Director of Public Prosecutions v Riley
[2014] VCC 2084
•3 December 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR 14-00912
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SHANNON RILEY |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 25 November 2014 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 December 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Riley | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 2084 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – Plea of guilty – Aggravated burglary – Armed robbery – Burglary – Theft – Common assault – Obtain property by deception – False imprisonment and other weapons charges – Summary offences – Offences committed whilst on bail – Affected by Ice at time of offending – History substance abuse
Sentence: Total Effective Sentence 7 years’ imprisonment – 4 years 7 months’ imprisonment – S.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 declaration – Ancillary orders
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the DPP | Mr J.S. Livitsanos | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr T. Alexander |
HER HONOUR:
1 Shannon Riley, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences.
(1)possessing an unregistered firearm whilst being prohibited;
(2)six charges of common assault;
(3)two charges of burglary;
(4)two charges of theft;
(5)two charges of handling stolen goods;
(6)one charge of obtaining property by deception;
(7)one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception;
(8)one charge of possessing firearm whilst being prohibited;
(9)one charge of being armed with criminal intent;
(10)one charge of aggravated burglary;
(11)one charge of armed robbery; and
(12)one charge of false imprisonment.
Further, two summary charges have been uplifted to this Court, being Charge 9 – loitering with intent to commit an indictable offence, and Charge 20 – discharging a firearm in a populous place.
The maximum penalties are as follows:
(a)aggravated burglary and armed robbery each have a maximum penalty of 25 years;
(b)handling stolen goods and the offence of being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm, 15 years;
(c)being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, burglary, theft, false imprisonment and obtaining property by deception, ten years;
(d)common law assault, attempt to obtain property by deception, being armed with criminal intent each have a penalty of five years;
(e)loitering with intent, two years;
(f)discharging a firearm in a populous place, twelve months or 60 penalty units.
The offences relate to five separate incidents, the first of which occurred when you were twenty-three years old. The other incidents took place when you were twenty-four - nearly twenty-five years old.
In relation to the first incident, I was told that on Friday, 4 May 2012 at about 10 pm, you were a front seat passenger in a car being driven by another male. You attended a service station in Thomastown and, after purchasing some beanies, you drove to an area where a number of youths were gathered.
For no apparent reason, you pointed a loaded sawn-off shotgun out of a window of the car and fired a shot in the direction of the group of males, but above their heads. This gives rise to Charge 1 on the indictment and summary Charge 20. You are most fortunate that you are not charged with conduct endangering life in relation to this offending. However, I sentence you on the basis that you are to be dealt with for a summary offence in relation to discharging the weapon - a weapon which you were prohibited from possessing.
You then got out of the car, holding the sawn-off shotgun, and approached the males. You hit one of the males, a Mr Kostovski, on the head with the butt of the shotgun. Mr Kostovski and the other five youths ran off. Mr Kostovski sustained a minor injury to his head. None of these victims were known to you. Your approach to the males with the weapon and assault of Mr Kostovski using the weapon in the presence of the other males, gives rise to Charges 2 to 7 on the indictment, common law assault.
In respect of Incident 2, which gives rise to Charges 8 and 9, I was told that on 18 January 2014, you attended private residential premises in Burnside Heights. You broke into the residence by forcing open the rear laundry door using a metal bar or similar item.
You stole a Sony stereo, a car stereo and equipment, a Logitec PC stereo, a Hewlett Packard computer, a set of car lights, four mag wheels, a Honda cold air intake, a Samsung computer monitor, a television and a Hewlett Packard printer – the value of these goods was about $5,000.
Incident 3 gives rise to Charges 10, 11 and 12. The basis for these charges is that on 2 February 2014, you used a credit card which had been stolen by unknown burglars eight days earlier, to purchase petrol and food from a convenience store in Thomastown, to the value of $78.44. This gives rise to Charge 11. Further, you used the stolen credit card to pay for a two-way security system to be fitted to a car, for $900. However, I understand that the item was not collected. This gives rise to Charge 12.
Subsequently, the owner of the credit card and other items which had been stolen from his property, identified property found at your residence which included his wallet, bag and credit card. These items which were found at your property give rise to Charge 10.
In relation to incident 4 which gives rise to Charges 13 and 14, I was told that on Monday, 10 February 2014, you and another male attempted to jemmy open a door at a residential property in Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe. You went to another window and removed the flyscreen, then attempted to jemmy open a sliding door with success. You then went to double glass doors and successfully entered the house by forcing the frame of the doors, which split the frame. You then climbed on a chair and ripped a security sensor from the wall, causing the alarm to be activated. You then effectively ransacked the property, stealing a number of items including jewellery and a locked filing cabinet. The value of items said to be stolen was about $13,000. This gives rise to Charges 13 and 14.
Incident 5
Charge 15: handle stolen goods
Charge 16: prohibited person possessing firearm
Charge 17: being armed with criminal intent
Charge 18: aggravated burglary
Charge 19: armed robbery
Charge 20: false imprisonment
Summary Charge: loiter with intent to commit an indictable offence
In relation to incident 5, I was told that at about 11.00am on Tuesday, 11 February 2014, you attended at an address in Dawes Court, Mill Park. You rang the doorbell and a lone female occupant answered. You were riding a motorcycle that day.
Ms Petruccelli, the occupant, did not open the door. You said something to her but she could not understand you as you kept your helmet on. You pushed your face up to the glass surrounding the door, then tried the door handle and the garage door. You then rode off on your motorbike and Ms Petruccelli called police.
You then went to Corbin Place in Mill Park. You knocked on the door of a unit there and Ms Filippone opened the door. You asked if a Samantha lived there and Ms Filippone said she did not. You again asked if she lived there and Ms Filippone said that she did not. Ms Filippone’s boyfriend called out from inside the unit. She said you should perhaps try next door.
You then rode your motorbike to another unit in the block and rang the front doorbell, speaking with Ms Incledon. Ms Incledon opened the front door but kept the security door closed and locked. You asked if Sam was there and she said that you had the wrong address. You then said that you were looking for an ice pipe and that people had told you to come to this address. You produced a small sandwich bag from your pocket which contained a clear crystal-like substance. You asked Ms Incledon if she wanted some ice and she said she did not. You told her to open the security door as you could not see her. You said that if she shut the wood door you would break in. You told her that you had been advised that this was a sex house and you asked for sex. Ms Incledon told you to leave. You asked to see what Ms Incledon looked like. She asked you to leave again and you said you would be back.
You then got on the motorbike and left. Ms Incledon also called the police.
Shortly after this incident, you rode to an address in Friendship Avenue, Mill Park. You stood at the secure front gates and rang the intercom. You stood on the footpath and produced a small firearm which you held onto. You then removed your motorbike helmet and had a conversation with a Ms Disbastiano. Ms Disbastiano observed you holding the weapon. You asked Ms Disbastiano if Bobby was home and she told you that no one by that name lived there. You told her that you were looking for Bobby and had come a long way to look for him. She again told you that there was no one by that name there. You then put your motorbike helmet on, placed the firearm down the side of your pants and rode off on your motorbike. You were captured on CCTV cameras 25 minutes later as you rode back past these premises. The incident involving Ms Disbastiano gives rise to Charges 16 and 17 on the indictment and the summary charge of loitering with intent to commit an indictable offence. I have factored in that there is a fairly significant degree of overlap between Charge 17 on the indictment and the summary charge.
Between 11.30am and 12.00pm, you again attended at an address in Friendship Avenue, Mill Park, parking your motorbike in the driveway of these premises. You knocked on the front door, which was answered by Ms Jeyakanthan. Ms Jeyakanthan was eight months pregnant and at home with her three year old daughter. She opened the door and you were standing at the door wearing your motorbike helmet. You said that you wanted to meet her husband, saying you had come from Sydney and would have to wait to meet him. You then walked into the premises and locked the door behind you. You then reached into your side and took out a gun and held the gun in your right hand, pointing it directly at Ms Jeyakanthan. You kept the gun close to your hip but still pointing at the victim. This gives rise to Charge 18, aggravated burglary.
A weapon which was found at your residence subsequently was photographed by police and at the plea hearing you instructed that this was the weapon used. The gun was an imitation firearm but was realistic in appearance.
You took your helmet off then pushed the victim into the laundry by her shoulder. Although this was not a hard push, she said that she was very scared and so complied.
You then took a glass from the kitchen and drank some water, leaving the glass in the laundry and the tap running. You took the phone from the kitchen and you took the victim’s mobile phone and placed these in your pocket. You then closed the laundry door, leaving the victim in there. Ms Jeyakanthan’s daughter was in the bathroom and she could hear her calling for her.
After about two minutes, you opened the laundry door and asked “Where’s the cash?” The victim replied that her husband handled the cash. You said “Don’t lie.” She describes you as talking in a demanding way but not shouting. The victim came out of the laundry and got her daughter. You emptied the contents of the victim’s handbag which was on the kitchen table. The bag contained Australian dollars and foreign currency and also contained a Medicare card and Commonwealth Bank debit card. You placed all of these items in a shopping bag. You then went into a bedroom and went through bags in this room. Some of these contained imitation necklaces and earrings. You placed these items in the same bag. In the master bedroom, you were pulling things from the shelves and took assorted jewellery. The complainant had followed you into the master bedroom and was crying. You said, “Don’t cry, if you cry I'll shoot you.” Your conduct in stealing the various possessions just referred to in circumstances where you had a weapon with you, constitute Charge 19, armed robbery.
You then picked up a child’s dress and wiped down everything you had touched. You took the victim’s mobile phone and house phone from your pocket and wiped these down also. You then took the front door keys for the premises. You left the premises, riding off on your motorbike. The value of the property stolen was about $8,500. You discarded the child’s dress in a nearby street.
Your conduct from the time that you entered the premises and locked the door to the time you left constitutes Charge 20, false imprisonment.
In sentencing you in respect of this incident, I have factored in that you embarked on a course of conduct commencing with the aggravated burglary, which then continues on giving rise to Charges 19 and 20.
Police attended an address which was well known to the police and observed your motorbike parked behind a back shed. It had no rear number plate and identifying numbers had been ground off. Your motor bike helmet was found on the back step and various items connected with you were found within the premises. At this stage, you had fled the premises.
It was subsequently ascertained that the motorcycle you were using had been stolen, giving rise to Charge 15.
You were arrested on 13 February 2014 and a search warrant was executed at your home. The small black and silver imitation pistol to which I previously referred was found there, which is part of the evidence which gives rise to Charge 16. Other items of stolen property which were detailed in the Summary of Prosecution Opening were also found.
You were interviewed by police on 13 February 2014 but made “no comment” answers in relation to allegations put.
Victim impact statements were provided by a number of people who were subject to your offending. Ms Jeyakanthan said that she had recently migrated to Australia and was full of hope and happiness when you offended against her. She said that all her dreams were shattered within a month of her arrival by your offending. She describes the events as a nightmare, causing her to be “stunned and confused”. She spoke of the fear for her life, as well as that of her three year old daughter. She lost jewellery which had sentimental value to her and explained the immense value of a wedding chain which was taken by you. She said that this loss had led her to experience low self-esteem and she suffered from fear and anxiety which has had a crippling effect on her mind and her body. She said that your offending has changed her character in a drastic way, impacting on the normalcy of her life. She experiences teariness and fear for herself and her older daughter in going out alone. She also spoke of approximately $7,000 worth of jewellery and money which you took. She said that she has found it hard to explain further how your offending has impacted upon her, but that sometimes she feels “very bad about the decision" that she made to join her husband to live in Australia.
I note that Ms Petruccelli has also made a victim impact statement, speaking of her anxiety and distress as a result of your dealings with her. However, Ms Petruccelli is not a victim in relation to any offence, as I understand it , albeit that your conduct towards her forms part of the context leading to a number of offences. In the circumstances, I have not factored in the contents of her victim impact statement, notwithstanding that the impact upon her was rather significant.
Ms Disbastiano, who saw you holding the imitation pistol, giving rise to charges, speaks of the fear and sleeplessness that she and her family have suffered since this incident occurred and her lack of trust in relation to anyone wishing to come to their house.
Mr Petsas said that your conduct had shattered the enjoyment they had experienced in their new home and of the disregard which you had for their treasured possessions. He and his wife are also fearful in the aftermath of the burglary upon their home and he says that your offending has “sullied” happy moments of moving into their new home before the burglary occurred. Additionally he said they had suffered a financial impact, because of a cap that the insurance policy placed on un-itemised items in the context of hundreds being taken. The most difficult aspect of your thievery was taking coveted and sentimental possessions which had been left to him and his wife by their respective deceased grandparents.
Mr Riley, these are the very real and destructive consequences of your offending. I regard your offending as most serious. In particular, the fifth incident, is deserving of appropriate punishment in all of the circumstances. Further, your conduct must be denounced.
I understand that all of the offending occurred whilst you were affected by ice, which heightens the dangerousness of your conduct. In saying this, I do not count the fact that you were affected by ice as an aggravating circumstance, however, neither is it a mitigating one however.
In relation to the first incident, it is particularly disturbing that you saw fit to discharge a weapon over the heads of a number of people for no apparent reason and then to employ the same weapon to inflict injury upon one of the victims. You are indeed fortunate that you are not facing a more serious offence or offences in relation to this conduct, but I regard the conduct as a particularly serious examples of discharging a firearm in a populous place and common law assault, especially insofar as the assault upon Mr Kostovski is concerned.
The burglaries and thefts, which are the subject of Charges 8, 9, 13 and 14, involved the violation of people’s homes and the taking of their personal items, only some of which have been recovered.
In respect of the fifth incident, the offending in which you engaged in respect of Ms Jeyakanthan is aggravated by the fact that her three year old child was present at various stages during your criminal conduct and you apparently thought nothing of threatening to shoot the primary victim when she was crying. Further, you deprived her of any ability to call for help by taking away her mobile phone and house telephone and subjected this heavily pregnant woman to a terrifying ordeal. Again, you were affected by ice when you did so. Whilst your behaviour in the lead-up to this offending was somewhat strange at stages, it was evident that you were wanting to enter the premises and, when you had the opportunity to do so, you took all that you could which you perceived to be of value. Your offending on the occasion giving rise to charges relating to incident 5 was utterly disgraceful. The only redeeming feature was that you did not physically harm the victim. However, your preparedness to use the threat of a firearm, which the victim could not have known was an imitation weapon, must have been horrific for the victim. You capped this off with taking her front door keys, which deprived her of locking you out from further intrusion in the immediate aftermath. For someone who says that they were and continue to be bullied, you behaved like a bullying thug with complete disregard to the wellbeing of the victim. This is a most serious example of aggravated burglary, armed robbery and false imprisonment. Having said this, I have factored in that these offences arise in the same sorry episodes which will bear on the questions of cumulation. I also factor in that you committed the offences comprising incidents 2 to 5 whilst on several sets of bail for other offences.
I have taken into account your criminal history which commences with Children’s Court matters for shoplifting in 2006 and 2007.
On 20 April 2009, you were placed on a community-based order without conviction for recklessly causing injury, eight charges of shop theft, two charges of theft of a motor vehicle and one charge of theft, as well as one charge of handling stolen goods and one charge of going equipped to steal. The community-based order was to endure for 12 months and you were ordered to undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol and/or drug addiction, as well as assessment for medical/psychological/psychiatric treatment, as directed. You were also ordered to undergo assessment for programs to reduce re-offending. I understand that you did not receive any psychological or psychiatric treatment. However, I did not hear your counsel to say that you received no treatment in respect of drug addiction.
On 9 September 2010, you were dealt with for one charge of making a threat to kill, two charges of unlawful assault, one charge of criminal damage and you were sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order. On that same day, you were dealt with for failing to comply with the community-based order previously imposed and you were sentenced to one month imprisonment, to be suspended for nine months.
Although your criminal history is not as lengthy as others coming before the courts at your age and stage, it is fairly significant and relevant to a number of the offences for which I now sentence you.
In sentencing you, I accept that the firearm used in relation to the fifth incident was an imitation weapon, although this would not have been known to the victim. As I have said, I also take into account that your behaviour was strange in the lead-up to this offending insofar as your exchange with Ms Incledon was concerned in particular. This would appear to be related to the degree to which you were affected by ice.
A neuropsychological report and psychological report were obtained on your behalf. The neuropsychological report reveals that you do not suffer from an acquired brain injury. The report of Ms Mynard, clinical psychologist, who assessed you on 3 May 2014, refers to a number of charges. However, the most serious of the charges which you face before me were not included in that list. However, I am assured that Ms Mynard was appraised of all of the matters concerning the offences before me. In her assessment of you over a two hour period at the Melbourne Remand Centre, Ms Mynard found that you scored in the borderline range of functioning, at a level which was one point short of being diagnosed with an intellectual disability for your full-scale IQ. Ms Mynard was of the view that, as a result of being teased and bullied as a child, you developed a level of paranoia which has increased since that time. She said that your low cognitive functioning and subsequent inability to read social signs, communicate effectively and interact with other peers was also significantly impaired. She said that you initially used substances to try to fit into your peer group and it was likely that you abused substances as a means of self-medication to deal with a sense of loneliness and depression as you were growing up. She said that you found yourself addicted to cannabis and later, ice and GHB. Your paranoia and psychotic symptoms continued and became worse whilst using substances, which needed to be further explored so as to see if the symptoms remained whilst you were abstinent. She observed that you had committed offences over the past few years as part of maintaining your substance addictions and that you also perceived that you needed to protect yourself from people who bullied you by carrying imitation weapons. She said that you have limited cognitive capacity to problem solve, interact positively with others, respond appropriately to novel situations and to conflict. The weaknesses were exacerbated further by you being substance affected, which led to more impulsivity and not thinking about consequences, as well as poor judgment. The report of Susan Carey, clinical neuropsychologist, dated 18 November 2014, indicates that the vast majority of your cognitive skills are within the borderline to low average ranges and are commensurate with premorbid expectations. She said that, on the basis of self-report, there appeared to have been a decline in your psychological functioning since May 2014, as you were experiencing extremely severe levels of depression, anxiety and stress. She said that amelioration of mood disorder symptoms may lead to a mild improvement in your day-to-day functioning. She also said that she suspected that there was a strong association between your substance misuse and psychological factors.
The nature of your conduct on each of the occasions for which I now sentence you, save for the first incident and the lead-up perhaps to the fifth incident insofar as the aspect to which I have referred is concerned, reflects a level of rationality and purpose in the context of someone who was addicted to drugs and needed to fund this. It is unclear as to the extent to which your cognitive deficits were operating in respect of your behaviour concerning the first incident, in circumstances where you were abusing drugs at that time. Although there were some strange aspects of your conduct in relation to the lead-up of the fifth incident, you took a number of steps to ensure non-detection, again in the context of being affected by ice insofar as your dealings with the last victim in that incident is concerned. In the absence of more compelling expert material, I am not satisfied that I ought allow for a reduced moral culpability in respect of any of the offending because of your cognitive difficulties; nor do I accept that lesser weight should be placed on specific or general deterrence in your case. However, I accept that because of your level of cognitive functioning and your depression and anxiety, time in gaol will be harder for you than for someone without these issues. Further, I take into account your relative youth and that this is the first time you have been in gaol.
Initially, your counsel submitted that the spate of offending earlier this year was triggered by learning of your father’s murder in January 2014, he having been killed in April 2013. However, Mr Alexander subsequently corrected himself, having been reminded by the police informant that you had committed offences in August, September and October 2013. I have now been provided with a list of all of the offences which you committed from August to December last year. The driving offences are the only matters committed in November and December 2013, I note. I have also received some summaries relating to these other matters. The offences which were committed from August through to December of last year are as follows:
a) There were four charges of attempting to commit an indictable offence including one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception;
b) There were 15 charges of obtaining property by deception;
c) Two charges of possessing ammunition without a licence or permit;
d) Three charges of possessing an imitation firearm and one charge of possessing a controlled weapon without lawful excuse;
e) One charge of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm;
f) One charge of possessing amphetamine and one charge of possessing methylamphetamine;
g) One charge of failing to answer bail;
h) One charge of trafficking cannabis; and
i) As well as various driving matters including drive whilst suspended.
I note, with concern, that in respect of the matters where Mr Sadler is the Informant, that on 27 August last year, in the early afternoon, you threatened a youth who was not known to you with a silver-looking handgun, after a brief verbal exchange between the two of you. The incident was witnessed by a number of people as it occurred in the vicinity of a shopping centre. I understand that the gun was an imitation weapon.
Further, on 3 September 2013, you were observed to get out of a car which was subsequently stopped by police and found to contain imitation firearms and a firearm which had been modified so as to appear it could be fired; however, I am not aware of any subsequent testing which indicated whether the firearm could be fired. Also a box of Winchester .22 hollow-point bullets and a single empty shell were found. In relation to the consolidated matters, you were sentenced at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court on 1 December this year, that is two days ago, receiving a total effective sentence of nine months' imprisonment, with a declaration of five days by way of pre-sentence detention. I factor this sentence in when sentencing you as it is pertinent in applying the principle of totality. The matters are also relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation, protection of the community and specific deterrence.
In your favour, I take into account your early plea of guilty, which entitles you to a significant discount in the sentence you would otherwise receive. You have saved the witnesses, especially the victims, the time and trauma of giving evidence at committal and trial and you have saved the state the considerable expense of contested proceedings. I was told that you were also remorseful for your conduct, having expressed such sentiments to your counsel upon hearing the victim impact statements which were read to you. It is surprising that it took this for you to be able to express an appreciation as to how Ms Jeyakanthan must have felt at the time you were offending against her. Indeed, it was your very intention to frighten her into cooperating with you, such that your expressions of revelation about this ring hollow. I accept that you are regretful for the position you are now in and that you have a level of clarity about matters since abstaining from drugs for a period. However, beyond this, I am unable to find much in the way of heartfelt remorse for your victims, although I allow that you may have some difficulty in expressing this because of your intellectual functioning. In the end, I allow for some remorse manifested in an early plea of guilty and some expressions of regret concerning your offending.
I take into account your background:
Your father left home when you were an infant and you had only recently met him again, hoping to establish a meaningful relationship, when he disappeared and was subsequently found to have been murdered. In your early years, you lived with your mother and siblings in impoverished conditions. At one stage you all lived in a shed and slept on a couch. Subsequently, you, your mother and stepfather moved to a Housing Commission flat and, at about that time, your mother and stepfather had a son.
You were subjected to relentless bullying at school and I am told that this continues in prison. At school you were subjected to physical assaults on a fairly regular basis. You did not perform very well at school academically and you were ostracised. In your early adolescence you commenced to abuse alcohol and smoke cannabis. You were expressing an interest in seeing your biological father, however, you mother told you that he was in gaol, which was indeed the case. Unfortunately, you have not experienced positive role models in your life insofar as parent figures are concerned, although, I understand that your stepfather’s parents were people who you could look up to.
In 2004, your mother and stepfather separated.
Notwithstanding your difficulties, you were able to stay at school until halfway through Year 11 but left at this stage as you were unable to cope.
In 2006 you commenced a relationship which continued for five years. This did not end positively as you discovered your girlfriend had been continuing a relationship with another man.
You engaged in labouring type work after you left school but you also commenced taking ice which escalated to the point of unlimited use, as you described it, in 2013 and 2014.
Your offending in the past and in the context of the offences before me, all occurred whilst being affected by drugs and many of these were committed in order to fund your drug habit.
In terms of your work history, in 2008 you commenced labouring work with your stepfather in the scaffolding industry, you have also worked in other jobs. Subsequently, you significantly reduced your drug intake for about two years. Your grandfather, being your stepfather’s father, died in 2008. Despite this, your condition was relatively stable from 2008 to 2010, insofar as your reduced drug intake is concerned. In 2010, when you were twenty-one years old, your relationship disintegrated and then ended and it was at this stage that your ice intake escalated once more.
In 2011, you first met your biological father. Despite his distanced attitude towards you, you were searching of paternal affection from him.
In 2012, your stepfather’s mother died, which was a source of a great deal of grief for you.
In early 2013, you met and became enmeshed with a group of men who were in their late thirties and therefore a good deal older than you. They were all drug users and one of their number cultivated you to perform their dirty work in committing criminal offences. You were happy to comply as you felt a sense of belonging with the group and you were also supplied with drugs. You have since realised that these people are not your friends.
In January 2014, as I have previously said, you learned of your father’s death, which you took very badly. Ms Mynard refers to this distressing event in her report, indicating that you were plagued by thoughts about your father. Further, you have wondered whether you would meet his killers in gaol.
After learning that your father had been murdered, your drug use escalated further and you engaged in the offending comprising the fifth incident. I was told that you just did not care about drug use or committing offences at this time, albeit that you showed some restraint in your behaviour insofar as harming others was concerned. I should also say that it was not just the fifth incident that was impacted by you learning of your father's murder and your escalation of drug use, but in fact the second, third and fourth incidents as well.
You were arrested on 13 February this year and remanded in custody. You have now been in gaol for about ten months. I was provided with the results of one urine screen which showed a clear result and I understand that you have abstained from drug use since being remanded. This has enabled you to have some clarity of thought.
Your experience of prison has been difficult. You feel vulnerable and have been subjected to further bullying. I was told that you did not understand the “rules” of prison life, how to behave and who to trust. I have taken this into account in sentencing you.
Since being on remand, you have broken a leg which you attributed to an accident. You have been loath to talk about being bullied whilst in gaol, although this appears to be ongoing.
I was told that when you spoke with Ms Mynard, it was the first time you had spoken with anyone about your psychological difficulties and you have expressed an interest in ongoing treatment, which would be most beneficial to you. I was told that the community-based order previously imposed upon you did not involve you receiving any such treatment.
Although the offences which you committed late last year occurred before most of the charges for which I now sentence you, these were dealt with recently. At the time of the plea they had not been dealt with.
I was told that although your conduct was appalling, you are not a bad person so much as a vulnerable one. Mr Riley, I accept that there is a difference between being a bad person and doing bad things. Obviously, you have done bad things and you have some vulnerability in view of your cognitive difficulties.
In your favour, I take into account the letter from Sister Mary O'Shannessy who speaks well of you and of the work that you do whilst in prison to assist in duties concerning church services.
Although your family may have not been the best of role models, they are still there to support you and it is to be hoped that they support you in a positive way, both now and in the future. When you are released from gaol, you intend to reside with your mother which is where you were residing before the offending occurred. You intend to work with your stepfather, doing scaffolding work when available in the future.
Your salutary experience of gaol has had some impact upon you and will have some further impact upon you. Your greatest wish is to return home to live with your mother. Further, you have decided that your so-called friends who supplied drugs to you and had you commit crimes on their behalf, are no friends at all and you will have nothing further to do with them. Your expectation of them supporting you whilst on remand was short-lived when no help was forthcoming and they failed to visit you.
Taking into account your criminal history, albeit somewhat limited and also the matters which were committed in the months leading up to the offences for which I now sentence you comprise the incidents two to five, and also taking into account your struggles with drugs and your fairly limited intellectual capacity, but also factoring in your abstinence from drugs in gaol and your eagerness to engage in counselling and live a pro-social life, at best I can regard your prospects of rehabilitation as guarded. I do hope that you take advantage of courses in gaol to improve your literacy and skills and I note that you have taken advantage of such courses whilst on remand. I do hope that you embark upon counselling and work, when you are released, as you propose. However, I can only rate your prospects of rehabilitation as guarded at best.
I must place strong weight on general deterrence in a bid to deter others from offending as you have and I also must place strong weight upon protection of the community in view of your offending and prospects of rehabilitation. I place not insignificant weight upon specific deterrence although I have borne in mind the salutary experience of gaol, which is having a deterrent effect upon you.
Having said all this, I must not impose a sentence which is crushing or leaves you without any hope for the future, bearing in mind your age and my guarded findings in respect of your prospects of rehabilitation. I also bear in mind the principles of proportionality and totality, bearing in mind the number of offences before me and the fact that you have very recently been sentenced to a nine month gaol term. Although there may be a presumption of cumulation in a situation such as yours, I have decided to impose a sentence which will run concurrently with the sentence you are presently undergoing as a result of the Magistrates' Court proceedings, because of the principal of totality in particular.
In relation to all of the offences, you are convicted.
I make the following ancillary orders, each of which are either not opposed or consented to by you:
I made a disposal order in the terms set out in the draft order provided to me by the Crown.
I make an order for a forensic sample to be taken from you by way of a scraping from the mouth. I make the order because it is not opposed by you, because of the seriousness of the offences and because it is in the public interest to do so and because of your prior convictions. Notwithstanding that you presently do not oppose the order, I warn you that if you do not cooperate with the officer who is authorised to take the sample, reasonable force may be used to ensure your compliance.
I make two compensation orders, one for $7000.00 made payable to Ms Jeyakanthan, and the other for $8000 made payable to Mr Petsas.
I sentence you to the following periods of imprisonment:
In relation Charge 1, three years; Charge 2, two years; Charges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, one year in relation to each of the charges; Charge 10, six months; Charge 11, 14 days; Charge 12, eight days; Charge 13, 18 months; Charge 14, 18 months; Charge 15, eight months; Charge 16, 18 months; Charge 17, 14 months; Charge 18, five years, this will be the base sentence; Charge 19, four years; Charge 20, three years; Summary Charge 9, three months; Summary Charge 20, nine months.
I direct that five months from Charge 1, two months from Charges 2, 8, 13, 16 and one month from Charges 10 and 15; as well as three months from Charges 19 and 20 on the indictment and also from Summary Charge 20 be served cumulatively with each other and with the base sentence, producing a total effective sentence of seven years' imprisonment and I direct you to serve four years eight months before becoming eligible for parole. Further, I direct that this sentence is to run wholly concurrently with the sentence you are currently undergoing.
I declare that you have already served 293 days pre-sentence detention which will be reckoned as already served in respect of my sentence.
If not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years' imprisonment.
Is there anything arising out of the sentence?
MR ALEXANDER: No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Thank you, please remove Mr Riley. Thank you, we will now adjourn.
- - -
0
0
0