Director of Public Prosecutions v Stojkovic
[2020] VCC 676
•21 May 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR-19-02063
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| HAMISH STOJKOVIC |
---
| JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE GWYNN |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 7, 12, 14 & 21 May 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 May 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Stojkovic |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 676 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: Criminal law
Catchwords: Carjacking; extortion with a threat to kill; blackmail; handling stolen goods; possession of controlled weapons
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited: Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60
Sentence:4 years and 6 months imprisonment, non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D. Porceddu | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Mr D. McGlone | Stary Norton Halphen |
HER HONOUR:
1Hamish Stojkovic, you have pleaded guilty on indictment to carjacking, two charges of extortion with a threat to kill, blackmail and handling stolen goods. You have also pleaded guilty to a summary charge of possession of controlled weapons, namely two swords.
2In sentencing you for these crimes, I must have regard to the maximum sentence for each of the offences that you have committed. All charges on the indictment carry a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. The summary charge carries a maximum imprisonment for one year.
3The circumstances of your offending were set out in a document entitled “Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea” dated 12 May 2020. It is a very detailed document of some 58 pages and represents an acceptance by you of all of the elements of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty and the factual basis on which I am to sentence.
4I will refer to some of the facts so that the circumstances of your offending and its seriousness can be understood. In sentencing you, however, I have regard to the full Crown document and the position as agreed between the parties as to the basis for sentence in accordance with those facts.
5Essentially, during 2019, Victoria Police members attached to the Echo Taskforce (responsible for investigating offences arising from, or in connection with, outlaw motorcycle gangs) commenced an investigation into allegations of blackmail and extortion by offenders who were either members of or associates with the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang.
6In the present case, the investigation centred around blackmail and extortion of two separate victims, namely Christopher Tasker (Charges 1 and 2), and Ryan Williams (Charges 3 and 4), over what amounts to about a five-week period. These two victims were not known to each other – however, the common link between the two victims is you. In total, five offenders were charged. The head of the hierarchy is alleged to be Jerome Ah Soon, who, at the time of the offending was alleged to have regarded himself as the Rebels Sergeant at Arms of the Melbourne chapter.
7The case against you and your co-offenders Eliseko Seko, Luke Kneale (both patched members) and Danny Kojic[1] (a child) is put on the basis of complicity. You are an associate of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang and of Ah Soon. You are said to be an integral part of the offending as the common link concerning each victim. You dealt directly with each of them.
[1] A pseudonym.
8There was an extensive background outlined in the Crown document which led up to your offending in terms of who was targeted, how and why. The victim of the first set of offending is, as I have referred, Christopher Tasker.
9Charge 1 (carjacking) and Charge 2 (extortion with a threat to kill) are put against you on the basis of complicity and that your role was to identify persons who the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang could potentially extort and blackmail, and then assist in facilitating such.
10On 21 January 2019, you became aware that victim Tasker was involved in a dispute with a Rebels associate by the name of Dimattia who provided mechanical services to the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. At the time of the offence, Tasker was a 21-year old working in car sales. He had a girlfriend named Emma Parry who was friends with you.
11You determined that Tasker was potentially a target whom the Rebels could blackmail and extort money from and conveyed this information to Ah Soon. You provided Tasker's telephone number to Ah Soon. Ah Soon called Tasker on 23 January 2019 and told him that he had spoken to Dimattia and that he wanted to meet with him to “work things out”. Tasker agreed to meet at the McDonald's in Melton. Between 2.15 pm and 6.30 pm on that day, a number of text messages were exchanged between Tasker and Ah Soon to arrange that meeting, which ultimately was to be held on 24 January 2019.
12There were communications between you and Ah Soon in a variety of formats. Ah Soon was also in regular text message and phone contact with Seko, Kneale and Kojic. Ah Soon in fact advised Seko and Kneale to “wear their colours” to the meeting at Melton McDonald's, referencing clothing identified with the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang.
13At around 7.31 pm on 24 January 2019, in accordance with arrangements made, you attended at the car park of the Melton McDonald's with your mother and son in your vehicle. At approximately 7.40 pm, Tasker arrived in his vehicle, a silver 2014 Mitsubishi Triton utility. The registered owner of this vehicle was his mother, Pamela, and the vehicle was insured for approximately $22,000.
14You approached Tasker and then you both went inside the McDonald's restaurant before returning to the car park, where you spoke for a period of time. In effect, you were keeping Tasker at the scene.
15At approximately 8.45 pm, a white Holden Commodore sedan arrived with Ah Soon and Kojic and parked in the middle of the car park. Ah Soon was wearing a dark-coloured T-shirt with the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang motif. By this stage, Tasker was back at his utility with you. You approached Ah Soon and Kojic and shook hands with them before you all walked over to where Tasker was standing. Ah Soon introduced himself and told Tasker that they had heard a lot about him. He also stated that “Tom [referring to Dimattia] is like family to us”.
16Seko and Kneale, both of whom were also wearing Rebels insignia, then approached from an area of a nearby carwash. The group, including you, were all standing around the rear of Tasker's utility. Tasker saw a small bag hanging around Seko's right shoulder from which Seko produced a dark object. Seko repeatedly said to Tasker, “Do you want me to kill you?”. The agreed Crown case is that you were present when this was said and by your presence you were intentionally participating in the carjacking which was the agreement between you and the others.
17Tasker was scared. Ah Soon told him to hand over the keys to his utility and he did so. Ah Soon walked to the driver's side and put the keys in the ignition before saying to Tasker, “Jump in, we are going for a drive', telling Tasker to get into the driver's seat. Tasker did as he was told and Ah Soon told Kojic to get into the front passenger seat of Tasker's utility, which he did. You and Ah Soon got into the white Holden Commodore sedan with both Seko and Kneale.
18Tasker was directed by Kojic to follow the white Holden Commodore, completing Charge 1, carjacking. Ah Soon called and was on loudspeaker giving Kojic directions of where to go.
19Tasker states they pulled up in front of a house with a garage which, according to your record of interview with police, was your former residence. You and Ah Soon were already at the address. Tasker got out of his utility and was told to wait next to the neighbour's fence.
20Ah Soon told Tasker that he had “used up all of their time” and been a hassle for them. At this stage, Tasker was extremely fearful of being seriously assaulted or killed. Ah Soon then made the following demand: “I want $20,000 by Monday or I'll come to your house”. Ah Soon then showed Tasker a photograph that had been taken of Tasker's home where he was then living with his parents. Ah Soon reiterated the threat, stating that if Tasker did not pay by Monday, that he would come to Tasker's house and kill everyone inside, commencing Charge 2, extortion with threat to kill. The extortion with threat to kill was part of the agreement that had been formed with you and others in your presence and its commencement was in furtherance of this agreement.
21Ah Soon told Tasker that he would get a call on Monday. He was told to take his housekeys off his car key ring and then instructed to call Parry to come and collect him, which she did. Seko and Kneale were present by this time.
22Five minutes after being picked up by Parry, Tasker received a phone call from Ah Soon who stated, “Just want to make sure you pay the 20 grand by Monday or else you know what happens”, before hanging up. Tasker and Parry returned home to Tarneit and told Tasker's parents what had happened, before reporting the incident to police and the fact that the utility had been stolen.
23As a result of Tasker reporting the utility as stolen, it was recorded on the VicRoads public database as stolen. That database is accessible to any member of the public who can check a vehicle's registration or VIN number to establish if a vehicle is listed. This raised obvious concern for Ah Soon as it would prevent retaining the vehicle and could lead to potential identification. As a result, attempts were made to contact Tasker to remove the listing of his car as stolen.
24The various communications between Ah Soon, you and your co-accused as well as those with Tasker are outlined in the Crown summary.
25On 25 January 2019, Tasker received a phone call that sounded like Ah Soon and stated, “Do you think I'm stupid? I know the car has been reported as stolen”, to which Tasker replied, “Nothing, I don't know what's going on. I didn't report it as stolen”, to which the male replied, 'Well, someone has. You have until tonight now to give me the money”. The male then hung up.
26Between 10.48 am and 11.31 am, you and Tasker had a text message conversation in which you suggested he ask his parents for the money and told Tasker to take the car off the stolen car register as it would bring “unneeded attention for everyone”. You told Tasker to let you know when it was done, as you just did not want them turning up at his place.
27At 1.35 pm, Tasker was at the Melbourne West police complex. After receiving two missed calls from Ah Soon's number, he answered a third call and placed it on loudspeaker. What was heard from that conversation included Ah Soon introducing himself as “Elf”, asking Tasker whether the boys had spoken to him this morning and replying with, “Good, just get as much as you can today and we'll work it out, just don't stress, deal with it all through Hamish”, which was a reference to you.
28Tasker told him that he tried to get a bank loan and was not getting it and was worried about what happens if he could not get the money. Ah Soon replied, “Just get what you can and speak to Hamish”, again a reference to you. Tasker said, “If I get it, am I going to get my car back?”; Ah Soon did not answer and hung up. He then called you.
29At 2.14 pm, after receiving a number of missed calls from you, Tasker called you and undertook a pretext conversation which he recorded for investigators and is also summarised in the Crown opening. In that call, you remained active in pursuing money from Tasker and agreed to accept $10,000 by that night and give him two weeks to obtain the other half. You again asked for his car to be taken off the stolen car register.
30During that call, Tasker remained concerned that people would come to his address and that if he did pay, further monies would in fact be sought. There was a second pretext call at 3.38 pm between you and Tasker, which is also outlined in the Crown opening. During that call, you emphasised that Tasker needed to get the car off the stolen register or, “It's getting to the point where they are saying they are going to have to come to the house and shit”.
31At 4.01 pm, you attempted to call Tasker and then sent the following text message: “Forgot to tell you, just get as much as you can tonight and go from there.”
32At 5.19 pm, you sent the following text message to Tasker: “You know what happens to dogs.” At 5.20 pm, you sent the following text message to Ah Soon: “He's gone to the cops I reckon, he's blocked me on Facebook.” You then sent a message to Dimattia on Facebook asking, “What's his street name?” From there on, you remained in regular contact with Ah Soon.
33As a result of the threats received from you and your alleged co-accused, Tasker and his family fled their family home, having to locate alternative accommodation.
34At approximately 10.52 pm on 26 January 2019, you were intercepted by police in Tasker's vehicle. At that time, you were disqualified from driving and police located an extendable baton in the driver's seat which you admitted was yours. Neither of those matters are before me and will not be taken into account in your sentence. Tasker's utility was seized by police.
35Over the next hour, you and Ah Soon were in regular contact with each other. Between 26 January 2019 and the following day, Ah Soon attempted to call Tasker 10 times. On 7 February, Kojic also made attempts to contact Tasker after communicating with you and Ah Soon. Charge 2 was completed on that date.
36As a result of further threats, Tasker's family fled their home for a second time.
37In relation to those two charges, the prosecution case is that you, together with Ah Soon and others, formed the intention to extort money from Tasker from 24 January 2019, on which day the carjacking was completed. Your presence at the McDonald's restaurant until Tasker's car was driven away by Ah Soon was in furtherance of that agreement and the understanding between you, Ah Soon and others concerning the carjacking and then the extortion with the threat to kill. The subsequent contact between Ah Soon, Tasker and you after Tasker's car was taken is in furtherance of Charge 2, the extortion with threat to kill.
38I move now to Charge 3, blackmail, and Charge 4, extortion with threat to kill.
39The primary victim of each of those charges is Ryan Williams. At the time of those offences, Williams was a 23-year-old truck driver. He resided at an address in Wyndham Vale with three other housemates: Molly Magee, Corey Jasper-Winwood and Mason Gatherer. Williams was an associate of yours and had a former friend or love interest called Tori Wain to whom he owed a debt of approximately $1,500 after she paid for repairs to his vehicle.
40Charges 3 and 4 are also put against you on the basis of complicity, in that it was your role to identify persons who the Rebels could extort and then blackmail. The Crown case is that the messages between you and others demonstrate your complicity in both offences as they related to Williams. Whilst less hands-on than in Charges 1 and 2, you dealt directly with Ah Soon and the victim Williams up until and after the offending had ceased and played an essential role in what transpired.
41Again, what occurred is outlined in detail in the Crown document and will not be repeated here at length, but some detail is required, as it was for Charges 1 and 2, to fully understand your level of wrongdoing.
42You became aware that Williams had an outstanding debt to Wain and passed this information on to Ah Soon on or about 27 February 2019. When you did so, given the previous events, it was with the knowledge and intention that Williams would be blackmailed and extorted. Indeed, Charge 3 commenced the following day.
43As a result of you providing Ah Soon with the information about the debt owed by Williams to Wain, four to five males attended at Williams' own home residence on the evening of 28 February 2019. He was fortunate not to be at home but his housemates Magee, Jasper-Winwood and Gatherer, were less unfortunate.
44Ah Soon stated that he was a Sergeant at Arms with the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang and that they were there to collect a debt from Williams on behalf of their friend Tori. From that point, Williams' housemates became embroiled in the effort to blackmail and extort money from Williams. At various stages, the housemates were placed in fear and also approached to provide monies.
45Ah Soon told Magee that the amount that was owed was $3,000 and that the debt needed to be paid by Friday, the following day. Magee told Ah Soon that she and her housemates did not have that much money and the debt was not theirs. Ah Soon stated to Magee, “You're better off finding something rather than nothing because once my boys get here tomorrow, I can't control what they'll do, they'll run through your house”.
46Williams received a phone call from Gatherer, who told him that there were some people who wanted to speak with him. Ah Soon got on the phone and told Williams that he owed money. Williams said he would call back after work. The males then left his house.
47Gatherer rang Williams and told him that a group of blokes had turned up that were wearing Rebels Motorcycle Gang shirts. He also told Williams that the males had threatened to come to the house with “toys” if he did not call them back after work. Williams was petrified by this threat. He believed that referenced that the group were going to return to his house with “guns or bats or anything”.
48Later that day, Williams received two calls which he missed. He rang the number back and spoke to Ah Soon, who identified himself as “Elf”. Ah Soon stated that they were good friends of Tori's and they were getting the money back on her behalf. He told Williams that he owed $3,000. Ah Soon told him that he would stop the boys from coming to the house as long as he kept in contact and paid on time. Williams felt threatened by this and believed that if he did not pay the money, the Rebels would come to the house. He also felt worried for his housemates.
49Ah Soon told Williams that he had to get as much money together as possible and that he would be at the house the following day at 2 pm, being Friday, 1 March 2019. Williams returned home that evening after work and spoke with his housemates as to what had occurred. Williams went over to his girlfriend's house and collected money that he had saved for a holiday. Williams believes it was around $1,400. Jasper-Winwood also gathered approximately $500 to $600 of his own money and states that he was afraid that if he did not pay, he would be severely bashed or even killed.
50Throughout the charge period of 28 February 2019 to 3 March 2019, there were various communications between you and Williams, you and Ah Soon, Ah Soon and Williams and Ah Soon with your other alleged co-accused.
51On 1 March 2019, you discussed the debt with Williams on Facebook Messenger. Again, the conversation is outlined in the Crown document. In that conversation, you cautioned Williams against going to the police and reminded him of the need to consider his own safety when he raised his concerns for his housemates.
52Later that day, Ah Soon asked Williams if the $3,000 was going to be ready by 2 pm. Williams told Ah Soon that he only had $1,900. Ah Soon told Williams he would be at his house at 2 pm to pick up the money. Williams told Ah Soon that he had to work so he would not be there. Ah Soon then called you and you sent a text message to Williams saying, “Let Elf know when you're ready for him to pick up the coin if you can”.
53Subsequently, co-accused Kojic and another attended at Williams' address. Again, he was not at home but, unfortunately again, his housemates were. Kojic demanded money and Gatherer handed over money that Williams, Jasper-Winwood and Magee had collected. When Gatherer asked what was to happen next, Kojic replied that they would need to find out where Williams lives or where his vehicle was or they would have to hand over the rest of the money. Kojic told Magee they would have to take her car as collateral until Williams paid.
54At 2.30 pm, Williams received a telephone call from Gatherer who told him that the Rebels had been and taken the cash and that Ah Soon was likely to be in touch. At 3.42 pm, Williams resumed his Facebook Messenger conversation with you asking why this was happening to him and particularly his housemates. Again, this communication is outlined in the Crown document.
55Williams received a phone call from a male he believed to be Ah Soon on the afternoon of 1 March 2019 asking when he would have the rest of the money. He then received numerous phone calls from various telephone numbers. He states he got a voicemail at one point saying, “Pick up your phone or we will see you at the house”. He felt threatened by the constant contact and the nature of it.
56On Sunday, 3 March 2019, Williams spoke with Wain who told him that you had set him up for the Rebels to collect the debt on her behalf. After this conversation, Williams received a phone call from another male. Williams told the male that he would have the remaining 11 hundred by lunchtime. Ah Soon then came on the phone and told Williams they would be at the house at 2 pm. Ah Soon was insistent that Williams was at home this time so that they could speak to him. Williams was then in contact with Ah Soon and Kojic over the following hours. He borrowed $1,100 from his then girlfriend to be able to pay the money.
57At 2 pm, Williams received a call asking him to bring the money to Mac's Hotel in Melton. He agreed and went with Magee and Jasper-Winwood. They arrived at the agreed location at about 5 pm. It was at about this time that Magee received a phone call from Kojic directing her to Domino's pizza restaurant also located in Melton. Kojic and another male were present when they arrived.
58Williams got out of Magee's vehicle and approached Kojic, handing Kojic the remaining $1,100, making the total monies paid the $3,000 sought and completing Charge 3, that of blackmail.
59Kojic told Williams that Ah Soon was on the way and that they had to wait. Williams states at this stage he was petrified, believing that Ah Soon was going to turn up with a heap of guys and that he was going to be bashed or hurt.
60Kojic told Williams that he had to come with them to the Mac's Hotel. Williams walked with Kojic and the unknown male across to the hotel whilst Magee drove her vehicle across the car park with Jasper-Winwood, where they waited for Williams.
61At 5.30 pm, Ah Soon arrived and walked over to where Williams was sitting in the hotel and stood over him saying something along the lines of, “I've got something for you, it's not over”. Ah Soon then sat opposite Williams.
62He said that Williams had made him look stupid because he hadn't answered his phone calls, and told Williams that the boys had been itching to come over. Williams took this to mean that the Rebels wanted to come to his house and damage his property or steal from them, or be violent. Ah Soon again said to Williams that he had caused him “nothing but trouble”.
63Ah Soon told Williams that he had a present for him, took a white envelope from his pocket and handed it to Williams. It contained a shotgun round. Ah Soon told Williams to put it in his pocket, and Williams complied. At this stage, Williams was petrified. Ah Soon then demanded that he pay him a further $5,000 by Friday for the trouble he had caused. He said to Williams that if he did not pay, that “one the same as that”, indicating the shotgun round, would go in his head. Ah Soon also stated to Williams that he had made him look stupid in front of the club for ignoring his calls, which Williams believed was referencing the Rebels. These facts form the basis for Charge 4.
64Williams was so scared by the threat that he agreed to come up with the money. He got up and returned to the car in which Magee and Jasper-Winwood were still waiting. Upon returning home, Williams decided to report the matter to the police. As a result of the ongoing threats to Williams, he and his housemates moved out of their address in Wyndham Vale.
65In a series of messages you admitted to Williams on 4 March 2019 that you had taken on the job to recover the debt owed to Wain. You also reminded Williams that he should not take things personally in the methods used to recover the debts as “business is business”.
66The agreed position is that you are not said to have been present during any of the meetings between Williams and the members and associates of the Rebels. The blackmail is put on the basis of complicity and that you intentionally assisted in the commission of the offence. It was you who identified Williams and passed that information to Ah Soon with the knowledge that Williams would be blackmailed.
67The charge of extortion with threat to kill is also put on the agreed basis that you intentionally assisted the commission of the offence by identifying and providing Williams' details to Ah Soon, with the knowledge that Ah Soon was going to extort Williams with a threat to kill. The evidence in relation to this charge and your involvement is relatively light and, in my view, a significant discount should attach to that particular charge for your plea of guilty.
68In terms of the facts that are outlined in relation to Charges 3 and 4, it is not suggested that you were aware of exactly what would occur and did occur. Indeed, the prosecution do not allege that you intentionally assisted, encouraged or directed the commission of any blackmail of Magee,
Jasper-Winwood or Gatherer, in order to facilitate the offending against Williams. You are not charged with any of those offences.69It is said that the factual matrix set out in the Crown document, and indeed to some degree in these reasons, in relation to the victim Williams cannot be understood without reference to the offending which ultimately involved Magee, Jasper-Winwood and Gatherer. I agree with this characterisation. The detail merely provides context and supports the Crown position that your offending against Williams was protracted and planned. At various stages, his decision-making was guided by concern for his housemates. I will operate on that agreed basis. You will not be sentenced for any of the approaches to Gatherer, Jasper-Winwood or Magee.
70On 9 April 2019, at approximately 5.20 am, police executed a search warrant at your home. During that search, they located two swords, the subject of summary Charge 15 (possess controlled weapon), and a set of registration plates and keys to a Toyota vehicle which were stolen and the subject of Charge 5 on the indictment.
71At 8.31 am on the same day, you were interviewed by police, at which time you played down your role in and knowledge of the offending the subject of Charges 1 to 4 on the indictment. You admitted knowing that the registration plates located by police were stolen and that the two swords which they found belonged to you.
72In the context of your offending overall, I am not as concerned about the charge of handling stolen goods and the possession of two swords. Indeed, in relation to each of those offences, you are convicted and fined $1,000 on each charge.
73Your offending in relation to Charges 1 through to 4 is obviously extremely serious, for which general deterrence and denunciation remain paramount sentencing objectives. This is organised crime with a well-established modus operandi. You were an active participant, particularly in relation to Charges 1 and 2, and played an essential role in the unfolding of the offending against each of your victims, Tasker and Williams. The conversations and communications detailed and accepted by you in the Crown's summary indicate no reluctance on your part. You were particularly persistent in the role that you played in relation to Charges 2 and 3.
74In addition, all of the offending was committed in the company of others, and used what is referred to as “club colours”, both of which were designed to intimidate and instil fear.
75Whilst there was no actual physical assaults, the use of a group, the club colours and, in relation to Charge 4, a shotgun round, was sufficient to create in the victims a very real sense of fear, and was designed to do so in order to extract moneys. The offending was clearly both targeted and planned.
76I find the objective gravity of your offending and your moral culpability both to be at the high end.
77Your counsel refers to a passage in your record of interview located at questions 489 to 496 where you raise, in a general sense, concern for your family if you did not do what was asked of you. This was a relatively vague reference on questioning, and there is no direct evidence of any threats being made to you at that stage.
78I accept in the overall background that it might have been something that you turned your mind to at various stages, but otherwise your participation in this offending appears to be entirely voluntary and motivated by your continuing drug use at this time and willingness to ingratiate yourself with your
then-associates. Your counsel referred to this as 'courting glamour.' This included a willingness to participate in the offending.
79Your involvement has had a profound effect on your direct victims, Mr Tasker and Mr Williams, each of whom fled their homes along with those with whom they resided. Victim impact statements have been tendered on their behalf. The purpose of a victim impact statement is to give those affected by your crime the opportunity to participate in the criminal justice system by informing the court about the effects of the crime upon them.
80Mr Tasker's victim impact statement refers to his loss of happiness and to being “ripped apart mentally and emotionally”. He refers to being unable to enjoy life anymore and being in constant fear for himself and for those around him. He refers to not even feeling safe in his own home and feeling extremely unstable mentally and financially as a direct result. He has had to attend upon a psychologist. As his victim impact statement was read to the court, the effect of your offending upon him cannot be lost upon you.
81Mr Williams has also provided a victim impact statement. In that document, he refers to not trusting anyone anymore and finding it hard to go about many things he otherwise enjoyed in his day-to-day life. He refers to being stressed and anxious constantly and to not feeling safe within his own home.
82Each of these persons were relatively young at the time of your offending against them and it is quite significant that they have been impacted in this way.
83Both incidents of your offending involve referencing the victim's home in the sense that Mr Tasker was shown photographs of his home where he resided with his parents and Mr Williams' residence was directly approached. Your offending has encroached on every aspect of their day-to-day lives and the safety they otherwise deserve to feel in those lives and in their own homes. By so doing, it has also affected people with whom each victim cared about.
84In addition, the prosecution filed, initially without objection, a victim impact statement on behalf of Molly Magee, used in Mr Kojic’s plea hearing held in the Children's Court on 24 August 2019. As can be seen from some of the facts I have outlined, she was one of Mr Williams' housemates who was very directly impacted and Mr Kojic’s plea included a charge of blackmail where she was the named victim. Issue is now taken with the filing of that document in relation to your plea, given you were only charged with the blackmail of Williams.
Ms Magee's victim impact statement could only have relevance to Charge 3.85I have received brief submissions from both parties. Given the agreed position with the Crown as to how the case was put against you in relation to Charge 3, blackmail, and that what occurred factually in relation to the housemates of Williams is context only, I intend to use Ms Magee's victim impact statement on that same basis. That is, I am satisfied that as a result of your offending in relation to Charge 3 and against Williams, she is someone who has suffered distress and trauma and adverse effects as one of his housemates. She was not the direct target of your offending, but was present in circumstances in which that crime was committed. In so doing, I will only rely on her victim impact statement to the extent that it is admissible within this framework and that charge. It is not a matter that will be given significant weight.
86I am told that the charges against you resolved on the day of your committal hearing on 15 October 2019, prior to evidence being called. A number of charges were withdrawn as a result of discussions between the parties, hence your plea of guilty was at its first reasonable opportunity. You are entitled to a discount for your plea, which includes its utilitarian value, the saving of court time and expense and, especially in this instance, the need for your victims to relive the traumatic events which they experienced. These factors will be taken into account in your favour.
87Initially I was less satisfied that your plea was one that also involved remorse. It is not referenced in the material tendered in terms of the psychological reports, and even the reference from your mother. Your counsel refers to a line in your record of interview at question 573 where you said, “I feel like a piece of shit”, when asked how Tasker would have felt at the time of the carjacking. Still, you pleaded guilty on limited evidence in relation to Charge 4 particularly, and were respectful during a somewhat protracted plea process and I am prepared to accept that this indicates a degree of remorse.
88On your behalf it is contended that you present with a limited criminal history.
89In terms of that history, you appeared at Sunshine Magistrates' Court on
20 January 2015 in relation to charges of unlawful assault and contravening a family violence intervention order. At that time you were placed on an adjourned undertaking without conviction, with a condition that you continue to attend on various medical professionals.90The next appearance was at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on
21 September 2018 in relation to a range of offences, which included dangerous driving whilst being pursued by police, failing an oral fluid test within three hours of driving, committing indictable offences whilst on bail, making a threat to kill, which I understand related to your own mother, unlawful assault, threaten to destroy property and other driving-related offending.91Whilst the description of your criminal history is properly described as limited, it is also properly described as relevant.
92At the time of the offending before me, you were in fact on a community corrections order imposed by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on
21 September 2018. This is an aggravating feature of your offending. You clearly did not take up the opportunity afforded to you at that time for supervised rehabilitation.93Whilst you are not to be punished for this criminal history a second time, it does play a role in the assessment of what weight to give in sentencing to specific deterrence, denunciation and protecting the community from you, all of which have a role to play in your particular sentence. In addition, your history is relevant to the assessment that must be undertaken as to your prospects for rehabilitation. I do accept that your criminal offending, both in terms of that history and what is before me, is largely related to your drug use and also to your associations.
94In terms of your personal circumstances, you describe your upbringing as positive. Your parents never separated and there was no history of abuse in any form within their relationship, or in relation to you. You received a Year 11 education, leaving school partway through Year 12, when you then commenced an apprenticeship as a motor mechanic. You moved schools a number of times at the secondary level and it appears there were a number of expulsions - including in your final year for hitting a teacher. You were apparently diagnosed with ADHD in Year 8. You have no formal psychiatric history.
95You completed a Certificate IV in Light Vehicle Mechanics and Diesel Mechanics. During this time you met Sharni Butterworth and commenced a relationship which lasted about four years. From that relationship you have a son, Jace, aged eight. You continue to be involved in your son's life, who up until recently has been able to visit you regularly whilst on remand. I accept that he is an important relationship for you and hopefully will be a motivator for you to change into the future.
96You commenced using cannabis in your mid-teens, but have never been a regular user. You started experimenting with ecstasy around the ages of 20 to 21 and then progressed to experimenting with cocaine, ketamine, amphetamine and methamphetamine.
97After your relationship with Ms Butterworth, you commenced a relationship with Jessica Howard when aged between the ages of 22 and 25. Two things occurred during this time: (1) your drug use moved from recreational to regular use of methamphetamine and GHB; and (2) you resigned from your work as a mechanic and commenced working as a traffic controller. You did this with the belief that you would earn more money which afforded your lifestyle and, what had become, extended drug use.
98In 2017 your father died after a short and unexpected illness, which I understand to be lung cancer, and your mother re-partnered. Understandably you struggled with your father's death. You had apparently been responsible for the decision to remove his life support. You also struggled with the fact that your mother commenced a new relationship very quickly thereafter. You instruct that your drug use became prolific and you were hospitalised twice for overdosing on GHB, firstly on Christmas Eve 2017 and then around Easter in 2018. Your primary drugs of choice are methylamphetamine and GHB.
99You instruct that you commenced seeing a psychologist fortnightly for approximately six months, but ceased counselling. No materials have been tendered from that psychologist. However, on your behalf reports have been tendered from Mr Jeffrey Cummins, psychologist, dated 7 September 2018 and 31 March 2020. Those reports are not the subject of challenge and I have taken the contents of them, where relevant, into account.
100The first report in time appears to have been created to deal with the consolidated plea hearing held at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court in September of 2018. Much of your instructions in relation to that offending, which included offences of violence against your mother and your personal circumstances were included in that report. You were on remand at the time of that assessment and told Mr Cummins that it had been the longest time you had been off drugs for at least two years. You told Mr Cummins that you did not think you needed any treatment in relation to drugs.
101In Mr Cummins' assessment at that time, you reported sufficient symptoms to be diagnosed with adult ADHD. He viewed that you presented as being mildly overconfident about your prospects about being able to return to living in the community without risk of relapse. It appears his assessment was correct.
Mr Cummins was of the view that your risk of committing further offences was very much linked to whether or not you did remain drug-free and whether you received relevant mental health treatment and anger management counselling. It appears that this aspect of his assessment at that time was also correct.102In terms of Mr Cummins' assessment dated 31 March 2020, you explained to him that you became involved in the offending in response to being pressured by members of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang and in circumstances where you were being supplied drugs for your own use and had become indebted. You did not refer to any of your specific co-offenders. In your record of interview with police you denied any such debt.
103Apparently post your release from custody onto a community corrections order in September of 2018, you remained abstinent for about two weeks. You acknowledged to Mr Cummins that this time on remand had allowed greater insight into your own behaviour, your associated criminal offending and the link that has with your drug use, and vice versa.
104Mr Cummins assesses you as presenting with a moderate risk of committing a further offence of violence. In his opinion, not surprisingly, the primary risk factor for you is a return to illicit drug use. He also took the view that you had a more realistic appreciation of the extent and consequences of your drug dependency and the difficulties you may experience on a long-term basis, particularly when you again return to the community.
105In terms of your future prospects, independently of Mr Cummins' assessment, I am referred to the time you have already spent on remand, in the sense that it is the longest period you have spent in custody and is therefore capable as acting as both a sanction and a deterrent. In addition, as opposed to your previous brief period on remand, you are now beginning to develop some insight.
106Whilst in custody, you have submitted clean urine screens according to three documents tendered on your behalf. You have completed a variety of courses, which include treatment, educational and work-related programs. Certificates confirming such were tendered and I take them into account. It would appear that you have used your time wisely whilst in custody, increasing your rehabilitative prospects.
107I am told that you have been housed in protection, but not what that means for you on a daily basis. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has also been raised on your behalf. I have had recourse to recent decisions in terms of this pandemic and its relevance to sentencing. In Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60, Priest and Weinberg JJA considered how the pandemic might impact on sentencing. Their Honours stated:
“In the absence of any adequate material concerning the impact of the virus upon the Corrections system, as matters stand, and given that the situation is one that is rapidly evolving, we are hesitant to express a general statement of principle regarding how this Court (and others) should deal with this crisis as regards its effect upon relevant sentencing principles. We do accept, however, that the situation is causing additional stress and concern for prisoners and their families, as it is for every member of the community. The extent to which that may be taken into account, if at all, will be a matter to be resolved on the particular facts of any individual case.”
108In your particular case, the current pandemic has limited your access to courses and programs which previously you had shown a commitment to
self-improvement. In addition, your regular fortnightly accesses with your son and mother have been curtailed and can only take place virtually and for a limited time. This is a change to your detriment in your experience of custody and prospects for rehabilitation. I also accept that whilst COVID-19 is yet to be contracted in the custodial setting, you understandably remain anxious about the risk. I do take these factors into account in a general sense.109In addition, I accept that you are well supported by your mother, who has provided a written reference via email. She observes that the loss of your father in 2017 saw you “spiral into disaster”. You are able to return to live with her upon your eventual release.
110I do make the ancillary orders as sought for disposal of the two swords, registration plates and car keys.
111I accept that your relatively limited, albeit relevant, criminal history, the length of time on remand, the continuing support of your mother, your relationship with your son and your recent insight and efforts to improve whilst in the custodial setting persuade me, in combination, that your prospects for rehabilitation do remain live. It is obvious that you need to abstain from drug use and criminal associations for those prospects to in fact be realised.
112The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment; general deterrence (sending a message to the community), specific deterrence (sending a clear message to you), rehabilitation; denunciation and protection of the community.
113In sentencing you, I am required to have regard to a range of matters such as the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and those of your victims. I am required to balance the interests of the community in firstly denouncing criminal conduct, with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure, as far as can be possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. I have taken into account the relevant sentencing guidelines referred to in s.5 of the Sentencing Act where relevant to your case. I have taken into account current sentencing practices for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty.
114I have been referred to a number of cases which would indicate those practices could be accurately described as wide-ranging.
115There is no dispute between the parties that any sentence must involve a term of imprisonment with both a head sentence and a non-parole period.
116I accept in your case that there is merit in an extended period of supervision upon your transition back into the community.
117In addition, each of the parties submitted that it was within my sentencing power to impose what is called an aggregate sentence. I do propose to impose an aggregate sentence, as I am satisfied that the offences are founded on the same facts, or form, or a part of, a series of offences of same or similar character. In so doing, I also bear in mind the principles of totality and proportionality, which also have application to all charges on the indictment and the summary offence to which you have pleaded guilty.
118Accordingly, you are sentenced to an aggregate term of four years and six months imprisonment, with a minimum of two years and 10 months before being eligible for parole.
119Four hundred and eight days are reckoned as having already been served in accordance with that sentence.
120Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentence that I would have imposed if you had not pleaded guilty to the charges. If not for your pleas of guilty, I would sentenced you to a total effective sentence of five years and 10 months imprisonment, with a minimum of four years and four months before being eligible for parole.
121Mr Porceddu, anything arising?
122MR PORCEDDU: No, Your Honour.
123HER HONOUR: Mr McGlone, anything arising?
124MR McGLONE: No, Your Honour.
125HER HONOUR: I will give you the opportunity to speak with your client, because I know it is otherwise hard to do and I will wait for such a time that
Mr Porceddu has left the court so that you are able to do that.126MR McGLONE: Thank you, Your Honour.
127HER HONOUR: I will stand down now, or close the court, until 10.30 tomorrow. Thank you.
- - -
0