Director of Public Prosecutions v Snow
[2023] VCC 624
•21 April 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| GENERAL LIST |
Case No. CR-22-01252
Indictment No. N10604099.1
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| TIMOTHY SNOW |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF PLEA: | 13 April 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 April 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Snow | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 624 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law – Sentence
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – attempted aggravated home invasion – possessing a firearm contrary to a firearm prohibition order – damaging property – three co-offenders – application of Bugmy principles – significant criminal history
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 s 321M, s 77B, s 197; Firearms Act 1994 s 112B
Cases Cited:Berichon v The Queen [2013] VSCA 319; Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Acciarito v The Queen [2019] VSCA 264
Sentence: 4 years and 7 months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 2 years and 11 months. S 6AAA: 6 years and 7 months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 4 years and 5 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms R. Fleming | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr G. Hughan | Ajak & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1Timothy Snow, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted aggravated home invasion for which the maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment; a charge of possessing a firearm contrary to a firearm prohibition order, maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment; and one charge of damaging property, maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2You were born in December 1985. At the time of the offending, you were 36 years old. You were living at a unit in Dudley Street, Melbourne.
3Your co-offender, Dale Moon, was aged 28 years old and living at a residence at Jamieson Way, Berwick, as was the third co-offender in this case, Tysharni Ryan, who was 26 years old.
4The victim in the matter, Michelle Blake, was living at Scarlet Drive, Doveton with her two children in a two-storey house. Her children were not at home when the offending occurred.
5You and Ms Blake had known each other for a period of around six months prior to the offending. The exact basis of your relationship is not clear, but it seems to have revolved around drug use and you spent time together in that period.
Circumstances of the offending
6On Sunday, 27 March 2022 at about 12.00am, Ms Blake arrived home and found you had parked a blue Kia Cerato in her driveway. She invited you in. You were there for about an hour and a half. You left at approximately 1.30am, in the Kia Cerato, and she went to bed.
7
At 10.00am on the same day you returned to her address, again in the Kia Cerato. You told her that you had left a bag behind, and you were there to collect it. You went into the house to search for the bag and left around two minutes later.
In her statement, Ms Blake said she did not notice you carrying anything when you left but I accept that you did go there to get a bag back.
8At around 1.28pm CCTV cameras from Jamieson Way, Berwick show you arriving at your co-offenders’ residence in the Kia Cerato. There were several persons present, including Mr Moon and Ms Ryan.
9At about 1.53pm you left that address carrying a dark coloured backpack, which you put in the back seat of the Kia Cerato before entering the driver’s seat.
10Shortly after, Mr Moon and Ms Ryan followed you to the Kia Cerato vehicle. You remained in the driver’s seat, with Ms Ryan sitting next to you and Mr Moon in the backseat.
11At 2.02pm the vehicle left the address and at 2.35pm arrived in Scarlett Drive, Doveton. CCTV cameras across the street recorded you parking on the street outside and the three of you getting out of the car and walking towards Ms Blake's address.
12You, Mr Snow, could be seen with an object in your hands, which was a handgun-sized sawn-off bolt action rifle. This is the basis of Charge 2 – possessing a firearm contrary to a firearm prohibition order. Mr Moon was seen with a long object which was a homemade shot gun. CCTV footage showed Mr Moon stopping and loading the gun, in plain view of you and Ms Ryan.
13The three of you approached the front door and rang the doorbell. Ms Blake was upstairs with a friend at the time. She walked downstairs to open the door and yelled, 'Who is it?' You replied, 'It’s me'. Through the front window she saw you and Mr Moon. She heard Mr Moon say something and she became scared. She ran upstairs and texted her brother to phone police.
14She could hear the three of you trying to force your way into the house and she began making a video on her mobile phone. She came downstairs again, recording on the mobile phone as she walked down the stairs. You were at the front window, demanding property or payment while Ms Ryan tried to gain entry by removing the front window flyscreen.
15The victim told you that she did not have what you were looking for or any money. You demanded that she open the door. It is this conduct so described that is the basis of Charge 1 – attempted aggravated home invasion.
16About 20 seconds later, Mr Moon discharged the shotgun towards Ms Blake’s home which caused pellets to enter the property through the front wooden door. When this happened, the victim was standing on the inside of the front door and felt pellets, cartridge and timber fragments from the front door shower over her from the gun being discharged. She did not sustain any injuries.
17You, Mr Moon and Ms Ryan began to leave the premises. As you left, you smashed the windscreen of Ms Blake’s Audi motor vehicle, which was parked in the driveway of her residence. This is the basis of Charge 3 of criminal damage.
18It was approximately 2.39pm when you walked back to the Kia Cerato and left. At 4.49pm, CCTV cameras from Jamieson Way, Berwick show the three of you leaving the vehicle and entering the address at Jamieson Way.
Investigation
19Police were notified at 7.30pm on Sunday, 27 March 2022. They went to the victim’s address and Ms Blake made a statement. Police obtained relevant CCTV footage and the mobile phone recording.
20Crime scene officers attended. Photographs of the scene were taken, and exhibits were located and seized. The following observations were made:
· The flyscreen window near the front door had been pulled down from the top and the frame was bent.
· The front windscreen of the Audi had been damaged by two impact points towards the top of the windscreen, in the middle and on the passenger side. The glass had shattered in these areas but remained in the frame.
· The front door had a single hole half-way up with several smaller indentations around it. There was a white clear plastic object partially lodged in the hole.
· Several small, metallic objects and small chunks of wood with white paint were strewn around the small entrance immediately inside the door. A black Nike hooded jacket hanging behind the door where the hole was located also had corresponding holes in it.
21The mobile phone footage was played on the plea hearing in this matter and I had watched it when I heard the plea of Mr Moon. The footage plainly shows your activities from the time Ms Blake came down the stairs with the mobile phone recording your actions. On that footage you can also hear the shot fired and the fragments of wood dislodging from the door.
Arrest and warrants
22On Monday 28 March 2022, police located the Kia Cerato parked at the Jamieson Way address. You were present there at that time.
23Police attended with search warrants. You were arrested and taken to Melbourne West Police Station for interview.
24The Kia Cerato keys were in your possession. You were wearing the same clothing and gold watch as shown on the CCTV from Scarlet Drive in Doveton. These items were seized from you.
25Photographs were taken and items seized, which included a spent shotgun cartridge in the lounge room on a table; a sawn-off bolt action rifle in the hallway in a vent; and a homemade shotgun under the bed and behind the drawers in a bedroom. Police also located your Samsung mobile phone.
26During your record of interview, you admitted you were present at the victim’s address at the time of the incident but you denied possessing a firearm or trying to gain entry to the house. You said you returned to the victim’s address to get money you had left there which had been stolen from you. You told police that the other male with you had brought a shotgun inside a black backpack which you only saw when he got out of the car. You provided your mobile phone number to the police.
27You provided a statement to police containing a full account of your attendance and naming Mr Moon as your co-offender. You also referred to Ms Ryan in that statement as 'T'. In your statement you denied possession of a firearm but said you 'took a piece of wood with duct tape that was made to look like a gun'. You blamed the offending on your co-offender, Mr Moon, including smashing the Audi window. The available video-recordings and other evidence contradict several of the assertions you made in your statement.
28The phone video recording made by Ms Blake, as I said earlier, shows you holding the sawn-off bolt action rife.
29Your mobile phone was analysed. There was no activity during the offending period but a text was identified as sent by you where you said:
“I told you. We went to the house of the people that stole from me. They were at the door aerating. I smashed there (sic) audi. My mate turned and shot through there front door and hit someone. But the car was parked around the corner”.
30Police investigations also revealed that Mr Moon had sent a text message where he admitted and seemingly took some pleasure in the fact that he had fired a gun at the front door.
31The sawn-off rifle in your possession was examined by firearms experts who described the weapon as a modified .22 long calibre rifle. The barrel had been shortened and shaped into a pistol-style grip, reducing the overall length to 390 millimetres and thereby met the definition of a handgun under the Firearms Act 1996. If a suitable pin was sourced, the firearm might have been capable of discharge. However, it was incapable of being fired at the time of the offence.
32You, Mr Moon and Ms Ryan were all prohibited persons as defined by the Firearms Act. Specifically, you had been sentenced to a total period of seven months’ imprisonment in November 2021. However, at the time of this offending, you were subject to a Firearm Prohibition Order which was served on 2 February, to expire in February 2032. That is the basis of Charge 2 but you were also a prohibited person. Mr Moon was charged with being a prohibited person, whereas you have been charged with being in possession contrary to a Firearm Prohibition Order. The maximum penalty for the offences is the same.
Criminal history
33You have a lengthy and significant criminal history which started in 2007 (when you were 21 years old) for driving and drug-related offending. Over the years since, for similar offending and other offending, you have been given suspended sentences and community correction orders. In February 2013, for prohibited person possessing a firearm, receiving stolen goods, and other offences, you were sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment partially suspended. Then in August 2013, you were again convicted for prohibited person possessing a firearm and received a suspended sentence.
34On 26 November 2021, amongst other offences, you were convicted of prohibited person possessing imitation firearm, prohibited person possessing a firearm, stalking, reckless injury and a range of other offences for which you received a community correction order and a seven-month prison sentence. On 9 February 2022, for possession of methylamphetamine and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, you received a sentence of 29 days' imprisonment.
35You are not to be punished again for your prior convictions but sentencing principles of community protection and specific deterrence must be given greater weight because of your history. Your prior convictions are also relevant to the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation and your moral culpability for this offending.
Gravity
36
It is obvious to observe that your offending in this case was serious. The offence of attempted aggravated home invasion carries a maximum penalty of 20 years. The offending here was clearly premeditated. The prosecution case, which you have accepted by your guilty plea, is based on an intent to steal money from
Ms Blake. You assert that you believed she had taken something (drugs or money) from the bag you had left there but you have not sought to assert a claim of right in respect of such property, so I do need to exercise some caution in the assessment of your explanation. I accept that you had some drug-based relationship with Ms Blake that motivated the offending and that you had a belief of a shortfall in the bag that you had left there but whatever the details of this were, you accept that you did not have a legal claim of right to the property you were seeking when you went to her home with a firearm and co-offenders.
37The number of offenders involved in an offence such as this is a marker of seriousness and, in this incident, there were three of you. Two of you had firearms and Mr Moon’s was loaded. This was planned conduct involving an attempted entry into a private home with guns. I accept that you knew Mr Moon’s gun was loaded but not that he was going to discharge it. He was an independent actor with respect to that aspect of the incident. Nonetheless, what he did illustrates the danger of the possession of such weapons in connection with a home invasion offence and why possession of firearms is such a serious feature of the offending here.
38That said, I accept the offending was of relatively short duration as shown on the video, and that the three of you left within a few minutes after you had arrived. On my analysis of the video, the actions taken to try and get inside the residence were relatively superficial, excluding the firing of the shotgun of course, which was not put by the prosecution as part of the case against you or part of the attempt to enter and not an act for which you are to be punished.
39In relation to Charge 2, you had been served with a Prohibition Notice on 2 February, a bit over a month before the offending here. Your prior convictions include four previous convictions for a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. You also have other prior convictions for possession of weapons and ammunition. Those antecedents alone make it a very serious offence for you to be in possession of a firearm.
40In this case, you had the firearm with you in connection with the attempted aggravated home invasion. Possession of the firearm is an element of that offence. Plainly, you had the weapon for a criminal purpose which was the commission of the attempted aggravated home invasion. I could not infer that you had the weapon for some other additional criminal purpose. The possession of a firearm for a criminal purpose is generally a factor elevating the seriousness of such an offence resulting in a longer sentence; however, you are being punished for the possession of the firearm as part of the attempted aggravated home invasion, so considerations of double punishment apply in elevating the sentence due to the same criminal purpose for which you are to be punished in respect of Charge 1.
41However, the prohibited person offence was complete the moment you took possession of the firearm before you attended the victim’s residence. The offence of prohibited person is intended to preclude people with relevant antecedents such as you, from being in possession of a firearm at all, and it allows for substantial prison sentences in the event of conviction. In accordance with the decision in Berichon,[1] mere possession of a firearm in your case with your prior convictions merits a substantial prison sentence.
[1][2013] VSCA 319
42The criminal damage offence involving smashing the windscreen of Ms Blake’s car was presumably a warning calculated to emphasise the seriousness of your criminal intent. Your actions left the car in need of immediate repair. This was a serious enough offence which merits a term of imprisonment.
43The victim did not make a victim impact statement, but in her police statement she referred to feeling scared during the incident and voiced her concern about staying on the property. I must say though, having watched the video, Ms Blake and the other man inside do present as relatively robust victims, but I do not discount that Ms Blake would have been very frightened by the conduct in this case, which is clear from the fact that in the end she decided to report the matter to the police.
44Given the premediated nature of this offending and its seriousness as well as your ongoing criminality as reflected by the prior convictions, I consider your moral culpability to be significant but reduced by the application of the Bugmy[2] principles which I will deal with later in these remarks.
[2](2013) 249 CLR 571
45A further aggravating feature is that you were on a community correction order at the time of the offending.
46Given the seriousness of the circumstances of this offence, general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community are of substantial importance. Given your criminal history the need for specific deterrence is also significant.
Personal circumstances
47Your personal history was comprehensively outlined by Mr Hughan in his detailed plea on your behalf and also in his written submissions. It is also described in the psychological report of Dr Nicholas Owens which was tendered as an exhibit on the plea.
48You were born in December 1985 in Carlton. Your mother was Terri Ann Snow, who was born in 1967. Her father was a man named Laurie Peresso. I am told and I accept that her upbringing was a difficult one and she worked in massage parlours as an adult, around the time of your birth. On the plea, Mr Hughan told me that you do not know who your father is and said that there were three or four men who may have been your father. You had a half-sister, Stacey, slightly older than you who died after you were remanded in custody for these offences.
49You were brought up by your great-aunt and uncle, Irene and John Callow, in Mooroopna, until you were about six years old. They treated you well. Apparently, when you were six years old a man named Richard or Ricky Moate came to visit you at the Callows' house suggesting he was your real father. You went to live with him and his wife, Joy, and their three children in Ballarat. You say you thought Mr Moate was your biological father, but you now believe he was not, but he was someone who had had a previous relationship with your mother.
50You lived in Ballarat and then later in Geelong with Mr Moate and his family until you were 18 years old. You describe your life in this family as traumatic and abusive. You were not treated in the same way as the other children. You describe being the victim of violence from Mr Moate living in that house. You recall court proceedings in your childhood where your mother sought to regain custody of you.
51When you were 14 years old, Mr Moate broke up with his wife, Joy, and he moved to Geelong and re-partnered. After that, the abuse stopped, and you lived in a more stable environment.
52You went to Grevillea Park Primary School. You were in some trouble at primary school and did not enjoy the experience. You describe being bullied. You then went to Wendouree High School in Ballarat and, after that, Norlane High School in Geelong. You completed Year 12 but you did not undertake the end of year exams. You describe yourself as an average student.
53When you finished school, you moved out of home, living in share houses and with various prospective partners. You lost contact completely with Mr Moate and his partner.
54You say you have had no difficulty finding work over the years and have only had limited periods of unemployment. You worked in hospitality for several years and had management roles at restaurants and bars. You have also worked in factories and then as a brickie’s labourer for a period of about five years.
55You have had various relationships, most of which have not lasted longer than 18 months. Your longest relationship was with a woman you met when you were about 20 years old and that relationship lasted for about four years. Your partner had some psychiatric problems and ended the relationship. You felt heartbroken and attempted suicide and drank heavily at the end of that relationship.
56You started drinking alcohol when you were 17 years old. You say though that the only period when you have been a heavy drinker was in the wake of that relationship break-up. Between the ages of 20 to 26 you used cannabis daily, but eventually gave up using that drug. You started using methamphetamine when you were 23 years old. You were abstinent for three years in your late twenties but since a relationship breakdown you have been using methamphetamine regularly apart from when you have been in custody.
57Prior to your current period on remand, you were using between half a gram and a gram daily by smoking and injecting. You have also used cocaine and ecstasy and LSD, but you have not been a heavy user of those drugs. You used GHB from the age of 28 and continued to use that drug in the year leading up to being remanded in custody for this matter.
58You have also intravenously used heroin. You are currently prescribed Buprenorphine in prison, as well as Avanza. You also take a pain medication called Endep for nerve damage sustained from an injury to your shoulder and chest. You would like to stop taking all of these medications entirely.
59After your half-sister Stacey died, your mother’s sisters, Catherine Peresso and Marlene Peresso, reconnected with you because of issues stemming from an inquest into Stacey’s death. You were her next of kin. You have had regular phone contact with both of your aunts whilst on remand, and you say you would like to live with them when you are released. You will be able to act as their carer. They both have significant health difficulties. Both attended the plea to support you.
60They had previously tried to reach out to you unsuccessfully.
61
In a letter written to support you in these proceedings, Catherine Peresso sets out your background and your circumstances as a child. She says at the time you went to live with the Callows, her sister Marlene wanted to look after you, but Laurie Peresso disapproved, and it did not happen. After you went to live with
Mr Moate, Catherine and Marlene lost touch with you. She says you are now very close to Marlene, who is legally blind and expects to lose her sight completely. You ring Marlene every day and you have a close relationship with her.
62Catherine herself has significant problems with her back and is expecting to have more surgery. She says that when you are released you will live with her. You will be her carer. You have told her that you will not use drugs again and that you have been doing all the programs available whilst you have been in prison. She says that you did not have the love and support of a family growing up and that she and Marlene can give you that love and support. She and Marlene are not able to visit you regularly because you are in Ararat and that is too far for them to travel more than once a month at best.
63The circumstances of your childhood are broadly confirmed by the passages in the report of Dr Owens in which he refers to foster care documents and an order from a magistrate granting guardianship and custody to Mr Moate in 1992.
64Mr Hughan submitted, and I accept, that this reconnection with your family is significant in your case, given the deprivation in your upbringing and that the reconnection is a factor which supports a more positive view of your prosects of rehabilitation than would otherwise be justifiable given the gravity of the offending and your criminal history.
Bugmy principles
65Mr Hughan submitted, based on your background and the opinion of the psychologist Dr Owens, that the principles in the High Court case of Bugmy apply given your deprived upbringing. Dr Owens said this in his report:
'Mr Snow has emerged from a childhood characterised by significant and prolonged abuse and neglect. Although he denied any sexual abuse, he described persistent and systematic physical and emotional abuse. It is not in any way surprising that he has developed recurrent depression as an adult. His drug use disorder is likely rooted in difficulties managing his emotional reactions and therefore in my view he requires a combination of psychological treatment and drug rehabilitation measures in order to achieve positive outcomes.'
66Mr Hughan submitted that I should conclude your moral culpability is reduced because of the deprivation of your upbringing which has led to your immersion in drug use and criminality. He accepted the prosecution submission that I must apply the Bugmy principles in the context of the seriousness of the offences. However, he nonetheless submitted that there is a connection between your drug problems and your criminality and the deprivation in your upbringing.
67I have had regard to the principles in Bugmy as reducing your moral culpability for the offending in this case. Still, given the seriousness of the offending and your substantial history, your moral culpability for the offences remains significant.
Guilty plea
68You pleaded guilty to these charges at a committal mention hearing. The resolution of the matter had been settled prior to that date. No witnesses were cross-examined. I accept this was a plea at the earliest opportunity and it is indicative of a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. I also accept that your plea is indicative of remorse for your conduct in circumstances where you made a statement and at a point indicated a willingness to give evidence.
69As regards to your assistance, I have been told today that the police attended to seek a further statement from you but that you did not complete that statement and you will not be giving an undertaking to give evidence but you remain willing to do so. In the end I regard the assistance as a factor I must take into account but of limited weight in all of the circumstances.
70I take into account the principles in the case of Worboyes[3] which are that you must receive a palpable amelioration of sentence by reason of your guilty plea and its heightened utilitarian value in the current environment, where the court faces a backlog of trials as a result of the suspension of trials during the pandemic. By pleading guilty you have also spared the witnesses the experience of having to attend court and give evidence about these matters.
[3][2021] VSCA 169
Prospects of rehabilitation
71In assessing your prospects of rehabilitation, I have read and had regard to the certificates and the material provided relating to the courses undertaken whilst in custody and the letter from Catherine Peresso. I accept you are doing everything you can in prison to facilitate your rehabilitation and that reconnection with Catherine and Marlene Peresso and the availability of their support and a place to live when you are released is a protective factor. Over and above that, as I have said, I accept the reconnection with family is significant in your case.
72Given the seriousness of the offending and your very substantial prior convictions, I can only take a guarded view of your prospects of rehabilitation. Nonetheless, I am encouraged by what you have been doing since you were remanded in custody; the fact that you made a statement admitting to an extent your participation and nominating your co-offenders; and by the family support that will be available.
73There does seem to me to be some hope that you are now in a position where you are tired of a life using drugs and going to prison and you are motivated to move away from the criminal milieu in which you had been mixing and in which you were mixing at the time of these offences. Of course, for you the true test will come when you are released back into the community and the issue will be whether you have the personal resources to resist a relapse into drug use and committing offences.
74In the circumstances of this case, I will reflect the need to facilitate your rehabilitation by imposing a non-parole period that allows for an extended period of supervision if you are released by the Parole Board at the expiration of your non-parole period. This will be the first sentence involving a head sentence and a minimum term that you have received.
75The non-parole period mitigates punishment in favour of rehabilitation, but it must be commensurate with the objective gravity of the offences.
Parity
76In this case it is not disputed that you were the instigator of the incident. You had the problem with Ms Blake that led to the offending. However, it seems to me that Mr Moon was more than a willing participant, bringing a loaded firearm to the incident and loading it when he arrived. His actual participation was just as significant as yours. You were more cooperative than he was. You made a statement that ended up on the brief of evidence against him. In those circumstances, I accept your statement may have been part of Mr Moon’s decision to plead guilty. The statement though you made was not fully accurate and it seems the prosecution do not intend to call you in the case of Ms Ryan, but if they do you have indicated a willingness to give evidence.
77I have had regard to all those factors, which distinguish you from Mr Moon to an extent. Your prior convictions are perhaps more significant than his, although his were also substantial. You have the mitigatory benefit of the Bugmy principles which were not a feature of his case. Although I have assessed your prospects as guarded as I did in Mr Moon's case, I do have a slightly more optimistic opinion of your prospects given your cooperation and remorse – factors that he was not able to rely on.
78I have decided, balancing all these matters, they justify a slightly lower sentence than that which I imposed on Mr Moon for the attempted aggravated home invasion. You do not face the reckless conduct charge to which he pleaded guilty, and he did not face the criminal damage charge to which you pleaded guilty. As far as the prohibited person offence is concerned, given your prior convictions for prohibited person in possession of a firearm, a longer sentence than that which was imposed on Mr Moon is justified with a longer period of cumulation.
79I have taken into account the ongoing impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic on prisoners. The conditions in prison while you have been on remand have been restricted, and I accept these factors have made your imprisonment so far more onerous and have the potential to impact in this way in the future.
Totality
80The totality principle requires that the overall sentence that I impose must be just and proportionate to the total criminality of your offending. In this case, all the offences are closely connected and linked in time and purpose. Substantial concurrency is required to comply with totality.
81As I said earlier, there is also an overlap of elements between the prohibited person offence and the attempted aggravated home invasion offence which requires proof that you had a firearm. Given the overlap of elements and facts across the offences I must take care to avoid double punishment.
82I have had regard to the principles in the cases of Berichon and also the decision in Acciarito[4] in relation to sentencing for prohibited person offences that have a connection to another offence on the indictment.
[4]
Sentence
83The sentence I impose in this matter is as follows:
· On the charge of attempted aggravated home invasion, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three years and eight months' imprisonment.
· On the charge of possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, you are sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment.
· On the charge of criminal damage, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
84Ten months of the sentence on Charge 2, prohibited person possessing a firearm, is cumulative on the base sentence of Charge 1 and one month of the sentence on Charge 3 is also cumulative on the base sentence.
85The total effective sentence is therefore four years and seven months' imprisonment.
86I fix a non-parole period in this matter of two years and eleven months' imprisonment.
87Pursuant to s 18 of Sentencing Act 1991, I order 389 days pre-sentence detention is to administratively be deducted from the sentence that I have imposed.
88Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of six years and seven months with a minimum non-parole period of four years and five months.
89HIS HONOUR: I think there was a forfeiture order, was there, as well?
90MR HUGHAN: Were there two forfeiture orders in the end?
91MS FLEMING: Yes, Your Honour. There is a forfeiture order and a disposal order.
92HIS HONOUR: I will make those orders.
93MS FLEMING: Sorry, Your Honour, I should just clarify this. There were initially two forfeiture orders filed. The forfeiture order that we seek to be moved is the one that relates to the firearm. There is a separate one for a mobile phone. If that has been filed, we are not intending to proceed with that.
94HIS HONOUR: Not the mobile phone but the firearm.
95MS FLEMING: Thank you, Your Honour.
96HIS HONOUR: That will be done. Thanks, Ms Fleming and Mr Hughan for your considerable assistance in this matter. Did you want to ask something, Mr Snow?
97OFFENDER: You stated that my mobile phone was Motorola mobile phone. It was a Samsung mobile phone. I just wanted to make sure that they got the right phone.
98HIS HONOUR: No, fair enough. What I will do is when I revise my remarks I will change Motorola to Samsung.
99OFFENDER: To Samsung. Thank you.
100HIS HONOUR: Yes, I will do that. Thanks, Mr Snow. All right, thanks, Mr Hughan and Ms Fleming.
- - -
0
4
0