Director of Public Prosecutions v Salloom

[2017] VCC 1997

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 17-00363

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MARK SALLOOM

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LYON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 December 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Salloom
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VCC 1997

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr P. Triandos
For the Accused	Ms A. McClure

Pages 1 - 8

 

 

1Mark Salloom, you were found guilty at your trial of two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery. You pleaded guilty to a further three counts of obtaining property by deception.  The maximum penalties for each of these offences is 25 years for armed robbery, 20 years for attempted armed robbery and ten years on the counts of obtaining property by deception.

2The facts upon which you were found guilty and those to which you pleaded guilty may be briefly stated.  On Saturday, 9 October 2016 after closing hours, you entered the Mountain View hotel in Richmond. The manager of the hotel, James Opitz, and an off duty bartender, Emily McIntosh, were sitting at a table having a drink after work.

3You approached the table where they were sitting and demanded money and whatever they had. You were carrying a tomahawk and you struck the table about a metre from where they were sitting.  You stole Ms McIntosh’s handbag containing her personal items,  and significantly, her bank cards, cash and telephone.  You then took Mr Opitz’s mobile telephone.  These are the bases for Charges 1 and 2 of armed robbery.

4You struck Mr Opitz twice to the back of the head with the blunt end of the tomahawk and forced him to move behind the bar.  As a result of being struck, Mr Opitz suffered lacerations to his head and ear.  You demanded money from the bar takings but Mr Opitz said that he could not get the money as he did not know the combination to the safe where they were being held.  You struck him again with the tomahawk to his back and right leg. He suffered bruising as a result of your actions. This was Charge 3, attempted armed robbery.

5Your actions in striking Mr Opitz were captured by the hotel’s CCTV footage. Your blows to him were indeed vicious and delivered with considerable force.  When you could not get any money you ran out of the hotel and yelled “you’re fucked”.  You escaped in a silver coloured Ford XR 6 sedan.

6Minutes later, the same sedan which was captured on the hotel’s external CCTV footage and was identified in CCTV footage at various locations where you used Ms McIntosh’s bank card stolen in the robbery in order to unlawfully purchase goods from three different convenience stores.  These purchases form the basis of Charges 4, 5 and 6 obtaining property by deception.

7You were arrested on 20 October 2016 in Richmond.  In your record of interview, you denied involvement in these robberies.  You have been in custody on these matters since the time of your arrest.  You have now spent 427 days in pre-sentence detention excluding today, and in my sentencing orders I will declare them as already served.

8I turn to the analysis of the objective gravity of your offending.  It is clear that the offence of armed robbery is a very serious offence indeed.  In this instance, you have been found guilty of two counts of armed robbery and an attempted armed robbery.  It was submitted on your plea (and agreed by the Crown) that whilst the offending involved two different victims, all offending took place in a short space of time at the one place.  It was, in effect, a single incident.  In these circumstances, it was submitted that there ought to be substantial concurrency between the sentences that I impose, and particularly in respect to the armed robbery on James Opitz and the attempted armed robbery of him.

9Nevertheless, I do not consider that there can be complete concurrency between the sentences in respect of these matters as they involve different actions in respect to each complainant and there was a difference between your conduct in robbing Mr Opitz and then your further violent assault upon him in your attempt to have him open the safe to get the hotel takings.

10I have the victim impact statements of James Opitz and Emily McIntosh.  There is no doubt that in addition to the physical injuries you caused to James Opitz, your actions were calculated to terrify them into submitting to your will.  Your actions have had a greatly adverse impact on both their lives.  I will take into account the effect of your offending on them.  It adds to the seriousness of your actions.

11Your offending must be met by a sentence which reflects the principles of general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community.  There must also be a considerable measure of specific deterrence in the sentence I impose.

12I turn now to your personal circumstances.  You are 41 years old and were born in March 1976.  You have four sisters.  Your parents are both still alive and are now retired and living in Lebanon.  No other family member has had trouble with the law.

13You were educated in the Endeavour Hills/Dandenong area until Year 9.  You have very limited reading and numeracy skills, but you are presently learning to read whilst in custody.

14After you left school, you worked on building sites as a forklift driver and then commenced a bricklaying apprenticeship which you did not finish.

15I was told that you have had an addiction to heroin from about the age of 17 or 18 years of age.  It is an addiction of which you are very ashamed, but you have not been able to overcome it.  It has been with you through your adult life and has motivated much of your offending.

16You have many prior convictions dating back to 1993.  You have served a number of periods of imprisonment since the age of 17.  You have a number of prior convictions for matters of violence, dishonesty and breach of court orders. Significantly, in 1994 you were convicted of armed robbery and on appeal sentenced to a period in a youth training centre. In 1999 you were sentenced to a period of imprisonment for robbery.

17Perhaps your most significant conviction was on 20 October 2010 when you were sentenced to a period of four years imprisonment with a 26 months non parole on a charge of armed robbery.

18After your release, your family took you to Lebanon where you lived and worked for two years in a cladding type business.  This was a constructive period for you.  In addition to work, you trained a number of children in mixed martial arts. You have been practising mixed martial arts since your own early teens and your counsel told me that you are very proficient at it.  I gather that this time in Lebanon was a very happy time for you in your life.

19Nevertheless, you chose to return to Melbourne.  Within a relatively short period of time, you had lapsed back into drug use.  In the period before this offending, you were using drugs, you were homeless and living in your car.

20I have read the report of Jane Lofthouse, clinical psychologist.  Ms Lofthouse conducted extensive psychological testing.  You provided her with a history of receiving several head injuries which she considers may have resulted in a traumatic brain injury.  You told her that in addition to head injuries received during your mixed martial arts fights from the age of 15, you have been involved in several serious assaults where you have lost consciousness for extended periods.

21In addition to that Ms Lofthouse outlined your extensive abuse of drugs; particularly heroin and methylamphetamine (since mid-2016).  You were using methylamphetamines in the period around the time of the offending for which you are now before the court.  You have been unsuccessful in completing any detoxification programs.  It appears you have only limited social support as you have not been involved in any long-term relationships and your parents now live overseas.

22The psychological testing shows your full-scale IQ is 71 and within the borderline range.  Ms Lofthouse considers that the actual range is between 68 and 76; that is equal to less than 3% of the population.  Ms Lofthouse concludes that your scores were consistent with impairment across the areas of verbal and non-verbal problem solving, abstract reasoning, attention and memory.  She considers that it may be difficult for you to benefit from mainstream rehabilitation programs, particularly in a group setting.

23Ms Lofthouse concludes that you will require added assistance and monitoring in prison to assist you to fully understand situations and develop appropriate ways of responding. On your release from prison you will require a significant level of support to assist you to make positive changes in your behaviour.

24On the plea made on your behalf, your counsel submitted that a longer than usual period of parole should be set. This would (it was submitted) give efficacy to the recommendations made by Ms Lofthouse to put in place levels of support upon your release from custody.

25On behalf of the prosecution, it was submitted that a longer parole period is not necessarily justified in your case.  It was submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation, given your criminal record and your relatively recent prior criminal history of committing armed robbery, are minimal.

26In my view, you have done nothing to demonstrate that you are yet committed to the process of rehabilitation.  I consider your prospects for rehabilitation are poor unless you take realistic steps towards overcoming your drug addiction. Whilst your counsel submitted that you told him you are getting “too old” to continue your addiction, your offending and serving repeated periods of imprisonment, it is you who must take steps to demonstrate that you are willing to do the hard yards to make material changes to your life.  Until you do so, I fear that the cycle will continue to be repeated.

27With that I will sentence you now, Mr Salloom. On the first charge of armed robbery you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of five years.  On the second charge of armed robbery you are convicted and sentenced to a period of five years.  I order that nine months of this sentence be served cumulatively on the sentence on Charge 1.

28On the third charge of attempted armed robbery you are convicted and sentenced to a period of four years' imprisonment.  I order that three months of this sentence be served cumulatively on all other sentences.  On each of Charges 4, 5 and 6 you are sentenced to a period of six months' imprisonment, that is six months on each of those counts.  I order that one month of the sentence on Charge 4, one month of the sentence on Charge 5 and one month of the sentence on Charge 6 be served cumulatively on all other sentences.

29That makes for a total effective sentence of six years and three months.  I order that you are to serve a non-parole period of four years and two months.  I declare that you have served 427 days by way of pre-sentence detention reckoned as already served.  That declaration excludes today.

‑ ‑ ‑