Director of Public Prosecutions v Robinson

[2020] VCC 229

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

AT GEELONG
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 19-00681

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ADAM ROBINSON

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	2 December 2019; 4 March 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 March 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Robinson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 229

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:

Catchwords:                  Sentence – aggravated burglary – unlawful assault with a weapon – violence directed toward ex-partner – series of burglaries and thefts – high-risk young offender – substantial criminal history – background of significant disadvantage and deprivation – risk of substance abuse – need for rehabilitation balanced against seriousness of offending

Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms P. Thorp	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr N. Goodfellow	Criminal Lawyers Geelong

HER HONOUR: 

1Adam Robinson, on 6 January 2018, you had been out of custody for two months as a result of finishing your most recent sentence.  Once released from custody, you went to live in the home of your then partner, but it would appear that by the end of the year the relationship between the two of you had broken down. 

2The relationship had been one of some duration and you had two children together, children who were then about three and five. When the relationship broke down you moved out of her home. 

3On 6 January, early in the morning, you went to her home where she was present with her older child, who was then about four.  She heard the sound of a curtain moving in the lounge room and got out of bed, slowly walking down the hallway towards the noise. You suddenly appeared in the house in front of her. You punched her in the face, threw her into a mirror, threw her onto a table and punched her in the ribs.  You stabbed a chair with a knife and held the knife to her throat before leaving the premises.

4As a result of that, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated burglary, the circumstances of the burglary being an intent to steal from the home, and separately to a related summary charge of unlawful assault with a weapon relating to punching your partner in the face, throwing her into the mirror and onto a table, punching her in the ribs, stabbing the chair with a knife and holding the knife to her throat.

5You then, about two months after that, embarked on a spree of offending mainly of committing burglaries and thefts on commercial premises, as a result of which you have pleaded guilty to another 34 indictable charges and one further summary charge. 

6Between 5 and 6 March 2018, you went to the Armstrong Creek shopping centre and entered three business premises there: Sullies Kiosk, Slippery Mackerel and Peppered Goat. On each of those occasions, you smashed a hole around the door handle or lock and stole computer items and cash. 

7A couple of days later between 7 and 8 March 2018, you went to Gilbert Street in Torquay and gained entry into four business premises using a crowbar to smash the doors of the shops around the handle and lock.  They were Dee Gees, Jade Restaurant, Surfside Dental and Italos Pizza.  You stole cash from Dee Gees, Surfside Dental and Italo's Pizza.  So far as Jade Restaurant is concerned, you did not steal anything.

8Then between 12 and 13 March 2018, you went to Breakwater and broke into two premises, Lion Kingdom CrossFit and Rickard Heating and Cooling. Again, you caused damage to property in the process of breaking into the premises. You stole property from Lion Kingdom CrossFit and from Rickard Heating and Cooling. In addition, you stole a vehicle, a Toyota Hiace, from Rickard Heating and Cooling.  

9You then went to Computer Guys in High Street, Belmont. You gained entry by jemmying the door open and again caused damage to the premises in the course of that. Again, you did not steal anything from that place. You then went to Menzel Glass in Crown Street, South Geelong where you broke into the property, again causing damage and stole some cash. 

10The following day on 14 March, you were seen driving a black Holden Commodore with a silver front panel in Corio. That car had been identified in a number of the burglary episodes, in particular, the burglaries that had occurred at Armstrong Creek on 5 and 6 March. 

11Police tried to intercept you. Senior Constable Granger activated his lights and sirens in an attempt to intercept you but you failed to stop. That, unlike all the previous conduct that I have identified which related to charges of burglary and theft, gives rise to a related summary charge of failing to stop a vehicle on police request. 

12The following day, 15 March, you went to the Geelong Indoor Sports Centre on Gravel Pits Road in South Geelong, cut the padlock on the entry gate with an angle grinder, drove up and around the complex, got out of your car (the same one that you had been seen driving at Armstrong Creek and the previous day in Corio) but were deterred from actually breaking into the building or stealing anything because you activated the burglar alarm. That gives rise to a charge of attempted burglary.

13The following day on 16 March, you went to a property in Dangers Road, Gherang where you broke a padlock to get in and stole some personal items, giving rise to, again, charges of burglary and theft. 

14Between 17 and 18 March, you went to a number of premises in Queenscliff and Barwon Heads. In Queenscliff, you went to LIX Ice Cream in Fourth Road, smashed the window to gain entry and stole property. You then broke into the Culture Coffee cart in Bridge Road, Barwon Heads and caused damage to it in the course of breaking into it and stole money.

15Later that night a man was packing his car, a Jeep Cherokee, in Colite Street in Barwon Heads.   He cannot remember whether he locked the car or not but the following morning when he went to it, the door was open and a large number of items had been stolen from the car. That therefore gives rise to a charge of theft from that car. 

16And then finally, on 19 March, you went to the Torquay Bowls Club in Torquay. You broke in causing damage by using an angle grinder to open the locked key box and stole property.   You then went to the Salty Dog Café and stole a tray of bread. 

17You were arrested the following day when police went to your home. You were actually trying to hide yourself inside a couch. They searched the house and the car. They found approximately 3g of cannabis in a bag and the boot of your car and a passport belonging to somebody other than you. That gives rise to a charge of possession of cannabis and a charge of handling stolen goods.

18So in all, 31 charges of burglary and theft, one of attempted burglary, one of possession of a drug of dependence and one of handling stolen goods as well as the two related summary offences, the assault offence related to the aggravated burglary, the really serious charge that brought you before this court, Charge 1, and the failing to respond to a direction to stop which is Related Summary Charge 38. That is a significant number of charges and a significant spate of wrongdoing.

19Charge 1 and Related Summary Charge 4, the assault, are the offences against your former partner. They are the most serious and they clearly call for a sentence which reflects deterrence, both general and specific, and which marks, in the clearest of terms, the denunciation of behaviour which subjects a woman, your former partner and the mother of your two children, to such frightening and abusive behaviour. No matter how angry or upset you were, nothing justifies breaking into her home in the middle of the night, abusing her and threatening her with violence. Nothing justifies stabbing a chair and threatening her with a knife as you did. And nothing justifies the actual violence you inflicted on her by punching her and throwing her.

20We all know the shocking figures of the number of women, threatened, attacked or even killed by angry partners or former partners. We all know that women are most at risk of violence at the hands of their partner or former partner immediately after separation. 

21These women, like your former partner, are not statistics. They are real people and each one of them, like her, is entitled to live their lives free of the fear of attack by their former partner, the person after all with whom they had shared a life, a home and, in cases such as yours, had children with.

22So people who like you vent their anger, jealousy or possessiveness or who are in other ways intent on denying their partners or former partners the right to make their own decisions about whether to stay in a relationship or end it, or to live free of fear, must understand how much that cuts across the values we live by in a community which respects human rights, dignity, equality of people and respect for their autonomy. And so, the behaviour that you displayed and for which I must sentence you must be condemned, denounced and punished.

23At a different level, and for very different reasons, repeated and persistent interference with other people's property, breaking into their businesses or cars, stealing their money or goods and damaging their property in the process, whether to get money for drugs or for any other purpose, is simply not acceptable.

24Those who do so, like you, must be punished and the behaviour and attitudes that justify their conduct and their failure to respect other people's property, must also be condemned.

25Insofar as making people accountable for their conduct and punishing them at law acts as a deterrent, the sentence must serve to deter you from considering acting in the same way again either in respect of family violence or in respect of property offences. It must also act to deter others from doing so.

26Therefore, subject to considerations personal to you, denunciation, deterrence, both general and specific, loom large in the sentencing mix and it is acknowledged that those sentencing considerations, as well as the requirement of just punishment for such offences, requires, in your circumstances, a term of imprisonment.

27What then are the personal factors which weigh in the balance and operate in your favour? There are quite a number of factors to take in to account.

28The first is your youth. You are still young. You are now only 23 and you were only 21 at the time. Although at the time of the offending, and more so now, you are legally an adult, it is well-recognised now that the brain of a 21 to 25-year-old has not fully matured. Impulsivity and limitations in engaging in long-term consequential thinking in particular are features of the immature brain that endure until a person is in their mid‑20s.

29The law allows that to be reflected in sentence by recognising those general limitations caused by impulsivity and limited consequential thinking processes that affect the assessment of moral culpability and the weight to be given to deterrence.  It also significantly recognises in young people or immature people the importance of encouraging rehabilitation.

30Making allowance for youth has more significance in your case because you have had a life of significant deprivation and disadvantage and have been denied a pathway to mature and responsible adulthood that we would hope every child in our community should enjoy. You have not had the benefit of the stable, violence free, emotionally and materially enriching life all children in this country should be able to experience.

31In fact, you have had the polar opposite of that. Parental substance abuse, parental mental illness, exposure to extreme and repeated family violence and neglect had led to the Department of Health and Human Services' involvement in your family's life from the time you were born.

32You were first removed from your home and into foster care, it would appear, when you were about five. You moved between foster care and the family home after that. By the age of nine, you had been referred to a psychologist for assistance with your responses following an incident when it would appear you were living back with your parents and an adult neighbour had chased you, thrown something at you and struck you in the face.

33You were referred to the psychologist because you were then, at the age of only nine, exhibiting post-traumatic responses.

34The psychologist, John Miksad, reported:  

Adam admitted to feelings of fear and trepidation regarding [the perpetrator of the incident] and how this impacted on other areas of his life such as sleeping. However, the most prominent aspect of this boy's presentation was the range of psychosocial difficulties that he has had to endure of which the incident was only a small component.  Adam talked openly about domestic violence between his parents, drug dealers in his street, police involvement on a regular basis with the family and specific incidents of violence.  As a result, the parental relationship seemed to have deteriorated to the point that his parents separated again during the course of sessions following a huge domestic violence situation involving police and child protection. Whilst Adam managed to deal reasonably well with his severe reactions after the criminal incident, he was just as concerned about safety of his immediate family, and for good reason.

Given all of these issues, Adam is the kind of child that could benefit from longer term counselling in his own right.  However, little would be achieved unless the family violence and marital relationships were addressed to a satisfactory level.

35By 2007, a supervision order had been made in the family division of the Children's Court in respect of your family, that is, involving both your parents, you and four of your siblings but not apparently your older sibling or siblings.

36A 2011 report of DHHS, prepared when you were 14, described the circumstances giving rise to the making of that 2007 order as 'environmental neglect, drug use and domestic violence'. The 2011 report makes clear that, by 2009, the supervision order had been replaced by a custody to the Secretary order in respect of you. And by 2010, you had had your first appearance before the criminal division of the Children's Court.

37You were supposed to be living in residential care by then, but your attendance was sporadic and whether you absconded or simply lived elsewhere is not really to the point.

38By early 2011, your self-reported substance abuse, offending behaviour, itinerant lifestyle and association with older men with significant criminal histories led to your being placed in secure welfare for a fortnight, due to what was assessed to be a severe risk you posed to yourself. That severe risk materialised and, by May 2011, you had been remanded to Melbourne Youth Justice Centre where you were ultimately sentenced to nine months in Youth Detention.

39By September 2011, you had been released on parole to live with your father and a plan of services was put in place to support you, but neither the services plan nor the placement worked out. The services plan did not work out because you were unwilling or unable to engage with it in a consistent and sustained manner. The placement did not work out because of clashes between you and your father, exacerbated by his continued drug use and difficulties, it would appear, in the management of the behaviour of your younger brother.

40You left and went to stay with your mother.  But staying with your mother was only ever going to be a short term solution, according to the DHHS report. There was not room in the house for you. The other children that she did have custody of had needs of their own that she was unable, or struggling, to meet. You needed to be somewhere else, safe, secure and where your welfare could be looked after.

41It was clear from the 2007 DHHS report that neither your mother nor your father could manage their own substance abuse and mental health issues and they were unable to manage and care for you or your siblings. And so you found yourself again placed in residential care.

42The report noted that you had the right to: safe and primary care relationships that were willing and able to promote your safety, health, well-being and development, enjoy a safe and secure environment that would support your physical, emotional, social and cultural development, participate in educational, recreational and social activities that were consistent with your age-appropriate interests, abilities and developmental needs and a safe stable and secure home environment where you could have fair and reasonable limits and boundaries placed on you with consistent consequences for your actions.

43However, family life continued to be chaotic with both parents, the report said, being consistently unable to provide safety and stability for you and your siblings. 

44The report continued:

Adam needs to reside in a safe, secure and clean home environment where he can experience appropriate routines and structures in his life, supported by limits and boundaries with clear and consistent consequences to actions, a strong significant attachment figure on whom he can rely to meet his physical, emotional and development needs and to attend school or an appropriate education program on a regular basis' to ensure your educational, social and development needs could be consistently met.

45Sadly, none of those rights were able to be properly provided and none of those needs were able to be provided by your parents.

46Despite the clear articulation of those needs, the acknowledgement that they were not being met by your placement either with your father or your mother and the clear statement of intent to extend the guardianship order to place you in a setting where your needs could be met, things did not improve for you.

47This is not meant to be a criticism of DHHS. The report sets out in careful detail many of the interventions and supports that had been provided to you over the years and that would continue to be provided to you. But your pattern of risk-taking behaviour was well-entrenched. The history of unstable housing continued and your history of substance abuse continued.

48It would appear that by the age of nine you were already abusing cannabis, to which you were so frequently exposed in the family home and, by 13, you had already starting abusing methamphetamine.  Again, this is something you were exposed to in the family home. Inevitably, more offending followed and further periods of Youth Detention. 

49An October 2014 report prepared by Youth Health and Rehabilitation Service following your release from another period of Youth Detention picks up the story. It noted that your psychiatric care had been overseen whilst you were in Youth Detention in 2014 by a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist.

50It said this:

Adam has a major history of trauma and attachment deprivation.  He was removed from his parents at the age of five along with his four siblings and placed in various foster care placements.  Reunification with his parents was attempted at age 13 but this failed.  Adam left home at age 14 and experienced a period of homelessness.  He now has limited contact with his siblings and no meaningful contact with his parents. 

Adam has a history of poly substance use. At age 13, he also made his first attempts at suicide and self-injury by cutting his throat and arms.  Adam's academic record is below average.   Adam has many triggers in relation to past abuse.  These include being yelled at, whipped, humiliated and being locked in his room.

51Under Diagnosis, the report says this:

Adam's presentation is consistent with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder with associated depression.  Adam has experienced paranoia in the past.  However, this is more due to hyper-vigilance associated with PTSD symptoms than any positive psychotic phenomena.  Adam recognises that this is exacerbated when under the influence of methamphetamine.

52It noted that your willingness to seek help and engagement in treatment had fluctuated. You have experienced difficulty in managing emotions, substance use and anger-management and, whilst engaging at times, it was difficult for you to maintain and sustain engagement. 

53The report concluded, 'Psychological assistance in relation to trauma, depression and anger is also recommended although his willingness to actively participate in such has deteriorated over past months.' 

54The Justice Health records compiled since you have been in adult custody complete the history that Mr Goodfellow has so assiduously sought out and presented on this plea. The Justice Health notes include that a long-term review was conducted in April 2019. 

55The review noted that there was minimum resolution of your PTSD and the core symptoms of the disorder, nightmares, hyper-vigilance, flashbacks and avoidant behaviour due to emotional distress from trigger events, had not resolved. It noted, however, protective factors, namely your willingness to engage with mental health services and your current compliance with treatment and medication. The Justice Health records report, as do other health records at times, that you were at liberty, that you were on methadone in order to deal with your substance abuse and also on at least two forms of mood stabiliser. And I note that you have been seeking out that medication to assist you and you have been compliant with it.

56This then clearly is a case where the principles in Bugmy[1] apply with considerable force. That is, your history of deprivation, neglect and hardship throughout your formative years is relevant to sentencing and serves to mitigate your moral culpability. I accept also that your history means that you are more vulnerable in prison and imprisonment will be more onerous for you.

[1]Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.

57The extreme disadvantage that you suffered in your childhood and youth and the impact it has had on you are things not of your making but which were inflicted upon you. They operate to mitigate the severity of a sentence otherwise appropriate and that might otherwise apply to somebody not so disadvantaged.

58As if the childhood deprivation and disadvantages I have detailed is not enough, you also have an intellectual disability. As noted in the 2011 DHHS report, you have been assessed as having an IQ of 53. DHHS attempts to place you in special schooling had been thwarted by your non-attendance. That was partly because, as you got older, you said you did not want to attend, but also significantly because of what would appear from the reports, to be a manifested continuing failure of your parents to ensure that you, as well as your siblings, attended school. 

59The failure to attend school was of even greater significance for you because of your intellectual disability, as the DHHS report itself noted.

60In 2011, DHHS noted that your biological age did not meet your emotional developmental age, and your non-attendance at a special school and at the alternative education program at St Augustine's had had a significant impact upon your acceptance and understanding of your relationships with your siblings and your peers and placed you at risk of being heavily influenced by others. 

61As a result, you had a poorly developed sense of danger and risk and, as a consequence, found it challenging to distinguish the motives of others. By then, you were spending most of your time associating with peers much older than you, some believed to be in their late 20s. A significant disadvantage, not only for a 15-year-old, but particularly for a 15-year-old with an intellectual disability. 

62So the effect of your intellectual disability is not only on your lack of schooling but also that it renders you more susceptible to influence and to having an impaired sense of danger and risk.

63Again, the existence of the intellectual disability means your moral culpability for the offending is reduced and so accordingly must be the weight to be given to general deterrence.

64You have what can only be described as a terrible criminal history, most of it amassed in the Children's Court and most of it for offences of burglary or theft or other related dishonesty offences and driving offences. Of relevance though to Charge 1, the aggravated burglary and the uplifted summary charge of unlawful assault with a weapon, are the following matters which were dealt with by the Children's Court at various times, including: two charges of aggravated burglary, one of attempted aggravated burglary, two charges of reckless conduct endangering life, one of make a threat to kill, one of unlawful assault and one of threat to inflict serious injury.

65Once you graduated to being sentenced in the Magistrates' Court, your appearances before court have been fewer but more varied. You have had one appearance for burglary, theft and other dishonesty offences and one for driving offences. And again, relevantly for sentencing for Charges 1 and Related Summary Offence 4, two appearances for possession of weapons, one for breach of a family violence intervention order, which concerned your former partner, one for damaging property and one for assaulting an emergency worker.

66So despite the factors that I have identified and that so powerfully point to a reduction in the weight to be given to deterrence, it is clear that the sentence must nonetheless give specific deterrence some weight. 

67Against this bleak background, there are some promising indicators of change, including a maturation in you and a desire to work to make a better life for yourself on release.

68Despite your intellectual disability and your lack of formal schooling, you have managed to complete the third year of a carpentry apprenticeship and you have aspirations to work in the construction industry. Consistently with that, you applied for, were accepted into and completed a welding course whilst you have been in custody. You hope to increase your skills in the construction area and you hope more opportunities will be offered to you to continue to increase your skills in the building and construction area. It is to be hoped that once you move from being a remandee to a sentenced prisoner that there will be more opportunities available to you.

69You have also done courses in relation to addressing substance abuse and, significantly, better parenting. I take into account that you volunteered to do it and that you proudly produced these certificates evidencing your engagement. Also, I am told you have used your time in custody to experience life unimpaired by illicit substances. You are on a methadone program, something that you initiated and that you have shown a willingness to maintain.  Given your struggles with addressing your substance abuse during your previous periods in Youth Detention or in adult custody, it is commendable that you want to do it and that you are persisting in doing it.

70Although there is currently a long-term family violence intervention order in place which prevents you from having contact with your children, you express a great love for them, a desire to be a part of their lives, to prove that you can be a responsible, non-violent, non-angry and non-substance abusing person in their presence, and to model better parenting to them than you unfortunately were able to experience. 

71Although it cannot be said that your prospects for rehabilitation are anything other than guarded, you appear to have taken advantage of your time in custody to reflect, to take steps to equip yourself for a better life on release and to plan and prepare for it. 

72You express ambitions that may sound modest and in a sense unremarkable, but for a person who has experienced the upbringing you have and who has spent so much time in custody, detention,  foster care, residential care or secure welfare, they are not at all modest but rather ambitious and moving. What you want is a different life, a home, a job, a family, stability, a normal life like other people.  You should be entitled to that.

73As I said in discussions with Mr Goodfellow on the plea, the sentence to be imposed must be structured to encourage those ambitions and to acknowledge the steps that you have made since your time in custody. The sentence should encourage your rehabilitation, because that is very powerful. In one sense, promoting and encouraging rehabilitation is much more important for a young person who has suffered disadvantage and whose prospects are guarded, than it is for those who have enjoyed the advantages of life and who have already been able to take steps on the path to an encouraging future because they have had support in their childhood and early adulthood.

74You are also entitled to have taken into account in your favour your plea of guilty and the early stage at which they were entered. In the circumstances and having regard to the manner in which you have presented yourself and cooperated with Dr Grech and your lawyers in the course of the plea, I take your pleas of guilty as an indication of remorse as well as, of course, giving them weight for their utilitarian value and their value in advancing the interests of justice. The victims, most specifically your former partner, but also the victims of the burglaries and thefts, have been spared a trial and spared having to recount the events. The community has also been spared the cost and time of a trial.

75I have taken the time to detail the matters arising from the reports that have been provided to me by Mr Goodfellow, because it is essential in my view that those who are responsible for your care and support in custody appreciate your circumstance and, if you are to be released on parole, the supports to be offered to you to best address your complex needs and provide you with tailored programs to assist you to encourage your rehabilitation. 

76It also seems to me, if you have a longstanding diagnosis of an intellectual disability, that you are of course a candidate for assistance under the NDIS and it is to be hoped that, if you have not already taken steps to register, those who are responsible for you whilst you are in custody or upon your release on parole assist you to do that so that you can avail yourself, not just of rehabilitative programs provided through Corrections, but more importantly the broader programs and supports that you are entitled to and that are also going to assist you to live an offence-free, substance-free, anger and violence-free life in the community. 

77You need that more than many people need that assistance.  I have therefore set out this detail in the hope that that will provide some significant and helpful background to those who need to assess your needs and provide for them.

78Before I explain the structure of the sentence, I just want to deal with two matters. The first is the reasons why this plea was adjourned from its first listing in December last year. It was adjourned essentially because of the many, and in my view, manifest deficiencies in the report of Dr Grech and which I discussed with Mr Goodfellow on the occasion the matter was first before me.

79Dr Grech, as well as solicitors and counsel, all must take responsibility for ensuring that a psychological report provided to this court on a plea complies with the Practice Note in relation to the provision of psychological reports on pleas and that all relevant source documents are obtained where past diagnoses are relied on to support conclusions based on them. The court, you yourself or an accused person and Victoria Legal Aid, who as I understand funded the Grech report, are all entitled to that compliance.

80Having said that, the work that was done by Mr Goodfellow between the adjournment and the hearing today has been exemplary. The reports and information provided by Mr Goodfellow clearly and comprehensively addressed the earlier shortcomings and Mr Goodfellow is to be commended on the obvious care he has taken to distil a considerable amount of historic data, not condensed in an easy form obviously, and the care he took to try and find original diagnoses, to trace the complex history of your care in State care, in Youth Detention and in adult custody and to tie the relevant material so precisely and carefully to supportable diagnoses and conclusions relevant to the application of the relevant sentencing principles generally and in particular to the principles in cases such as Bugmy and Verdins.

81So there was an added delay that must have been difficult for you, Mr Robinson, but Mr Goodfellow has certainly made good use of that time and your case and your circumstances are considerably advanced by reason of the additional material that has been presented to me. 

82The second matter I want to raise is a complaint about the inclusion of Charges 2 to 35 on the indictment. Although they are all indictable offences, they are all of a nature that ordinarily would have been dealt with in the Magistrates' Court and I can see no reason why you were committed to this court to be dealt with for them.

83They occurred two months after the commission of the offence that is the subject of Charge 1, which had to come to this court and should have come to this court.  They are not connected with Charge 1 and the fact that they are on your record as dealt with in this court may give an unfair and unwarranted impression that they are more serious offences of their type than the objective circumstances indicate. So there is a real disadvantage to you and an unfairness to you in my view by reason of the fact that they are dealt with here.

84It is also inappropriate because they are of a matter properly to be dealt with by the Magistrates' Court. It is the magistrates who understand the sentencing range better for offences of this nature and who are better equipped to deal with them. 

85This is one of a number of such cases where unrelated charges of burglary and theft and another dishonesty offences have been sent to this court and dealt with by me during the last two months I have been here on circuit, bundled up with matters that are properly matters to be dealt with before this court. 

86In my view, when negotiating pleas for people facing multiple charges, more care needs to be taken by the Office of Public Prosecutions and defence lawyers to separate out those matters that should properly be dealt with, not through the committal stream, but before the Magistrates' Court and to keep only those matters that are properly to be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court before that court.

87It is not only a volume matter, but it is, as I said, a matter that might unfairly suggest the circumstances of the offending for the indictable matters that are normally dealt with before the Magistrates' Court were more serious. 

88So dealing with it as best I can, the sentences that I have imposed in respect of Charges 2 to 35 are in line with my somewhat imperfect understanding of what the range of sentences in that court would be for such offences, committed in such circumstances, with such repetition and against a history such as yours.

89So the structure I have fixed on in order to encourage your prospects for rehabilitation, to properly reflect just punishment, denunciation and deterrence to the extent that weight can and should be given to them is this.

90Charge 1 is clearly the most serious offence so the sentence on that is the base sentence and I have related the sentence for the Related Summary Offence 4 of assault to that and imposed partial cumulation in respect of that. So the overall offending that is related to Charge 1 and Related Summary Charge 4 has a partial cumulation order that reflects proportionality and totality in respect of that.

91So far as the other offences are concerned, I have imposed the same sentence on each of the burglary charges and the same but a lesser sentence on each of the theft charges. The theft charges, if connected with a burglary, are concurrent. The theft charges, if separate from a burglary, are separate and have a partial cumulation order in respect of them.

92The first burglary sentence in time I am making wholly cumulative on the sentence for aggravated burglary, but all other sentences in respect of burglary and theft associated with them are concurrent. It is a somewhat artificial structure but rather than deal with small amounts of cumulation for each separate episode of offending or each individual offence, it seems to me to be the most convenient way to deal with it.

93I have ordered a modest partial cumulation for the first of each successive day of the clusters of burglary and related theft offences. 

94I have imposed separate sentences for the attempted burglary, the theft of the items from the car and the possession of the passport, as they are different offences committed in different circumstances. 

95So far as the charge of possession of cannabis is concerned, I am not going to impose a penalty for that. I am going to convict and discharge you. And given your driving history, I intend to impose a sentence of imprisonment rather than a fine in respect of that. For the charge of failing to stop on police direction, I am going to make it concurrent and I will impose the minimum period of licence disqualification, six months, in respect of that and also impose that six months disqualification in respect of the charge relating to theft of the vehicle.

96So that is the pattern that the sentencing follows. I hope that makes some sense as I go through the sentences.

97Can you now please stand, Mr Robinson?

98On all charges to which you have pleaded guilty, you are convicted. On Charge 1 of aggravated burglary, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two years and six months. 

99On Charge 2 of burglary at Armstrong Creek at Sullies Kiosk, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of eight months. 

100On Charge 3 of theft from Sullies, six months' imprisonment.

101On Charge 4, burglary from Slippery Mackerel, eight months' imprisonment. 

102On Charge 5, theft from Slippery Mackerel, six months' imprisonment.

103On Charge 6, burglary from Peppered Goat, eight months' imprisonment.

104And Charge 7, theft from Peppered Goat, six months' imprisonment. 

105On Charge 8, burglary from Dee Gees in Gilbert Street, Torquay, eight months' imprisonment.

106On Charge 9, theft related to that, six months' imprisonment.

107Charge 10, burglary of Jade Restaurant, Torquay, eight months' imprisonment.

108Charge 11, burglary from Surfside Dental, eight months' imprisonment.

109Charge 12, theft related to that, six months' imprisonment.

110Charge 13, burglary from Italo's Pizza, eight months' imprisonment.

111Charge 14, theft related to that, six months' imprisonment.

112Charge 15, from Lion Kingdom CrossFit in Breakwater, eight months' imprisonment.

113Charge 16, theft related to that, six months' imprisonment.

114Charge 17, burglary from Rickard Heating and Cooling at Breakwater, eight months' imprisonment. 

115Charge 18, theft of the Toyota Hiace, six months' imprisonment.

116Charge 19, theft of items, six months' imprisonment. 

117Charge 20, burglary from the Computer Guys, Belmont, eight months' imprisonment.

118Charge 21, burglary from Menzel Glass, South Geelong, eight months' imprisonment. 

119Charge 22, theft from Menzel Glass, six months' imprisonment.

120Charge 15, attempted burglary from Geelong Indoor Sports Centre, six months' imprisonment.

121Charge 24, burglary from Josie Ferrari in Gherang, eight months' imprisonment.

122Charge 25, theft related to that, six months' imprisonment.

123Charge 26, burglary from LIX Ice Cream, Queenscliff, eight months' imprisonment.

124Charge 27, the theft charge related to that, six months' imprisonment.

125Charge 28, burglary from Culture Coffee, Barwon Heads, eight months' imprisonment.

126Charge 29, the theft related to that, six months' imprisonment.

127Charge 30, theft from Mr Wilson's car at Barwon Heads, six months' imprisonment.

128Charge 31, burglary from Torquay Bowls Club, eight months' imprisonment.

129Charge 32, theft related to that, six months' imprisonment.

130Charge 33, theft of the bread from Salty Dog Café, Torquay, six months' imprisonment. 

131Charge 34, possess a drug of dependence, convicted and discharged.

132Charge 35, handling stolen goods, that is possession of the passport found in your possession on the day of arrest, one month imprisonment. 

133On Related Summary Charge 4 of assault, six months' imprisonment.

134On Related Summary Offence 38, failure to stop when directed by police, one month imprisonment.

135The whole of the sentence on Charge 2, that is eight months, one month of the sentence on Charge 8, that is the first of the charges relating to 7 to 8 March, one month of the sentence on Charge 15, the first of the charges relating to 12 to 13 March, one month of the sentence on Charge 20, that is the first of the sentences relating to 13 March, one month of the sentence on Charge 23, the attempted burglary of the 15 March, one month of the sentence on Charge 24, the first burglary in respect of 16 March, one month of the sentence on Charge 26, the first burglary of 17 to 18 March, one month of the sentence on Charge  13, the first burglary of 19 March, one month of the sentence on Charge 35, the whole of the sentence on Related Summary Offence 4 of assault are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence on Charge 1.

136That makes a total effective sentence of four years and four months and I fix the period of two years and four months as the time that you must serve before being eligible for parole. 

137I declare that you have spent 655 days in pre‑sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served. And I declare pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act that, but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of six years and six months and fixed a non-parole period of five years. 

138On Charge 18 of theft of the Toyota Hiace and related summary Charge 38, all licences held by you are cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining a further licence for a period of six months, effective from today.

139HER HONOUR:  No further orders required to be made?

140COUNSEL:  No, your Honour.  

‑ ‑ ‑