Director of Public Prosecutions v Ridley, Sarah
[2012] VCC 1648
•26 October 2012
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT WODONGA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-11-01749
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SARAH RIDLEY |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE McINERNEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Wodonga | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 October 2012 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 October 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ridley, Sarah | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1648 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Criminal law – plea – sentence – arson – community housing – drug induced psychosis – prior criminal convictions – total effective sentence of 18 months imprisonment wholly suspended with an operational period of 2 years
Cases:DPP v. Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 – R v. Martin [2007] VSCA 291 – R v. Shafik-Eid [2009] VSCA 217
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr A. Moore | Mr B. Horsburgh (Office of Public Prosecutions) |
| For the Accused | Mr G. Clancy | Kerry Clancy Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1 In this matter, Indictment No. B11589635, Ms Sarah Ridley has pleaded guilty to a charge of arson. That crime took place on 9 December 2010, when by her actions, as best as can be ascertained, the lighting of curtains by way of a cigarette lighter, she managed to destroy a home at which she was residing, owned by the State of Victoria, at 130 Burke Street, Wangaratta.
2 Insofar as the circumstances have been set out today, the learned prosecutor submitted that this was a very serious offence, which obviously it is, given that Parliament has prescribed a maximum penalty of fifteen years imprisonment.
3 Given the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the offence, and the state in which the prisoner obviously was, the prosecution quite professionally, especially in light of a reading of Exhibit 1, that is, the psychiatric report of Dr Lester Walton dated 28 May 2010, submitted that it was within range given those circumstances for a Community Corrections Order, with supervision to be imposed.
4 In the plea on behalf of his client, Mr Clancy, stressed, of course, the importance of the plea of guilty in this case. There were alternative steps that could have been taken, and no doubt have been looked into, however, given the advice, in particular from Dr Walton, and her own treating psychiatrist apparently in Wangaratta, a determination was made that a plea was appropriate in the circumstances. That is not in any way to diminish the importance of the plea.
5 The plea has the effect of saving the community much time and effort, and Ms Ridley is entitled to an appropriate discount in that regard, not only as an indication of her own remorse, but for the utilitarian benefit to the community.
6 Mr Clancy submitted that the appropriate sentence would be a Community Corrections Order, as now provided for under the Sentencing Act 1991, and as I understand arrangements had been made for a report to be prepared in that context by the appropriate officers, who were at the Court.
7 In support of his plea, Mr Clancy took me to his Ms Ridley’s background and reminded the Court of the additional matter set out in the priors, which have been admitted by his client, and indeed called Mr Maggs. Mr Maggs is the current worker through the Mind Program with Ms Ridley.
8 Mr Maggs gave impressive evidence insofar as the steps taken by Ms Ridley since these events to handle her life, to cope with her difficulties, to undergo appropriate treatment and seek advice. He stressed that there has been no admission to Kerferd Clinic since that time. He made observations based upon his experience, which I accept, that he was particularly impressed with the abilities that Ms Ridley has shown in regard to her living skills, and that she was living a contented life at the moment and was grateful for the opportunity to be in another State house. It seems a particularly generous step, given the circumstances, by the State Housing authorities. It also is obvious that she is a very caring person, insofar as her own animals are concerned.
9 It is not without some concern, with dealing with a person such as Ms Ridley, that I note the history set out by Dr Walton. To say the least, she has had a very difficult background. That is not unusual in the sense that unfortunately in our community many people with deprived backgrounds, unfortunately because of their lack of opportunity get into circumstances where they encounter problems in their lives, and one of the biggest problems that Ms Ridley has encountered is the problem with drugs.
10 Ms Ridley has had limited education and limited opportunities. She had a difficult family upbringing, although the circumstances are such that she, according to Mr Walton, does not suffer from any inherent mental problem. The difficulties she has emanate from the long-time addiction to drugs, and in particular amphetamines.
11 The principles relevant to Verdins[1] obviously are applicable to Ms Ridley. However, as has been pointed out in the Court of Appeal, where a person maintains a lifestyle, and the lifestyle in this instance is such that she is constantly in a position where she suffers from drug psychosis brought about by her addiction, then there has to be a limit, and the Court in the end cannot utilise the principles in Verdins infinitum. I find that this is an instance where the principles cannot be fully applied, see R v. Martin [2007] VSCA 291, at [30] and R v. Shafik-Eid [2009] VSCA 217, at [27] – [30].
[1]DPP v. Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269
12 Even though she is a relatively young woman, Ms Ridley has a considerable prior history. As I said to her counsel, Mr Clancy, much can be seen as street offences. However, there are a number of intentionally cause injury matters and intentional damage. There have been numerous attempts by the various Courts to impose community orders to assist Ms Ridley. There have been, at times, circumstances where she has been placed in gaol, and I am aware that in those circumstances she has at times required psychiatric placement.
13 One is not unaware of the difficulties in sentencing a person with that scenario. However, taking account of all the matters in this case, not only the individual matters that relate to Ms Ridley, but the seriousness of the crime, the need for a sentence which appropriately recognises that seriousness, but at the same time takes into account the reduced culpability, which I accept there was. However, that reduced culpability is such that on the principles of Verdins it must only moderate the principles. In this case, because of the continual determination of Ms Ridley to abuse drugs and place herself in the position, it seems to me that it cannot be moderated to the extent that a period of imprisonment cannot be imposed.
14 Fortunately, there is one last chance that I can give you, Ms Ridley, and I intend to do so. I have been advised by your counsel that should I impose a period of imprisonment upon you for this offence and totally suspend its service, you are fully aware of the consequences if you should commit another offence punishable by imprisonment. And that is the broad spectrum. That does not mean another arson offence, that means any offence punishable by imprisonment.
15 If you commit such an offence in the next two years you will be obligated to come back here and there will not be any more chances given to you.
16 I intend to impose a period of imprisonment upon you of eighteen months and I will suspend it totally for a period of operation, pursuant to s.27 of the Sentencing Act 1991, for a period of two years.
17 During that time the fundamental obligation that you have is to ensure that you do not commit a criminal offence. It is obvious that you have been well aware of those obligations in your past because you have been so sentenced as recently as October 2010, and that over that period of twelve months you were able to refrain from offending.
18 If I can come to a personal note, clearly for you the offending relates to drugs, and you have just got to stop. You are thirty-two now. You have got a chance. You have got Mr Maggs here helping you. You have got a chance in your life. You have got a new home. Now, you have just got to stop. You know more than us all about drugs, and how to stop, and you know the only way to stop is totally in your mind and your heart. You have got to do it, and I hope you can because I do not want you back here where I have to impose a period of immediate gaol. All right. So, I wish you good luck over that period.
19 Formally, you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of eighteen months.
20 I order that, pursuant to s.27 of the Sentencing Act 1991, such period of imprisonment be totally suspended for an operational period of two years.
21 I make an order that a forensic sample should be given by yourself under s.464ZF of the Crimes Act 1958. If you have not given one before, then you will have to make yourself available. Mr Clancy will talk to you about that.
22 Insofar as I am obliged to indicate under s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, the impact of the plea, given the totality of the difficult problems in this case, all I can say is there would have been no suspended sentence but for the plea of guilty, and I do not intend to take it any further.
23 Mr Prosecutor, and I should add, it is rare indeed for this Court, especially when the matter has obviously been thought about, and a proposition put by the prosecution, that within the range of sentences is one that does not include immediate imprisonment for me to act against such. While I have not accepted that in total I do appreciate the proposition, and I do not lightly disregard it.
24 MR CLANCY: If Your Honour pleases.
25 HIS HONOUR: Any other matters, Mr Moore?
26 MR MOORE: No, that completes the matter, Your Honour.
27 HIS HONOUR: Mr Clancy?
28 MR CLANCY: Just one thing, Your Honour. With the s.464ZF application I believe Your Honour is obliged to explain what will happen if there is a failure, that reasonable force can be used, on the forensic sample.
29 HIS HONOUR: Yes. Yes. All right. Well, you will be required to attend the police station and give a sample. And if you do not do it voluntarily they will knock on your door, so it is easier if you do it voluntarily. All right. So, good luck, and keep getting Mr Maggs to look after you and let us hope that over the next two years there is no more problems. All right. Yes.
- - -
0
4
0