note, in your favour, a clean drug screen that was tendered, as well as a certificate for a program that you have undertaken in alcohol and drug treatment that you have completed whilst on remand.
44Due to the personality limitations that are fully set out in the reports of Dr Warren and Ms Galvin, I am satisfied that imprisonment is more burdensome on you than a normal able-bodied person. You are vulnerable within the prison system, not least because of your impulsive behaviours and interpersonal difficulties that can be traced back to your blighted childhood. I also take into account that you have been the subject of an assault while in prison that led to your admission to hospital for nearly eight days in November 2020, including a period in an ICU unit where you develop pneumonia. You also had a three-day admission in January 2021 for seizure-like activity.[16]
[16] Exhibit 10 on the Plea.
45So, all these matters that I have just canvassed, indicate that both a sentence of imprisonment and your period of imprisonment to date are more burdensome than otherwise.
Purposes of sentencing
46The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors, such as the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and those of the victim. I am also required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct and the interests of the community, ensuring that, as far as possible, offenders are reintegrated and rehabilitated into society.
47On the plea, the central submission of your counsel was that the Court should impose a straight sentence. This was on the basis that you had already served over a year in custody and that you would be unlikely to be granted parole. She submitted that, should you be granted parole, then you would effectively be set up to fail.
48The learned Crown prosecutor submitted that the offending here was of such seriousness that it called for a head sentence and a non-parole period. I accept that submission. It is clearly in the community interest that you be the subject of a structured readmission to the community. It is not a matter for the Court as to whether or not you be accorded the opportunity to serve any part of your sentence in the community on parole. I note that you do have the support of your mother. You have been in contact with one of your sisters and one of your brothers.
49The NDIS was available when you were released from custody last year but your own actions in taking drugs and manifesting this criminal conduct against your mental health worker has led to the predicament you are in this day. You are assessed by the NDIS as having complex needs. The material that has been commissioned by the NDIS since you went into custody, shows that the agency is fully aware of the challenges that you face upon readmission into the community. I am very impressed by the depth and breadth of the analysis of your complex needs that has been undertaken by the NDIS and the proposal to engage a specialist forensic team upon your release. You have been provided with NDIS assistance whilst in custody, which is also very much to be commended.
50The sentence of the court should facilitate your readmission into the community in a way that can complement the assistance you are entitled to under the NDIS scheme. Whether the comprehensive and nuanced approach outlined in the reports that have been commissioned will be able to hold you to be a law-abiding member of the community is ultimately a matter that only time will tell and your response to the supports to be offered will be central to this.
51In sentencing you, due to your deprived upbringing and your psychological condition, considerations of general deterrence and denunciation carry less weight. On the other hand, your prior criminal history is such that considerations of specific deterrence and protection of the community must be accorded significant weight. These two considerations are, in a sense, incommensurable and I must seek to resolve them and synthesise them by an appropriate sentence.
52Your conduct that day must be utterly condemned and those engaged in the mental health system must be protected.
Sentence
53The sentence of the court, which I also take into account the maximum sentences which I am obliged to do, is as follows:
On Charge 1, false imprisonment, you are sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment.
On Charge 2, making a threat to kill, you are sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment.
On Charge 3, intentionally causing injury, you are sentenced to one year's imprisonment.
On the summary count of assault with a weapon, you are sentenced to nine months imprisonment.
On the summary count of unlicensed driving, you are sentenced to seven days imprisonment.
54The sentence on Count 1 is the base sentence. I order that six months of the sentence on Charge 2 and three months of the sentence on Charge 3 be served cumulatively on the sentence Count 1 and on each other, making a total effective sentence of three years imprisonment. All other sentences are concurrent.
55I direct that you serve a period of one year and nine months imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
56I declare that you have served 388 days pre-sentence detention.
57I declare pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, that had you not pleaded guilty, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of four and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.
58HIS HONOUR: Madam Prosecutor, are there any other matters that I need to address?
59MS TEAGUE: I understand there's a disposal order, Your Honour.
60HIS HONOUR: Right. Have you filed that?
61MS TEAGUE: Yes, Your Honour.
62HIS HONOUR: Yes, that's been filed. Well I'll make the disposal order that the prosecution has sought. Any other matters from your point of view,
Ms Waldin?63MS WALDIN: No, Your Honour. Just if there is time remaining in the link, if I could have time with my client in the link if it's available to speak to my client about the sentence.
64HIS HONOUR: Yes, I'll certainly - look, I'll certainly make that available. It's clear from the report that matters need to be explained in sort of more simple terms to allow the prisoner to fully absorb what I've just said. But just to indicate to you,
Mr Price, I've sentenced you to three years imprisonment. I've declared that after one year and nine months imprisonment you'll be eligible for parole. It's a matter for the Adult Parole Board. Whether you are granted parole, you've got to make the application yourself. I've taken into account all the matters that have been put by your counsel and the contents of the various reports that have been commissioned by the NDIS. I encourage you to continue with your NDIS workers while you're in prison and then when you are released from custody.65I've taken into account the burden of imprisonment on you in the COVID environment and given your personal circumstances but I've also got to take into account the risk that you face to the community of reoffending. And so weighing all those matters, that's the sentence that I have imposed. I want to thank counsel, the prosecutor on the plea and today and Ms Waldin for her submissions and I adjourn the court sine die.
66MS WALDIN: As Your Honour pleases.
- - -
0
7
0