Director of Public Prosecutions v Sprott
[2024] VCC 1608
•16 October 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Un-Restricted Suitable for Publication |
GENERAL LIST
Case No. CR-23-01539
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SPROTT, Mark |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Palmer |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 September 2024 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 October 2024 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Sprott |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1608 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Aggravated Burglary – false imprisonment (common law) - intentionally cause injury – serious offending – general deterrence – denunciation – just punishment – community protection – substance use – schizophrenia – related criminal history – guarded prospects of rehabilitation
Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CRL 571; R v Verdins (2007) 171 A Crim R 227; DPP v Reynolds [2022] VSCA 263; Dragovic v The Queen [2024] VSCA 95.
Sentence:6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years
6AAA: 8 and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr Z Petric | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr L Hocking | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Circumstances of offending[1]
[1] The detailed circumstances of offending are set out in the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea (16 September 2024). I have also read and considered the written submissions of the parties as supplemented by their oral submissions, and supported by tendered material, including Submissions on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions (15 August 2024); Defence Submissions in Relation to Plea (15 September 2024); Dr Donral Hanratty, Assessment (23 June 2024); Jane Lofthouse, Neuropsychological Report (21 August 2024); various certificates and statements of attainment; and letter from Michael Imhoff.
Mark Sprott, on 1 April 2023 you and your on again off again intimate partner, Ms Goralski, had an argument and ended your relationship.
You were both residents of a self-contained living facility on Queens Road in Melbourne. The facility is for people with a history of chronic homelessness, and is operated by the Sacred Heart Mission.
Ms Goralski demanded that you return the swipe access card to her apartment. You refused. The following day (2 April 2023), Ms Goralski asked a social worker at the facility to disable any outstanding access cards to her apartment and to issue her with a new one.
At about 8.30 pm that night, Ms Goralski went to sleep in her apartment. She awoke in the early hours when she heard you use the swipe card and enter her apartment. You were holding a hammer.
You demanded that Ms Goralski give you money, and return some property of yours. She said she had no money. You barricaded the door with furniture and other items and prevented her from leaving. Over the following several hours you committed a series of horrifyingly violent acts against her:
a.You hit her in the knee and face with the hammer. She managed to get the hammer from you, but she could not escape the apartment.
b.You stabbed her right eye and forehead with a sharp piece of wood.
c.When she retreated to her bed and curled up in a ball, you followed her in, armed with three kitchen knives. You stabbed her in the neck, chest, knee and thigh.
d.You strangled her several times, causing her to lose consciousness.
e.At many times, she feared she was going to die.
f.She asked you to call an ambulance. You refused.
g.You continued to refuse to allow her to leave.
Finally, at around 8 am (on 3 April 2023) another resident – who had heard Ms Goralski screaming during the night – came to the apartment, saw her injuries and called 000.
Ms Goralski was in hospital for at least a week. Her physical injuries included:
a.A fractured skull, nose and ribs;
b.Black eyes;
c.Bruising about her body;
d.Open stab wounds to her forehead, neck, chest and back; and
e.Stab wounds to her knee that required surgery.
You have pleaded guilty to three charges:
a.Charge 1: aggravated burglary (entering with intent to commit an assault; having an offensive weapon – the hammer – with you; and knowing that another person would be present or reckless as to the same), contrary to s 77(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty for which is 25 years imprisonment;
b.Charge 2: false imprisonment, contrary to the common law, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years imprisonment; and
c.Charge 3: intentionally causing injury, contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years imprisonment.
Seriousness of offending and current sentencing practice
I consider this to be very serious offending:
a.You entered Ms Goralski’s home, armed and intending to assault her;
b.You proceeded to savagely attack her for several hours, including when she was at her most defenceless; [2]
c.You prevented her from leaving;
d.You prevented her from getting medical attention; and
e.The episode only ended when a neighbour came to Ms Goralski’s aid.
[2] The ferocity of your attack is captured in photographs taken after the incident: Depositions, Exhibits 28 and 30.
At the plea hearing, Ms Goralski spoke with courage about the ongoing and serious impact your offending has had on her: not only physical – including a limp, pain, migraines and scarring – but also robbing her of her confidence, sense of safety and independence in the world.[3]
[3] Victim impact statement (13 September 2024); see also letter from Dr Belinda McDonald (29 April 2024).
Although the offence of aggravated burglary is – on the basis of its maximum penalty – the most serious of the three charges, in this case I consider that the worst parts of your offending are included in the charge of intentionally causing injury. I consider it to be an extremely serious example of this offence. I will therefore use my sentence for that offence as the base sentence.
In relation to current sentencing practice, the prosecution did not place any material before me, whether in the form of statistical information or specific comparable cases. The defence written submissions did refer to statistics from the Sentencing Advisory Council in relation to the offence of aggravated burglary.[4] I have had regard to those, and to statistical information from the same source in relation to intentionally causing injury. [5]
[4] Sentencing Advisory Council, Sentencing Snapshot 262: Aggravated burglary (December 2021).
[5] Sentencing Advisory Council, Sentencing Snapshot 290: Intentionally causing injury (2024).
What is clear is that general deterrence, public denunciation, just punishment and community protection are the most important sentencing considerations in cases of intimate partner violence, including those involving choking assaults.[6]
[6] See DPP v Reynolds [2022] VSCA 263 at [77] and [80] (Priest and T Forrest JJA, and Kidd AJA); and Dragovic v The Queen [2024] VSCA 95 at [32] (Kennedy and T Forrest JJA).
Personal circumstances and subjective matters
You were born in 1985, and are now 39 years of age. At the age of three, you migrated from Scotland with your mother. Once in Australia, your mother re-partnered. You were sexually abused by your stepfather’s father. Through your childhood and adolescence you had significant behavioural difficulties, and started to use illicit drugs from around the age of 13. I accept that the difficulties of your childhood and adolescence continue to affect you, and give this weight in the sentencing process.[7]
[7] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.
As an adult, you have a long history of unemployment, homelessness, schizophrenia and substance use disorders.[8] You have spent much of your life receiving involuntary treatment under mental health legislation. You have a history of refusing medication and descending into acute psychosis when treatment is not compulsory. When psychotic, your behaviour can become threatening, violent, agitated and aggressive.
[8] Hanratty assessment, [75]-[91].
Your mental health issues contributed to your offending; however, the fact that you were using illicit substances was equally important.[9] Nevertheless, this does reduce your moral culpability to some extent.[10] Your mental health issues also make you a relatively poor vehicle for general deterrence; and mean that prison would weigh more heavily on you. [11]
[9] Hanratty assessment, [137] and [140]. See also Lofthouse report, pages 14-19.
[10] R v Verdins (2007) 171 A Crim R 227, limb 1.
[11] R v Verdins (2007) 171 A Crim R 227, limbs 3 and 5. Hanratty assessment, [154]; albeit, I note, that you are in many ways doing better in custody than you were before, as you are complying with your treatment and abstaining from drug use.
On the other hand, your mental health issues mean that you pose a high risk of violent reoffending upon your release.[12] This increases the need for community protection.
[12] Hanratty assessment, [157].
Although your criminal record is not unduly lengthy, it includes offending involving drugs, weapons and violence. The most serious of your prior offending is a charge of recklessly causing serious injury in 2013, when you stabbed someone. The current charges represent an escalation in violence. There is a need for specific deterrence, albeit this is to be moderated to some extent by your mental health issues.[13]
[13] R v Verdins (2007) 171 A Crim R 227, limb 4.
The prospects for your rehabilitation are guarded, as they depend on you accepting treatment for your mental illness, and avoiding alcohol and drug use. These are not things you have been able to sustain in the past,[14] and there is nothing in the material presented to me that suggests that this will have changed by the time of your release.
[14] Hanratty assessment, [78], [84], [97] and [100], refers to some extended periods of apparent compliance and abstinence.
Your plea of guilty was entered after a contested committal, in which Ms Goralski was subjected to cross-examination on a variety of topics, including her own criminal record and drug use. You have difficulty in expressing regret or remorse for your conduct, [15] albeit you did appear to be distressed when Ms Goralski read her victim impact statement in court.
[15] Hanratty assessment, [142]-[150].
Nevertheless, by pleading guilty you have taken responsibility for your conduct, and have saved, witnesses, prosecuting agencies and the community as a whole, time, money, inconvenience and uncertainty.
Orders
If you had not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to eight and a half years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. I am instead sentencing you as follows:
a.Charge 3, intentionally causing injury: I convict you and sentence you to five years imprisonment (this is the base sentence).
b.Charge 1, aggravated burglary: I convict you and sentence you to three years imprisonment, nine months of which are to be served cumulatively on the base sentence.
c.Charge 2, false imprisonment: I convict you and sentence you to one year imprisonment, three months of which are to be served cumulatively on the base sentence.
d.This makes for a total effective sentence of six years imprisonment.
e.I order that you serve four years imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
f.I declare that you have already served 562 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
g.I make the disposal order sought by the prosecution.
0
4
0