Director of Public Prosecutions v Robinson

[2019] VCC 1845

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 19-02106

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

COREY ROBINSON

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARRISH
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 November 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 November 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Robinson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1845

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:Breach of Supervision order pursuant to s169(1) Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic)

Catchwords: Serious Offenders Act, breach.
Legislation Cited:                   Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic).

Sentence:27 days imprisonment; 27 days of pre-sentence detention declared as time already served under this sentence; 6AAA declaration – 40 day imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms Farrell	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Turner	Chris McLennan & Co

HIS HONOUR

1This proceeding, the Director of Public Prosecutions v Corey Robinson involves a breach of a supervision order made under the Serious Offenders Act 2018. Mr Robinson has been the subject of a supervision order made on the 14 March 2019 by His Honour Judge Tinney. I will not refer to the criminal record of Mr Robinson but such is extensive, involving crimes of violence, more so when one considers Mr Robinson is only 27 years of age at this time.

2Mr Robinson, through his Counsel consented to Summary jurisdiction and pleaded guilty in relation to the breach charge – breach of supervision order pursuant to s 169(1) Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic).The maximum term of imprisonment to which this Court may sentence an offender if exercising summary jurisdiction in relation to this charge is 2 years (s.113 Sentencing Act 1991(Vic)).

3Since the making of the supervision order there has been, prior to this particular breach, five other breaches which have been dealt with summarily over time.  In particular the last breach before today involved Mr Robinson pleading guilty to one charge of breaching the supervision order by way of using a Schedule 4 drug, Lyrica.  His Honour Judge Tinney sentenced Mr Robinson to seven days' imprisonment and declared seven days to have been served by way of pre-sentence detention.

4It was also on that day, 15 October 2019, that a search warrant was executed at Mr Robinson's premises pursuant to s.92(1) of the Crimes Act 1958. During the course of that search a knuckleduster was located in the lounge room drawer of the premises. There is no issue today that such knuckleduster was found at the premises of the accused on that day.

5The supervision order includes the following condition – “5.9 Corey Robinson must not contravene the Control of Weapons Act 1990”. Such Act includes knuckledusters.

6It is particularly relevant that the search warrant was executed on 15 October 2019, that being the day when the fifth breach was dealt with by Judge Tinney, is that the accused was in custody until such time that Judge Tinney made orders saying time served was an appropriate sentence.

7Clearly enough it must follow that the knuckleduster was present at the premises prior to Mr Robinson being remanded in relation to that breach and was sentenced on 15 October 2019. In coming to a view as to what may be an appropriate sentence in this matter, both counsel for defence and indeed counsel for the prosecution highlight that an issue of totality is relevant.  In other words, in reality when this matter was dealt with by Judge Tinney on 15 October 2019 and there was an order for seven days' imprisonment, totality requires me to take that into account bearing in mind that the matter of the knuckleduster in truth was in the hands of the accused at that time and could have been arguably dealt with if it has been found prior to the 15 October 2019.

8The most dramatic aspect in the circumstances of this application is that in the relatively short time since the order was made it has been breached five times.  Some of the breaches are obviously more serious than others and indeed over that period of time Mr Robinson has been sentenced to various periods of imprisonment and indeed on a recent occasion gave an undertaking which of course has been breached by this further offending.

9In coming to a view about an appropriate sentence these matters should be taken into account in my view; firstly, general deterrence is very important.  People should be deterred from breaching supervision orders which are very important orders given the basis why such orders are made. It should be appreciated that a breach of such an order does have meaningful and significant consequences.

10Secondly in this case the fact that there has been the number of breaches of a supervision order since the commencement of the order raises the issue of specific deterrence in that to date Mr Robinson has not made seemingly any real attempt to comply with this order to its full extent, and indeed that must be reflected in the sentence which I am about to order.

11Thirdly, it is the very nature of the offending, the finding of the knuckleduster, (although I stress there is no suggestion whatsoever on the evidence that it has been used or was intended to be used but certainly found at the premises of the accused), does raise the spectre of physical violence.  Again I take that into account.

12Fourthly I take into account that the accused has also pleaded guilty to this offence although the evidence would appear to be very strong in support of the breach.

13It is a matter of balancing up all these matters in coming to a view as to what is an appropriate sentence.  I have come to the view, taking those matters into account, that the only appropriate sentence can be one of imprisonment.

14After considering the principle of totality I order that the accused be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 27 days.

15MS FARRELL:  Yes, Your Honour.

16HIS HONOUR:  I also declare that the accused has served 27 days pre-sentence detention which should be deducted administratively from this sentence.

17So essentially I do find that the breach has been proved pursuant to the Act and as I say, I sentence the accused to 27 days of imprisonment declaring that there has been 27 days served to this date.

18Anything else to be said?

19MS FARRELL: The s.6AAA, Your Honour.

20HIS HONOUR: Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that save for the plea of guilty I would have ordered a period of 40 days imprisonment.

21Mr Robinson, stand up.  I really do hope that you appreciate your position.  You are on this supervision order which has been explained to you and in a relatively short period of time you have breached that order six times now.  I can tell you that if you breach it again or again after that it will get more and more significant about the period of time that you spend in prison.  The whole point of this supervision order is for you to comply with various requirements of the order and if you do not, and you might think they are fiddly things, if you do not you will be brought back here for a breach and the breach will be treated very seriously because it is a breach of an order which is made to protect the community and indeed you are showing signs, to date at least, that the order means very little to you. 

22It is not for me to give you advice but I think you should consider your position after today because if you keep on breaching it I can tell you, it will get longer and longer and longer and that is nothing to say about how a court - the Magistrates' Court will deal with you when these offences are brought before that court, I think it is in December.  That is another day and another chapter.  You are still a young fellow, it is about time you started to make a bit of sense of your life because I can only tell you it gets worse and worse and worse and four years next time might become seven or eight years, 10 years, 12 years and I can tell you all of a sudden you will wake up one morning and your life is gone.  So you really have to give consideration to all that.  Yes, anything else?

23MS FARRELL:  No, Your Honour.

24MR TURNER:  No, Your Honour.

25HIS HONOUR:  I believe even though I have ordered time served, the way I think the situation works now, we still have to go downstairs, is that correct?  Yes.  I cannot ask him to step down at this stage.

26MR TURNER:  Your Honour, he is still in a sense on remand for the other charges.

27HIS HONOUR:  He's on remand, I see.

28MR TURNER:  So he's ‑ ‑ ‑

29HIS HONOUR:  Not going anywhere.

30MR TURNER:  ‑ ‑ ‑ not going anywhere, Your Honour, no.

31HIS HONOUR:  Very well.

‑ ‑ ‑