Director of Public Prosecutions v Schneider
[2025] VCC 10
•22 January 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 24-01050
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JAYSON SCHNEIDER |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MEREDITH |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 10 December 2024 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 22 January 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Schneider |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 10 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Arson and related offending; IQ 62 intellectually disabled offender.
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence: TES 3 years, NPP 18 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr B. Nibbs | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Ms E. George | Ann Valos Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1Mr Schneider, you have pleaded guilty to a number of offences occurring on or about 19 January 2024. You have pleaded guilty to Charge 1 of persistently breaching an intervention order between 6 and 19 January of that year. This is made out by you between 6 and 19 January residing at
a property in Sutherland Court, Altona Meadows in breach of the condition of the intervention order that you must not go to or remain within 200 metres of an address where a protected person lives, works or attends.2Further, that on 19 January 2024 you attended the home of a protected person, Stephanie Azzopardi, at about 5.30 in the evening and further again on the same day, at about quarter past seven in the evening, you attended the intersection of Mildenhall Court and Sutherland Court, Altona Meadows in breach of the condition that you not go within 200 metres of an address of a protected person.
3The offence of intervention order breach which you have pleaded guilty to carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
4You have also pleaded guilty to Charge 2 that on 19 January you committed a burglary in Alma Avenue, Altona Meadows, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
5You pleaded guilty to Charge 3 of arson carrying a maximum penalty of
15 years' imprisonment and to Charge 4 of reckless conduct endangering life, having a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment.6You have also pleaded guilty to Charge 5 of destroying a ring doorbell camera belonging to Stephanie Azzopardi constituting criminal damage, having a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
7In addition, you have pleaded guilty to related summary Charges 5 and 6 respectively of committing an indictable offence while on bail, which has a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment, and failing to answer bail, having a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.
8Tendered on the hearing of your matter was a summary of prosecution opening setting forth the circumstances of your offending. In summary at the time of your offending you had been released on bail from the Magistrate's Court on 29 November 2023. A government department, the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing owns the property in Alma Avenue in Altona Meadows. This is a two-bedroom townhouse where the properties are known as Unit 1 and 2, and are adjoined by an internal brick wall, both were occupied.
9At about 2.38 pm on 19 January, Helen Panagiotidis, who was a resident of Unit 1, left her home.
10At about 3.16 pm you are seen on CCTV footage being in the vicinity of the residence. You can be observed approaching Unit 1 holding a red jerry can and entering the unit through the unlocked front door. Approximately two minutes later you are observed exiting the unit. This constitutes Charge 2 of burglary and within minutes, smoke can be observed billowing from the premises.
11The CCTV footage depicts you entering the premises with a jerry can however you do not leave with it, the obvious inference being that you used an accelerant to set fire to the premises, constituting Charge 3 of arson.
12Shortly after this, civilian witnesses telephoned Triple 0 and Fire Rescue Victoria attended.
13At approximately 3.31 they evacuated Yassar Tasburger, a 98-year-old resident of the adjoining premises in Alma Avenue. She was subsequently treated by Ambulance Victoria for smoke inhalation. This constitutes Charge 4 of reckless conduct endangering life.
14The property was subsequently assessed for damage and the total cost for repairs assessed to be at $157,000. The occupant, Helen Panagiotidis, is unable to provide proof of the value of her personal items lost in the fire. However, an agreed figure of $10,000 has been arrived at. At the time of your offending, as I said you were on bail, constituting summary Charge 5.
15Regarding the intervention order breach and associated offending, Stephanie Azzopardi is your ex‑partner and you both share a son, Jaidyn, who was about 10 years of age at the time of your offending. A final family violence intervention order had been issued at Melbourne Magistrate's Court with
Ms Azzopardi and Jaidyn listed as affected family members. This was served on you on 4 October 2021. Conditions of the order include that you not go to or remain within 200 metres of any address where a protected person lives, works or attends school or childcare.16On 13 January Ms Azzopardi observed you leaving Sutherland Court in Altona Meadows and you were noted to look directly at her as she drove around a roundabout. She then contacted her current partner, Mr Watt, who went out the front of the relevant property and photographed and recorded you being within 200 metres of the address.
17On 19 January at about 5.17 pm, Ms Azzopardi, Mr Watt and Jaidyn left their address in Balaclava Avenue, Altona Meadows.
18After having set fire to Ms Panagiotidis' unit at about 3.17 pm that day, at about 5.26 pm you arrived at Ms Azzopardi's address and commenced banging on the front window, yelling 'open up, come on open the door, I fucking dare you'. You then ripped the ring doorbell camera from the wall from which it was mounted, occasioning about $100 in damage. The damage to the ring doorbell constitutes Charge 5.
19You then switched off the power to the property via the electrical meter next to the front door. Ms Azzopardi had received a notification on her phone of you activating the doorbell camera and police were subsequently notified.
20Ultimately, you were arrested shortly after 7 pm on 19 January. Police observed you at the intersection of Sutherland Court and Mildenhall Court in Altona Meadows, being within 200 metres of the Azzopardi address. The breaches of the intervention order constitute Charge 1.
21You were arrested at about 7 pm and subsequently made admissions to having set fire to Unit 1. Amongst other things you stated:
I caught them stealing stuff out of my house. I told them to not go into the house, stay out of the house. They didn't listen to me and led me to put the house on fire.
22You were duly assessed by a forensic medical officer and found to be fit for interview. You were ultimately interviewed in the presence of an independent third person and answered 'privilege' in relation to most questions that were asked of you. Regarding the fire you stated:
They stole over $100,000 worth of antique stuff out of my friend's room,
And that you saw:
All of my friend's baby stuff and antique stuff in the back of the car. I threatened them, they drove off, I walked inside the house. There was petrol brought inside the house. The house was fucking scattered.
23When you were asked specifically if you did anything in retaliation you stated:
I don't know mate, I snapped.
24Ms Panagiotidis, the victim of the arson, denies having any disputes with you or stealing your possessions and I sentence you on that basis.
25Regarding summary Charge 6, failing to answer bail, you had failed to appear in the court on 17 January and a warrant had been issued for your arrest.
Ms Azzopardi has made a victim impact statement dated 8 November 2024. In it she recounts the significant and ongoing harm which your offending has caused her. I will have regard to the relevant portions of her victim impact statement.26Amongst other things in her statement she says:
My overall feelings of wellbeing have been greatly impacted by your actions. [She says] There is a constant cloud of worry hovering over all parts of my life as [she] cannot stop [herself] from dwelling on your actions.
27She refers to constantly worrying about what you may do and refers to the anxiety which your offending has occasioned her.
28At the time of your offending, you were living in a share house proximate to your former partner and instructed you were using a gram of ice per fortnight.
29Turning next to your personal matters, much of these are contained in the neuropsychological assessments of Alison Schokman dated 6 June 2023 and Sami Yamin dated 1 December 2024, and the psychological assessments of Ian MacKinnon dated 13 January 2018 and 4 April 2019.
30Currently you are 31 years of age. You have a criminal history which includes charges of contravening correction orders and intervention order, recklessly causing injury, intentionally damaging property, committing indictable offences on bail, making threats to kill, assault, as well as persistent contravention of family violence intervention orders.
31Your history dates back to 2014. Your history includes some 13 charges of damaging property and some 12-odd charges of intervention order breach. You have admitted guilt to a number of offences in the Magistrate's Court however as yet have not been sentenced on these subsequent matters.
32So far as your childhood and family background are concerned, you have one younger brother and two half‑siblings on your father's side.
33You report a difficult upbringing with significant abuse from your mother and fighting between your parents. You recall witnessing your mother stabbing your father. Your parents separated acrimoniously when you were five and you lived with your mother, who continued to neglect and physically and psychologically abuse you. This included bashing you and striking you to the head.
34You report that when you were about 15 or 16 your mother made you live in a tent in the garden and would leave food and water outside for you. You report your brother was idolised by your mother while you were repeatedly neglected and abused. You report your mother was a drug dealer and that she experienced a number of psychiatric symptoms.
35After your parents' separation you did not have much contact with your biological father, who worked as a truck driver until he passed away in late 2017.
36You report having struggled throughout school and having had significant difficulty learning to read and write. You believe you had an aid in primary school and were diagnosed as intellectually disabled in secondary school. You report getting into trouble at school due to your behaviour and having been expelled from school in Year 10.
37Upon leaving school you started an apprenticeship as a spray painter and remained within that industry for some three and a half years. You took a break from work reportedly due to workplace harassment by a fellow worker and briefly returned to automative painting. You have not now worked for a number of years and were on a Disability Support pension at the time of your offending before me.
38You left home at the young age of 16 and stayed with your then girlfriend for some five-odd years. You have a son but have no contact with him or your previous partner due to an intervention order, or you are not supposed to have contact with them anyway. You no longer have any contact with your family.
39A Forensicare report indicates that you have had a number of interactions with Regional Area Mental Health Services, including on 30 June and 13 July 2022, 5 April and 21 September 2021, 26 February and 30 June 2020,
12 July, 24 May and 15 November 2019, and with Orygen Youth Health Services on 14 October 2014.40You have had four previous admissions from 2014 to 2022 to psychiatric facilities. The most recent was at North West AMHS from 30 June to 8 July 2022. You were not the subject of any treatment at the time of your offending. You had been diagnosed with schizophrenia in January 2024, as well as mental and behavioural disturbance due to polysubstance use in June 2023 and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in January 2022.
41As I have said, you have had four previous episodes of involuntary treatment spanning between approximately 2015 to about 2023 or thereabouts. There was a treatment order both as an inpatient and then in the community, which was managed by Northern AMHS from about August 2022 to February 2023.
42In reports of 2018 and 2019, Mr MacKinnon, a psychologist, diagnoses you with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, what he refers to is intermittent explosive disorder, polysubstance abuse disorder, and substance induced psychosis. Mr MacKinnon considers that your PTSD is referable to trauma occasioned in your formative years. He further states that you reported in 2018 that from the ages of 21 to 24 you had an ice addiction and associate psychotic episodes, and that you reported to him that in 2016 you had had a drug-induced psychosis and were in a psychotic and delusional state in early July 2017.
43In his 2018 report Mr MacKinnon opines that when you are in a highly distressed state and/or under the influence of substances, you are likely to pose an elevated risk to other persons. You have an intellectual disability and in testing undertaken in mid-2023 your overall IQ was found to be at 67. In more recent testing referenced in her report of 1 December 2024, Dr Sami Yamin, a neuropsychologist, assessed your full scale IQ as 61. She states:
Individuals with this level of functioning will have difficulties in reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgement, learning from instruction and experience, and practical understanding. Furthermore, they have deficits in areas of more complex adaptive function such as self-management across life settings including personal care, school and job responsibilities, money management, recreation, and self‑management of behaviour. The cognitive deficits identified on testing are impacting his functioning and most specifically on his daily living skills.
In terms of the presence of intellectual disability, schizophrenia and his Acquired Brian Injury at the time of the offending, Mr Schneider's intellectual functioning was most certainly in the extremely low range at the time of the offence. Furthermore, he has significant cognitive deficits secondary to an Acquired Brian Injury and schizophrenia that were almost certainly present at the time of the offences. The deficits outlined have influenced Mr Schneider's behaviour by impairing his ability to exercise appropriate judgement and to make clear and rational choices. The results of the assessment also indicate that he is likely to have been disinhibited at the time the offences were committed. His impaired judgement and disinhibition would have further been exacerbated due to his mental state, although his behaviour cannot be directly attributed to a psychotic episode. In addition, the current assessment also found that Mr Schneider is experiencing significant amounts of anxiety and depression.
The current interview and assessment found that Mr Schneider meets the DSM‑5 criteria for a major depressive disorder of moderate severity, and a generalised anxiety disorder of moderate severity.
44Given your background of adversity and dysfunction, consistently with what the High Court has set forth in Bugmy[1], I do allow for some sensible moderation of your moral culpability.
[1]Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.
45So far as your intellectual disability is concerned, in Muldrock[2] the High Court in dealing with an offender who had an overall IQ of 62, the same as yours, stated at paragraph 54 of their decision:
A question will often arise as to the causal relation, if any, between an offender's mental illness and the commission of the offence. Such a question is less likely to arise in sentencing a mentally retarded offender [to use the language of the High Court] because the lack of capacity to reason, as an ordinary person might, as to the wrongfulness of the conduct will, in most cases, substantially lessen the offender's moral culpability for the offence. The retributive effect and denunciatory aspect of a sentence that is appropriate to a person of ordinary capacity will often be inappropriate to the situation of a mentally retarded offender and to the needs of the community.
[2]Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39.
46As regards your intellectual disability and mental health conditions, in R v Verdins[3] the Court of Appeal set out a series of principals which must be considered in formulating an appropriate sentence when an offender presents with impaired mental functioning. Impaired mental functioning is not restricted to mental illness and can include intellectual disability.
[3][2007] VSCA 62 (‘Verdins’).
47The Court stated that impaired mental functioning, whether temporary or permanent, is relevant to sentencing in at least the following six ways:
(1), the condition may reduce the moral culpability of the offending conduct, as distinct from the offender's legal responsibility. Where that is so, the condition effects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances and denunciation is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective;
(2), the condition may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions in which it should be served;
(3), whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration depends on the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of sentence or both;
(4), whether specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration likewise depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms of the condition as exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of the sentence or both;
(5), the existence of the condition at the date of sentencing or its foreseeable recurrence may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal health; and
(6), where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender's mental health, this will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment.
48I do propose to reduce the sentence that I will shortly impose upon you in order to reflect the first five of the principles laid down in Verdins. I should indicate however that notwithstanding this, specific deterrence remains of importance as a sentencing factor, as does community protection. Given your long history of drug abuse, your prior history of offending, Mr MacKinnon's findings that when affected by substances or stress you are likely to pose an elevated level of risk to others, and the nature of the offending before me.
49Other mitigating factors which I do take into account include your plea of guilty, which given the forensic realities of your position I will treat as akin to one entered at an early stage, and which I accept has real utilitarian value.
50Concerning your rehabilitative prospects, I can only be somewhat guarded about them. You do however have eligibility for NDIS assistance and your counsel has informed the court that your solicitor will facilitate this for you whilst you are in custody. Apparently The Bridge program run by the Salvation Army may provide assistance with accommodation for you and you are appropriately medicated at this stage and not abusing drugs, and have dried out from the effects and impacts of them.
51Balancing all matters then I am going to sentence you to a total effective sentence of three years. I am going to fix a non-parole period, particularly in light of your intellectual disability, of 50 per cent of that sentence, namely
18 months.52This will be made up of the following individual sentences.
53On Charge 1 of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, 14 months' imprisonment.
54On Charge 2 of burglary, 18 months' imprisonment.
55On Charge 3 of arson, two years' imprisonment.
56On Charge 4 of reckless conduct endangering life, 18 months' imprisonment.
57On Charge 5 of criminal damage, one months' imprisonment.
58On the related summary offence No.5, one months' imprisonment.
59Related summary offence No.6, one months' imprisonment.
60The sentence I have imposed of two years on Charge 3 is to be the base sentence and I will cumulate on it, and on each other, six months of the sentence I have imposed on Charge 1, and six months of the sentence I have imposed on Charge 4. This ought make a total effective sentence of three years' imprisonment and as I said, I will fix a non-parole period of 18 months.
61I will declare 369 days served by way of pre‑sentence detention.
62I will declare that but for your guilty pleas in this matter, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of four years and nine months' imprisonment, and direct that you not be eligible for release on parole until the expiration of two years and six months' imprisonment.
63If there are ancillary orders, I will make them.
64Is there anything further required?
65MR NIBBS: No, Your Honour.
66MS GEORGE: No, Your Honour.
67HIS HONOUR: If you could remove Mr Schneider, please. Thank you both.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
3
0