Director of Public Prosecutions v Salatas
[2024] VCC 619
•8 May 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-01444
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MARIO SALATAS |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE ELLIS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 15 April 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 May 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Salatas | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 619 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: One charge of armed robbery- one charge of causing injury intentionally- one charge of prohibited person possessing an imitation firearm- plea of guilty following sentence indication
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Bail Act 1977 (Vic); Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Sentence: 4 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms S Thomas | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr S Ranjit | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Mario Salatas, on 8 April 2024, after receiving submissions, I granted your application for a sentence indication pursuant to s 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic). I indicated that upon a plea of guilty to the proposed charges on a resolution, that I would impose a specified maximum total effective sentence, that being a custodial sentence not exceeding four years. You then pleaded guilty on arraignment.
2Mr Salatas, you have pleaded guilty to:
·one charge of armed robbery contrary to s 75A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment;
·one charge of causing injury intentionally contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; and
·one charge of being a prohibited person possessing an imitation firearm contrary to s 5AB of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3You have also consented to the transfer of a summary charge of committing indictable offence whilst on bail, contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (Summary Charge 10) and you have pleaded guilty to this charge. This carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or 30 penalty units.
4I note that armed robbery is a Category 2 offence in this instance as the victim suffered an injury and the offence was committed by you in company with another person. As a consequence, the court must sentence you to a term of imprisonment not in combination with a community correction order, unless satisfied that one of the prescribed exceptions applies.[1] There is no submission that you fall within one of the exceptions.
[1] Sentencing Act1991 (Vic) s 5(2H).
Circumstances of Offending
5The circumstances of the offending were set out in a Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 12 April 2024. The complainant in this matter is Christopher Daloia. Mr Daloia was a user of methamphetamine and had known your co-offender, Ilias Koukakis, for a number of years. Mr Daloia and Mr Koukakis had previously worked together, and Mr Koukakis had previously sold methamphetamine to him.
6Around the time of the offending, you would often stay at the Lamplighter Motel in Dandenong Road, Oakleigh with your former partner, Elisha Browne. The two of you were known to the staff at the Lamplighter Motel and would stay in room 31.
7Mr Koukakis, who was somebody that you knew, also frequented the Lamplighter Motel and would stay there at times. At the time he was in a relationship with a woman by the name of Luanne Panetta, who had also previously stayed at the motel and continued to frequent it.
8On Monday 13 March 2023, Mr Koukakis and the complainant, Mr Daloia, arranged to meet in Nelson Street, Oakleigh, for the proposed supply of methylamphetamine.
9Mr Koukakis then travelled to the vicinity of the Lamplighter Motel where you were also present. Sometime after 1.12pm, you and Mr Koukakis were seen having a conversation out the front of the building with two other males before entering room 23 at the motel. It is alleged that at 1.26pm, Mr Koukakis spoke with the complainant by phone and confirmed the arranged meeting. You then collected Mr Koukakis from room 23 and the two of you then left the motel towards the lane which connected the Lamplighter Motel to Westley Street, Oakleigh. CCTV footage depicts the two of you having a brief conversation before you walked towards Nelson Road. You were wearing a fairly distinct t-shirt which is visible on the CCTV footage.
10At approximately 1.30 pm, the complainant drove his black Holden Colorado to Nelson Street, Oakleigh and parked directly outside number 7 Westley Street which intersects with Nelson Road.
11At the same time, you, Mr Koukakis and Ms Panetta, were walking towards Nelson Road. Mr Koukakis then took the lead and walked towards the complainant’s vehicle. You had been walking slightly behind Mr Koukakis before he crossed the road ahead of you. Ms Panetta can be seen in CCTV footage walking behind you and speaking with you. The footage contains audio which picked up the following conversation in which Ms Panetta said 'You’re a fucking bullshit artist' and 'Mario do not fuck around it'. You replied 'Lulu, fuck off, I'm trying to do something here'.
12You can be seen on CCTV footage turning back towards Ms Panetta and lifting your shirt, showing something in your waistband. Ms Panetta stopped immediately and then turned and walked back to the Lamplighter Motel.
13It was the prosecution case that you turned and showed Ms Panetta an imitation firearm which you were carrying in the waistband of your pants. You then continued in the direction of Mr Koukakis towards the complainant’s vehicle.
14At the same time, Mr Koukakis got into the passenger side of the complainant’s vehicle and, a short time later, you got into the rear passenger side.
15Mr Koukakis asked the complainant 'Where’s Joe’s $30,000?', referring to an associate, Giuseppe (Joe) Vasile, who had also supplied drugs to Mr Daloia in the past. The complainant replied 'Fuck Joe', and this is said to have been a reference to an earlier incident between the complainant and Mr Vasile.
16You, Mr Salatas, then produced a black metal imitation firearm complete with metal magazine. Mr Daloia believed that it was genuine and described it as a black pistol. You then struck him to the left cheekbone with the bottom of the metal imitation firearm causing a deep laceration. This immediately caused swelling, bruising, and bleeding. The complainant was later treated at the Emergency Department of the Alfred Hospital, and this constitutes Charge 2, intentionally cause injury.
17Mr Daloia began screaming for help and believed he was going to die. Nearby witnesses heard screaming and the words 'Give us the money' and 'You fucking dog'. The complainant recalls that you and Mr Koukakis yelled at him and demanded that he give you $30,000. At this time you were holding the imitation firearm to the back of his head. You threatened to shoot him in the head. You further threatened that you would shoot the complainant's family and come to his house. You said that you would take his work truck. Just pausing there, these threats are not the subject of a specific charge, but provide the context to the offending.
18Mr Koukakis said to the complainant 'I told you to bring cash'. You then told him to get his phone out and do online banking. Mr Daloia showed you his online bank balance on his phone, and Mr Koukakis told him to PayID Mr Koukakis immediately. During this time your co-offender searched the glovebox at your suggestion.
19The complainant had a total of $455 available in his account. As a result of the demands, he transferred that amount from his Westpac account to Mr Koukakis (Charge 1, armed robbery). After the complainant transferred the money via PayID, you went to get out of the back of the vehicle, and you appeared to put the firearm in the front of your pants as you were exiting.
20Witnesses who had heard the screaming and yelling had called police, who arrived as you were getting out of the vehicle. When you saw police, you threw the imitation firearm behind the driver’s seat and ran away. The firearm was later recovered by police and photographed. The firearm itself has an extreme likeness to a real and operable firearm and is of considerable weight.
21As police arrived they could see you leaning over the complainant who was bleeding from the forehead. You then fled from the scene on foot. Police did not chase you. However, it is apparent from the CCTV footage that a person wearing fairly distinctive bright clothing was depicted running from the scene and returning to the Lamplighter Motel. There, you changed your clothes and, a short time later, you left in the company of Mr Koukakis and another associate.
22At the time of this incident you were a prohibited person contrary to the provisions of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic). You were therefore banned from possessing an imitation firearm.
23The complainant sustained a number of injuries: a three centimetre deep laceration to the left cheekbone; a left anterior maxillary subcutaneous haematoma; and pain and discomfort.
24During the course of the investigation, the imitation firearm was photographed and examined. Latent analysis did not identify your fingerprints on the imitation firearm but DNA evidence was consistent with you being a contributor to the lower and upper half of the magazine, which contained a mixed DNA profile from four contributors. The DNA evidence was 100 billion times more likely if you were a contributor.
Procedural History
25You were arrested on 24 March 2023 at Ms Browne’s home. You participated in a record of interview but denied the offending. You told police that you would have been with your family or at Chadstone Shopping Centre on the day of the incident. You said you were not present at the incident and that you were being set up by other people. You said that you knew Mr Koukakis, who was responsible for the offending, and your DNA might be on the imitation firearm because you had handled firearms in the past.
26You were committed to stand trial on 21 August 2023, following a contested hearing in the Magistrates' Court. There were multiple directions hearings listed in this court and the matter was ultimately listed for trial.
27After a case conference in March this year, you made an application for a sentence indication hearing which took place in early April. Your counsel then indicated that you had accepted the indication and that you would enter a plea of guilty. You were subsequently arraigned on 15 April 2024.
28You have accrued a number of days of pre-sentence detention.
Prior criminal history
29You have admitted a lengthy prior criminal history which dates back to January 2013. Your prior history includes convictions for intentionally threatening serious injury, dishonesty offences such as theft, driving offences, reckless conduct endanger life, recklessly causing injury and, significantly, a number of weapons–related offences.
30Relevantly, in November 2015, you were sentenced for being a prohibited person possessing a firearm. On that occasion, you were sentenced to a period of 28 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months. There was another appearance for being a prohibited person possessing a firearm in June 2021 involving a sawn off shot gun and a samurai sword, and further proceedings in relation to you possessing prohibited weapon without exemption in September 2022, as well as being a prohibited person possessing an imitation firearm, which I am told were gel blasters.
31You have, throughout your criminal history, previously received periods of imprisonment. You have been afforded the opportunity to be placed on community correction orders which you have breached. None of this bodes well for your prospects of rehabilitation.
Plea of Guilty
32You entered a plea of guilty at a relatively late stage. You ran a contested committal during which the complainant was cross-examined on a broad variety of topics. The matter was listed for trial on 15 May this year but resolved following, firstly, the case conference and then the sentence indication. Your plea is therefore a late one.
33Having said that, it is still nonetheless of utilitarian value given that you have spared the community the time and expense of running a trial. You have spared the complainant from having to give evidence and, in doing so, you have indicated a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
34Although your counsel initially submitted that the principles in Worboyes v The Queen have some application here,[2] Mr Ranjit has disavowed that submission given that your plea of guilty occurred following the sentence indication in April this year.
[2] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
35The prosecution submits that your plea of guilty should be assessed in light of the strong prosecution case. Further, that given your record of interview and manner in which the proceedings have been conducted, there is very little, if any, remorse or acceptance of responsibility for your offending.
36Putting that to one side, and although I consider that the prosecution case was reasonably strong, particularly in light of the fact that you were wearing fairly distinctive clothing at the time of the offending which connected you to the Lamplighter Motel, I accept that your plea of guilty is valuable and I take this into account in sentence. I accept that there appears to be very little remorse.
37There has been some delay in the finalisation of these proceedings and no doubt this has been stressful for you, notwithstanding that some of the delay is as a result of your late plea.
Victim Impact Statement
38There is no victim impact statement but it is not difficult to imagine how incredibly frightening this experience must have been for Mr Daloia.
Personal Circumstances
39Mr Salatas, I now turn to your personal circumstances.
40You are now aged 41. You were born in Carlton and your parents are of Greek heritage. You were raised in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Your parents now reside with your two children in their family home at Murrumbeena. Your parents have been married for over 44 years and own a chicken takeaway shop. You have an older brother and a younger brother, as well as a younger sister. You have positive relationships with your immediate family members and you consider them to be your greatest supports in the community. You are close with your older brother.
41Growing up, you reportedly witnessed family violence within the family home and you were subject to corporal punishment from your father, as well as physical abuse where your mother would intervene and she herself would be physically assaulted.
42You have told psychologist, Warren Simmons, that your parents would regularly smoke cannabis and that it was readily available within the family home. You and your brother would steal cannabis from your father’s inventory and, by the age of 14, you and your brother were smoking daily.
43Despite the drug use, your parents managed to successfully run takeaway shops and worked long hours. As a result of their commitment to their business, you were often left to your own devices and you were unsupervised within the family home. You spent a considerable amount of time with your grandparents. In primary school you were bullied by other students and you did not have many friends growing up. In high school the bullying eased to a degree but you were still subject to racial remarks given your Greek heritage.
44You finished Year 9 at Murrumbeena High School and then obtained a position as a mechanic, completing your apprenticeship over the next four years. You are now a qualified mechanic but last worked in 2017, before you sustained injuries in a motorbike accident which include a fractured ankle and sternum. Since the accident you have received a TAC payout and you have not been able to return to work. Your primary income has been through Centrelink benefits since 2017.
45You have three children from a former relationship. The two eldest reside with your parents and the youngest lives with your former partner. There has been DHS involvement given your history of drug use. You have not been able to see your youngest child due to an intervention order restricting contact. However, you see your eldest children through the supervision of your parents. Ideally, you hope to be able to take custody of these two children in the future.
46At present, there are orders prohibiting you from residing with your children. These were put in place just prior to the offending and, as a result, you were required to leave your parents’ home in Murrumbeena and you became homeless as a consequence. You had temporary accommodation at the Lamplighter Motel and when you began residing at this location, your drug use increased.
47You have been diagnosed with a polysubstance use disorder having used a variety of drugs over the years but most predominantly methamphetamine. You have previously experienced drug overdoses and although you have attempted rehabilitation in the past, these attempts have ultimately been unsuccessful in helping you remain abstinent from drug use.
48You have been on remand since 13 March 2023. You are employed as a billet in the kitchen in the mainstream unit.
49Healthwise, you suffer from high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes, for which you are prescribed medication. Mr Simmons refers to longstanding chronic pain issues.
50Despite the difficulties that you have experienced, you are fortunate to have the support of your family and you hope to remain drug-free upon your release into the community. You wish to return to work as a mechanic and, as I have said, your aim is ultimately to be able to obtain custody of your children.
51It is proposed that when you are eventually released from custody you will reside with your grandmother in Wheelers Hill until you are able to obtain your own accommodation.
52Mr Simmons opines that your childhood would have left you vulnerable to substance use, particularly as your parents modelled cannabis use as normative behaviour.
53Your counsel submits that your childhood trauma is a significant matter and that it has played a pivotal point in your longstanding substance abuse, which has been a primary factor in the reason as to why you have regularly come before the criminal justice system. It is not submitted, however, that these factors are to be taken into account in accordance with the principles in Bugmy v The Queen.[3]
[3] [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571.
54You have been prescribed cannabis for your longstanding chronic pain issues and, as a result, have gained weight in custody which has made your diabetes unstable. It is recommended by Mr Simmons that you have a proper medical evaluation and support with potential review by an endocrinologist.
55Whilst you have had access to medication in prison, it has been difficult for you to manage this within the prison environment. It is submitted that as a result of this, prison has been more burdensome for you than for a person of good health.
56I take into account your personal circumstances and the circumstances surrounding your childhood experiences which have led to drug abuse.
Prospects of rehabilitation
57Having regard to your prior criminal history and what appears to be a lack of contrition or remorse, I do not consider that you have particularly strong prospects of rehabilitation. They are at best guarded.
Nature and Gravity of Offending
58The offence of armed robbery is objectively serious, as is reflected in the maximum penalty applicable. In this case, the offending occurred in the company of Mr Koukakis and, in effect, involved an ambush of the victim. That is, he was not expecting that you would also be present in the vehicle. There was some degree of planning albeit that it cannot be said with any certainty how far in advance of the offending this was. I accept that the offending was relatively unsophisticated. You made no efforts to disguise yourself, but it was brazen. It occurred in a residential street in the middle of the day and was seen and heard by nearby residents.
59The fact that you used an imitation firearm makes this armed robbery particularly serious. The imitation firearm itself had a significant likeness to an operable firearm which had the effect of bolstering or adding legitimacy to the threat posed in the commission of the armed robbery.
60Furthermore, the offence of possessing an imitation firearm as a prohibited person is a serious offence, and this is a serious example of this offence, particularly in circumstances where it was used to carry out the armed robbery and, furthermore, to inflict injury on the complainant.
61In relation to the charge of intentionally causing injury, I accept that the injuries sustained by Mr Daloia were towards the lower end.
62The fact that you were on bail at the time of the offending is an aggravating feature and I note that you stand to be sentenced for this as an offence.
63Your counsel submits that parity ought play a role in these proceedings. However, I note that Mr Koukakis is pleading guilty to the offence of armed robbery and trafficking. The roles that you each played were different and therefore warrant some disparity in sentence. You were the individual who was armed and the prosecution submits that there is no evidence your co-offender had knowledge of the firearm until it was produced by you in the commission of the offence.
Totality
64You fall to be sentenced for a number of different charges arising from the same episode. However, your offending involves individual and serious conduct so each offence warrants individual punishment. There is a need for the sentence to reflect the individual charges and the conduct that they comprise.
65However, noting that the offending occurred as part of a single episode, there should be a degree a concurrency appropriate to satisfy the principle of totality. I must ensure that the totality of the sentences imposed for these closely connected yet separate crimes, is met with a total and proportionate sentence. Therefore, I have moderated to a degree the length of the individual sentences and the periods of cumulation.
Current Sentencing Practices
66I must also have regard to current sentencing practices. Your counsel and the prosecution have referred me to a number of cases in which there are similar features, but self-evidently no two cases are the same. Current sentencing practices is one of the matters to which I must have regard.
Sentencing Purposes
67The basic purposes for which a court must impose sentence include just punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, community protection and denunciation. General deterrence is of particular relevance when it comes to offences of this nature. Members of the community must understand that carrying out an armed robbery, particularly one which involves the use of an imitation firearm, will be dealt with by the courts severely. Offenders who might be inclined to behave in a similar way, albeit perhaps in the context of a drug debt, must understand that offending of this nature will most likely attract a term of imprisonment. Possessing a firearm as a prohibited person is also unacceptable and you, in particular, need to be deterred from committing this further offence in the future given that you have a prior criminal history for similar offending.
68I take into account the need to protect the community. Your repeated possession of prohibited weapons including firearms makes this a relevant consideration. Your offending warrants the court’s denunciation.
69The prosecution have submitted that having regard to the gravity of the offending and the circumstances, a head sentence with a non-parole period is the only disposition available. Your counsel, Mr Ranjit, concedes that a term of imprisonment is necessary, although submits that the court should avoid imposing a crushing sentence so as to give you the best chance at rehabilitation.
Sentence
70Can you stand up please, Mr Salatas.
71On Charge 1, armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
72One Charge 2, causing injury intentionally, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
73On Charge 3, being a prohibited person possessing an imitation firearm, you are convicted and sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment.
74On the summary charge, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
Cumulation
75Charge 1 will be the base sentence.
76I order that the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and other sentences imposed this day.
77I order that 12 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and other sentences imposed this day.
78I order that the sentence imposed on the summary charge, that being one month imprisonment, be served concurrently with the sentences imposed this day.
79This makes a total effective sentence of four years' imprisonment.
80I order that you serve a period of two years and 10 months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
Pre-sentence detention
81Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I declare that 412 days pre-sentence detention as time already served be deducted from the sentence that I have imposed.
Section 6AAA
82I indicate pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years.
– – –
2
0