Director of Public Prosecutions v Sonnet

[2002] VSC 596

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 5477 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

SEAN JASON SONNET

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8-11, 14 OCTOBER 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 DECEMBER 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v SONNET
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 596

---

Contempt – Sentence

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Ryan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Meredith	Reiner Martini

HIS HONOUR:

1. Sean Jason Sonnet, you are convicted of each of the charges of contempt set out on the originating motion before me. I publish my reasons for such convictions and as to underlying considerations affecting sentencing.[1]  I turn now to considerations specifically affecting your sentence. 

   [1]DPP v Johnson & Ors [2002] VSC 583

1. You are 33 years old, having been born on 22 April 1969.  You come from a stable and supportive family background but you have a criminal record going back to 1989 including a series of convictions for serious and violent offences. 

1. Since release from custody earlier this year you have been supported by your parents and in particular your father in finding employment and have entered into an ongoing relationship with a woman of good character.  Unfortunately it is apparent from the evidence before me that you played a significant, and in a number of instances, instigating role in the disruption of your trial before the County Court in September 2000.

1. A report prepared in September 1999 by Mr Ian Joblin, Forensic Psychologist, notes that you are intelligent and insightful of the problems which you have.  It also notes that your history has been marked by impulsive behaviour and that in his view institutionalisation has adversely affected you.  He presciently observed that it might be that the courts have not seen the end of you.  His report is however consistent with the view that you may have matured somewhat since that time and in particular appear to have matured somewhat since the offences of contempt which are now before me.

1. In this regard it is significant that you have been able to satisfactorily negotiate completion of a period out of custody.  Nevertheless despite these factors in my view your criminal history supports the imposition of a custodial penalty rather than a non-custodial penalty.  Furthermore, matters of deterrence and in particular general deterrence provide an overriding need for the imposition of such penalties in the circumstances before me.

1. Before sentencing you with respect to the individual contempts in relation to which I have found you guilty it is necessary for me to reiterate as I have with respect to Paisley and Wenitong that the gravity of the charges which you faced in the County Court create a context in which your contempts must be assessed.  Furthermore although you have admitted to each count of contempt before me and apologised to this court no apology was made to the County Court at the time of the offences and no acknowledgment was made t that court of the seriousness of your contempt.  Nevertheless both the fact of your pleas before me and the now substantial passage of time since the incidents in question count in your favour.  I turn then to each of the charges of contempt.

1. The first incident of contempt with which I am concerned occurred on 13 September 2000 being Day 7 of the trial. On that day Brazel resumed evidence having previously given evidence on 5, 6, 7 and 12 September 2000.  During the course of the morning a series of noises and interjections emanated from the dock and it is quite clear from the videotape that you were involved in making a protracted series of honking noises.  At 11.53 a.m. the learned trial judge ordered your removal from participation in the trial until further order.  This led to an outburst of sustained offensive abuse by you directed to the witness Brazel and couched in the crudest terms.  It is apparent from the transcript and the video that you initiated this outburst and were particularly virulent in your contribution to the stream of abuse which then emanated from you, Johnson and Paisley.  Your actions followed a ruling which was intended to reduce your disruption of the trial and the offensive abuse in which you indulged was clearly intended to dramatically disrupt the trial.

1. It has been submitted on your behalf that there were underlying circumstances of provocation arising from the conduct of Brazel.  For the reasons set out in my background findings I accept that this was so.  Nevertheless it is clear that your conduct constituted a deliberate contempt of court.  Insulting and offensive behaviour towards a witness threatens the dispassionate and proper process of a trial, it challenges the authority of the court, interrupts proceedings and potentially detracts from public confidence in the proceedings.

1. In all the circumstances and having regard to your leading role in this incident I sentence you to a term of six months imprisonment with respect to the contempt alleged in paragraph 3 of the relevant originating motion and being your part in the first incident described in my background findings.

1. You were not involved in the second incident in which Paisley assaulted a juror or the third incident which involved Wenitong, both of which occurred on 14 September 2000.

1. On 18 September 2000 however at approximately 11.32 a.m. you were again the instigator of and a principal participant in the fourth incident referred to in my background findings which comprise a contempt particularised at paragraph 4 of the relevant originating motion.  You and Johnson again engaged in obscenely offensive abuse of the witness Brazel including allegations of necrophilia and rape in the crudest terms.  This outburst occurred some four days after the second and third incidents and constituted a deliberate confrontation with the witness, the court and the trial process.  Your initial remarks were not directly provoked by a particular incident and cannot be excused.  They took place in the absence of the jury but in the presence of the witness.

1. In all the circumstances and again having regard to your leading role in this incident I sentence you to a term of six months imprisonment.

1. You were not involved in the fifth incident which also occurred on 18 September 2000 and involved Johnson and Paisley calling out to a juror. After the luncheon adjournment on that day however the learned trial judge directed that the audio link between Court 4 and Court 18 be discontinued until further notice. You responded to this direction, together with Johnson and Wenitong, in a torrent of confrontation with the court in obscene and highly abusive terms.  Once again you were the first to speak and took a leading role in this entirely unacceptable outburst.  The insults to the court were reiterated in terms of accusing the learned trial judge of complicity with Brazel.

1. It is apparent that your abuse of the learned trial judge was intended to indicate implacable opposition to the continuation of the trial and was a deliberate continuation of the "circus" or "shenanigans" as you yourself described the behaviour of the accused at various times.  It was intended to increase pressure upon the learned trial judge following the preceding incidents and I am satisfied the abuse was uttered with the motive of seeking to achieve termination of the trial.

1. In all the circumstances I sentence you to six months imprisonment with respect to the sixth incident being the attempt particularised in paragraph 5 of the relevant originating motion.

1. Shortly after the sixth incident, at 2.28 p.m. Wenitong and Paisley exposed their buttocks to the video camera in Court 4.  You and Johnson emphasised and dramatised the event by pointing and gesticulating.  Like the previous incident it is clear that this incident was intended to indicate implacable opposition to the continuation of the trial and was a deliberate continuation of the circus intended to increase pressure on the learned trial judge and ultimately achieve termination of the trial.  Although you played a subsidiary role in this incident it is nevertheless  clear that you played an enthusiastic supporting role. In all the circumstances I sentence you to a term of three months imprisonment with respect to the contempt particularised in paragraph 6 of the relevant originating motion being your part in the seventh incident described in my background findings. 

1. You were not involved in the eighth incident in which Paisley again exposed his buttocks to the video camera nor have you been charged with respect to the ninth incident although I note that you did contribute an insult to it.  Likewise you were not involved in the 10th incident which involved Johnson.

1. You were however involved in the 11th incident in which counsel for the Office of Correctional Services was crudely abused.  During the course of this incident you repeatedly made noises of an objectionable and offensive nature including bird and animal noises.  You accompanied these noises with a series of remarks which included:  "You want a circus, what do you expect?"

1. Once again it is clear that you made a continuing subsidiary contribution to this incident and that your contribution was intended to produce a circus in the court. It was intended to prevent the proper disposition and progress of the matter.  In all the circumstances I sentence you to three months imprisonment with respect to the contempt particularised in paragraph 7 of the relevant originating motion being your part in the 11th incident described in my background findings.

1. I order that three months of the term of imprisonment imposed with respect to the fourth incident, three months of the term imposed with respect to the sixth incident, one month of the term imposed with respect to the seventh incident and one month imposed with respect to the 11th incident be served cumulatively upon the six month term imposed with respect to your part in the first incident and cumulatively upon each other but that the sentences I have otherwise imposed be served concurrently.

1. This results in a total effective sentence of 14 months imprisonment. I make this order having regard primarily to the nature and deliberate cumulation of the contempts themselves on the one hand and the totality of the sentences and delay since the contempts on the other.

---