Director of Public Prosecutions v Raimund

[2024] VCC 1561

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

 Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR 24-01089

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JAKE RAIMUND

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE WRAIGHT
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 October 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 October 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Raimund
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1561

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing.

Catchwords:              Plea of guilty – Armed robbery – Relevant criminal history – Verdins principle 5 – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – General and specific deterrence.

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958 s 75A; Sentencing Act1991 ss 6AAA, 18.

Cases Cited:R v Swingler [2001] VSCA 26; The Queen v Verdins (2007) 15 VR 269.

Sentence:                  Imprisonment for a period of 20 months with a non parole period of 12 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr J Vassis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms K Foote	Chester Metcalf & Co

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1Jake Raimund, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of armed robbery contrary to s 75A of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘Crimes Act’), which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment (Charge 1).

2You have also admitted your Criminal Record.

Circumstances of the offending

3A prosecution opening was tendered on the plea and may be summarised as follows:

4At the time of the offending you were 28 years old. The victim in this matter is Anand Bhatt, who at the time of the offending was working as a contract cleaner to Monash University.

5At approximately 5.15am on 3 April 2024, the victim was walking on Queens Avenue at Monash University Caulfield campus. As the victim was walking through a pedestrian crossing, you walked towards him and approached him.

6As you approached the victim, you removed an item from your right jacket pocket and made a demand, saying ‘give me your wallet and your mobile phone’. The victim described the item as being a red mechanical tool, roughly one foot in length.

7The victim tried to retreat by walking backwards away from you, however, you continued to get close to him. You then held the mechanical tool up above your head, giving the impression that you would use the item to assault the victim if he did not comply with your demand.  

8The victim then removed his Guess branded wallet and iPhone from his pockets and handed both items to you in fear that he would otherwise be assaulted. The wallet contained the victim’s driver license, bank cards, personal papers, and $20 cash.

9You then left the area, walking towards Caulfield train station. The entire incident was captured on CCTV which was played during the plea hearing.

10The victim immediately alerted campus security and reported the matter to police. You were identified via CCTV and from a subsequent interaction with Protective Service Officers only a few days prior to arrest.

11At approximately 8.35am on 9 April 2024, police executed a search warrant at a premises on Dandenong Road, Malvern. You answered the door and were subsequently arrested.

12During the search, police located the victim’s wallet on the coffee table in the loungeroom. Police also located clothing worn by you on the morning of the armed robbery. The victim’s iPhone was not recovered.

13You were interviewed by police and made ‘no comment’.

Nature and gravity of the offending

14Armed robbery is an inherently serious offence. This is reflected in the maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment which Parliament has prescribed.

15Ms Foote who appeared on your behalf, submitted that this example of armed robbery is at the ‘lower end of seriousness’. The submission highlighted the fact that the offending was of short duration, that the value of the items taken was minimal, that you made no attempt to disguise yourself and that the offending was opportunistic. In short, that the offence was situationally motivated by your need to fuel your significant drug addiction. Mr Vassis who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions while accepting that the offending was unsophisticated and of short duration, also highlighted that the offence occurred in a public place in the early hours of the morning and most relevantly, was committed on what is often referred to as a ‘soft target’.

16While I accept that this type of armed robbery is often characterised as falling towards the lower end of seriousness, it must not be forgotten that the victim was simply walking to work when confronted in a violent manner by a person with a weapon who then proceeded to take his phone and wallet, which, self-evidently would have been a frightening experience. Further I note that the victim’s phone was never recovered. While there are more grave examples of the offence, your conduct remain serious.

17The seriousness of your conduct is also elevated as it occurred some four to five weeks after you had been released from custody, and while you were on a community correction order.

Personal circumstances

18You are 29 years old. You were born in Clayton and raised in Frankston until age seven when your family relocated to Ballarat. You lived with your mother and father as well as your younger brother and sister. Your younger brother has severe cerebral palsy.

19Your father worked as a truck driver and your mother as a social worker.

20You report that you had good parents and a stable home environment. The family relocated a number of times in your early years and you attended some five primary schools. You attended Damascus College and completed half of year 12 before being asked to leave school. It is around this time that you began using drugs. Nonetheless, you were able to complete a Certificate III in Information Technology.

21You have worked in a number of retail positions in food shops however have struggled to maintain employment due to your drug use and mental illness.

22You report that you abused alcohol form the age of 21 and cannabis from ages 19 to 21. You ceased using alcohol and cannabis when you began to use methylamphetamine from age 22. You also began using heroin at age 23. In recent times you have been injecting both methylamphetamine and heroin. You have not engaged in any drug rehabilitation or detox. Further, it was submitted that you were under the influence of methylamphetamine at the time the offence was committed.

23You have been treated in psychiatric wards approximately 11 times between August 2016 and August 2022 with previous diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, dissocial personality disorder and substance dependency. You report that your symptoms started two to three months after injecting methylamphetamine.

24A report prepared by Dr Aaron Cunningham, psychologist dated 24 September 2024 was tendered on the plea which I have taken into account. Dr Cunningham is of the opinion that you meet the criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder and Substance Induced Psychotic Disorder. Dr Cunningham notes as follows:

Underlying Mr Raimund’s main risk factor of drug abuse, he presents with an undiagnosed and unmanaged Autism Spectrum Disorder as well as a Substance Induced Psychotic Disorder. In the context of his Autism Spectrum Disorder, Mr Raimund has impairments in adaptive behaviour, emotional regulation and communication. In the context of his Substance Induced Psychotic Disorder, Mr Raimund suffers from auditory hallucinations, paranoia and mood instability. In my opinion, these two conditions significantly impair Mr Raimund’s ability to maintain stability in the community. This contributes to his drug abuse as a form of numbing his emotions and escaping his problems.

25A report of Gina Cidoni, psychologist dated 22 April 2021 was also tendered which I have considered. While Ms Cidoni has a different view in terms of what disorders you suffer, she acknowledges that your mental health conditions are exacerbated by your drug use. I note however that Ms Cidoni’s report was prepared some years ago.

26You are currently on the methadone program in custody and you hope to continue this upon your release.

Sentencing considerations

27I first take into account your plea of guilty. The matter proceeded to this court by way of straight hand-up brief and no witnesses have been cross-examined. As such your plea has saved significant court time and expense, demonstrating your acceptance of responsibility and your willingness to facilitate the course of justice.

28It was submitted on your behalf that Verdins principles 5 and 6 are enlivened based on the psychological materials. As discussed at the plea hearing, in my view the evidence does not support Verdins 6 that there is a ‘serious risk’ that custody would have ‘a significant adverse effect on your mental health’. I do accept however that given your complex mental health conditions, imprisonment will weigh more heavily on you than a person of normal mental health. Thus Verdins 5 has application.

29Turning to your prospects of rehabilitation, it is clear that in order for you to move on with your life away from the criminal justice system, you must cease drug use. Without drugs you will be able to meaningfully address your underlying mental health concerns. Despite the many opportunities that have been offered to you to begin to address your drug problems, you have been unable to engage thus far. That said, it is clear to me that you have the capacity to involve yourself in further education and work once you have been through a period of rehabilitation. At present however, your prospects can only be approached with caution.

30Deterrence, both general and specific are the primary sentencing considerations. As has been noted many times by the Court of Appeal, the crime of armed robbery when committed against defenceless, isolated persons is a serious offence that calls for condign punishment in order to deter others.[1]

[1] R v Swingler [2001] VSCA 26, [11].

Sentence

31Mr Raimund, would you please stand.

32Jake Raimund, on Charge 1, armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months imprisonment.

33I direct that you serve 12 months before becoming eligible for parole.

34Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act1991 (Sentencing Act), I declare that 177 days be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed. That does not include today.

35Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, if not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of imprisonment of 3 years with a non parole period of 2 years.