Director of Public Prosecutions v Stokes
[2019] VCC 1518
•16 September 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-18-01057
CR-18-00589
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JASON STOKES and LUKE WILSON |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE DAVIS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 September 2019 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 September 2019 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Stokes & Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1518 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Arson - threat to inflict serious injury - damage property - make threat to damage property - co-offenders
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited: Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308
Sentence:For the Accused J Stokes: Imprisonment for a period of 18 months with a non-parole period of 10 months.
For the Accused L Wilson: Community Correction Order for period of 2 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr M. Cookson (Plea) Ms L. Stevenson (Sentence ) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused (J. Stokes) For the Accused (L. Wilson) | Mr F. Cameron (Plea) Mr C. Thomson (Plea) | Dribbin & Brown Criminal Lawyers Stary Norton Halphen |
HER HONOUR:
1 Jason Stokes and Luke Wilson, on 25 June 2019, a jury convicted you each of one count of arson (Charge 6) for which the maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment. This was the only offence with which you, Mr Wilson, were charged. You, Mr Stokes, were found not guilty of three other offences comprising reckless conduct endangering persons (Charge 4), making a threat to kill (Charge 5) and handling stolen goods (Charge 7).
2 On 13 June 2019, at the commencement of the trial, you, Mr Stokes, pleaded guilty before the jury panel to offending on 2 March 2016, comprising make a threat to inflict serious injury (Charge 1) which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, damaging property (Charge 2) which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and make threat to damage property (Charge 3) which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
Circumstances of offending
3 The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Trial and I sentence you on the basis of the relevant facts set out in that document concerning the charges upon which you were convicted as well as those to which you, Mr Stokes, have pleaded guilty. I summarise those facts briefly.
Offending by Jason Stokes on 2 March 2016 (Charges 1, 2 and 3)
4 You, Mr Stokes, had been residing at a property situated at 2 Gordon Avenue, Frankston ('the property') since October 2015 with Mr Wilson’s half-sister, Jayde Caddy and her three young children. You were in a relationship with Ms Caddy. You, Mr Wilson, also resided on the grounds of the property, in a caravan in the front garden. You, Mr Stokes, had refused to the vacate the property despite having been served with a notice to vacate in December 2015 as the property owner intended in the future to develop the block into three townhouses.
5 On 2 March 2016, a police officer attended the property to execute a warrant of possession, accompanied by the owner of the property, Jason Skidmore, and two representatives of the managing real estate company, Sue Dalgleish and Francis Walker. While the police officer attempted to execute the warrant at the front door, Mr Skidmore, Ms Dalgleish and Mr Walker waited by the road.
6 You, Mr Wilson, were in the caravan on the property at the time. You saw and heard the following conduct of Mr Stokes.
7 As the police officer explained the warrant to Ms Caddy, you, Mr Stokes, moved outside the house away from the door and approached Mr Skidmore, Ms Dalgleish and Mr Walker on the road. Your eyes were wide open, you were dancing around, waving your arms around and yelling.
8 You moved close enough to Mr Skidmore that your faces were almost touching and stated: 'I'm going to bite your face off! I’m going to fuck you up! I know where you live and your son and I’m going to fucking come after you and fuck you up!' This conduct is the subject of Charge 1 – threat to inflict serious injury.
9 A short while later, you, Mr Stokes, yelled, 'I’m going to fucking destroy this joint!' and began throwing objects at the garage roller door and kicking the house. You then went to the front door and ripped the timber frame off the door arch. This conduct is the subject of Charge 2 – criminal damage. Having ripped the timber frame off the door, you then approached Mr Skidmore and threw the piece of timber on the road a few meters from him, although you were not aiming at him.
10 You, Mr Stokes, then began to dance around erratically whilst waving your arms around. You stated: 'I’m going to fuck you up. Do you know who I am?' You then went back to the house near the roller door and stated: 'I’m going to fucking burn this house down! I’m going to fucking burn it down at 3 o’clock today!' This conduct is the subject of Charge 3 – make threat to destroy property. You stated: 'You won’t be getting your house back! You won’t have a house to get back.'
11 Shortly after, the police officer returned from the front door and indicated nothing had been moved. Mr Skidmore suggested returning to the property on another day to allow the tenants time to get their belongings out of the home.
Arson committed on 12 March 2016 – Charge 6
12 I turn to the arson committed on 12 March 2016 which is the subject of Charge 6. The jury convicted each of you of committing arson on 12 March 2016 on the basis of an arrangement between the two of you and possibly with a third participant to burn down the house at 2 Gordon Avenue, Frankston. The third possible participant was David Kadir. Although each of you stated in your respective records of interview that he was present at the property on 12 March 2016, he was not charged. He gave evidence at the trial denying his presence at the property on that day, although he conceded that he was there on another day. He has an acquired brain injury and said that his memory was affected. The prosecution went to the jury on the basis that there was a third, unidentified man, present at the property with you on 12 March 2016 when the fire was lit.
13 On the evidence, there were two attendances at 2 Gordon Avenue on 12 March 2016. You each made admissions to the effect that the first attendance was by each of you and a third person, at around 2.00pm on that day. You, Mr Stokes, and you, Mr Wilson, arrived together in Mr Stokes’ car, a white Holden Commodore sedan with registration plates 2TU F4U. You attended there to move a white Holden Commodore wagon belonging to Mr Stokes’ father, which had been stored on the front lawn under a tarpaulin. The third person arrived there of his own accord. You were unable to start the car.
14 You, Mr Stokes, then attended 1 Gordon Avenue with Mr Wilson and made arrangements with the occupier, Ms Chesterfield, whom you knew, to store your father’s car in her driveway for a couple of days. Then, you, Mr Stokes and Mr Wilson along with the third person, pushed the car from the lawn of 2 Gordon Avenue to the driveway of 1 Gordon Avenue, and then walked back to 2 Gordon Avenue.
15 A short while later, two men were seen on the front lawn, approaching the house. According to a witness, the younger man was carrying something.
16 You, Mr Stokes, had been standing near your car, which the prosecution says was in the driveway of the property at 2 Gordon Avenue. You drove out of the driveway, spinning the car’s wheels, then stopped abruptly in the middle of the road. You then jumped out of the car, waving your arms in the air. Shortly afterward, you, Mr Wilson, and the third individual were seen on the front lawn of the property and then you were both seen getting into the car being driven by you, Mr Stokes. You, Mr Stokes, then drove off at speed, turning left onto a nearby street.
17 Within a short period of time the fire was noticed by other neighbours and authorities were called. The CFA attended and extinguished the fire. The house was totally destroyed.
18 On 13 March 2016, an arson chemist attended and conducted an examination of the scene. The chemist concluded that the fire started in the southern bedroom, by ignition of available materials such as a mattress or clothing and that the probable source of ignition was from a match or cigarette lighter. There were no obvious sources of accidental ignition identified in the probable area of the fire origin.
Arrest
19 On 24 March 2016, you, Mr Stokes, were arrested at the Endeavour Hills Shopping Plaza and, following this, conveyed to the Frankston police station where a record of interview was conducted.[1] You stated that you had been at 2 Gordon Avenue only once on 12 March 2016, with Luke Wilson, at around 11.00am, and that you were there to pick up some of your property and then moved your father’s car to 1 Gordon Avenue. You denied lighting the fire.
[1]Exhibit 6 at the trial.
20 On 18 April 2016, you, Mr Wilson, were arrested and interviewed.[2] You stated that you arrived at the property at 2 Gordon Avenue around lunchtime on 12 March 2016 in Mr Stokes’ car and that Mr Kadir was already in the house. You stated that you and Mr Stokes moved his father’s car to 1 Gordon Avenue and stayed there for five to ten minutes. As you left that property, you saw smoke and then observed Mr Kadir running and saying “Go, go, go”.[3] You then left quickly and headed to Mr Stokes’ car. You got in the front passenger seat, Mr Kadir got in the back seat of the car, and Mr Stokes drove the car away.
[2]Exhibit 8 at the trial.
[3]Exhibit 8, Q80.
Prosecution submissions
21 The prosecution submitted that in the absence of evidence as to who planned or instigated the arson, or indeed as to who lit the fire, you each fall to be sentenced as a person who was party to an arrangement to commit the offence, and who was present at the property very close to the time that the fire was lit, and thereby willing to assist in the commission of the offence. It was submitted that you, Mr Stokes, had a personal reason for arranging to commit the arson, which was one of hostility to the house's owner.
22 In terms of objective gravity, the house valued at $260,000 was destroyed. There was no financial loss to the victim as the insurance company paid out close to the total amount of the property’s value. It was conceded that the quantum of loss was not huge when compared with other cases of arson. However, the prosecution submitted that an aggravating feature of your offending was that it occurred in a residential area on a property with trees, sharing a wooden fence with a neighbour, at a time when many neighbours were likely to be at home and thus posed a degree of danger to people and property. It was submitted that you both had as the motive for offending the desire to punish Mr Skidmore for perceived slights against Mr Stokes during his tenancy at 2 Gordon Avenue.
23 The prosecution handed up a table of recent Court of Appeal cases in relation to arson, but emphasised that each case must turn on its own facts, and that the tabulated cases ought not to be regarded as identifying a range of appropriate dispositions. I accept that submission.
24 It was submitted in relation to each of you that your plea of not guilty reflects your lack of remorse for the offending. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the only appropriate disposition in relation to each of you was one of sentence involving a period of imprisonment and the setting of a non-parole period. It was noted that you, Mr Stokes, have some subsequent matters which may reflect on your prospects of rehabilitation. It was conceded by the prosecution that the issue of parity does not arise because you, Mr Stokes, have prior convictions whereas you, Mr Wilson, have none.
Sentencing principles
25 In sentencing each of you, I have had regard to the sentencing principles of denunciation, just punishment, general and specific deterrence, protection of the community, parsimony, and your prospects of rehabilitation. I have also considered your personal circumstances, as well as the material relied upon by your counsel, and their submissions.
26 I note that arson is a serious offence, for which the maximum penalty is one of 15 years imprisonment, and that, ordinarily, a term of imprisonment would be imposed for such an offence.
27 As to the gravity of your offending, I make the following observations. There is no evidence that the offending was well planned. It was of brief duration and occurred during the day on a weekend when residents in the area were likely to be at home. The value of the property destroyed was substantial but no financial loss was suffered by the owner. The house was unoccupied, boarded up, and going to be redeveloped, and no one was endangered by the fire or injured. There was no evidence of an accelerant being used.
28 On the other hand, it was committed in a residential area, in a treed property which shared a wooden fence with a neighbour on one side. Overall, when looking at the many different possible examples of the offence of arson, I consider that your offending lies towards the lower end of seriousness.
Luke Wilson
Personal circumstances
29 I turn to your personal circumstances, Luke Wilson. They were outlined by your counsel and set out in the psychiatric report of Mr Jeffrey Cummins dated 22 August 2019.
30 You are 23 years old and were 19 years old at the time of offending. You grew up in Melbourne and now reside in Morwell with your 29-year-old half-sister Ms Caddy, her partner Mr Stokes, and the five children they are parenting.
31 Your parents separated when you were aged four and you have had essentially no relationship with your mother since being evicted from the family home when you were 14 years old. You are very attached to Ms Caddy who is your closest confidante, and maintain a close bond with your father who has remarried and lives in Langwarrin.
32 You left school midway through Year 9 and were then unemployed for approximately 18 to 24 months, after which time you commenced working full‑time at Ingham’s Chicken in Somerville. Since moving to Morwell, because of the long commuting distance to work, you have dropped down to working two days per week. You are not receiving any welfare benefits.
33 You have no history of physical or mental illness. However, you have been dependent on cannabis since aged 16 and you told Mr Cummins that you smoke up to three grams of cannabis daily in order to obtain 'psychological comfort'. Between the ages of 16 and 21, you also used up to half a gram a day of methamphetamine but have stopped this since moving to Morwell four months ago. Mr Cummins concluded that you are currently suffering from Cannabis Use Disorder of at least moderate severity and noted that you stated that you did not yet have sufficient motivation to stop smoking cannabis. You have never undergone any residential drug detoxification or rehabilitation.
34 Mr Cummins felt that you presented as being somewhat dependent on your half-sister and Jason Stokes, even though you told Mr Cummins that you see yourself as someone who is able to and does make your own decisions in life. Mr Cummins considered that you are relatively unassertive and likely to be relatively easily influenced. He considered that you have limited insight into your current psychological functioning and history.
35 You denied the offending of which you were convicted and told Mr Cummins that the verdict was 'the worst thing that’s happened to [you] in [your] life' and that you felt shocked, overwhelmed, embarrassed, scared and depressed following the verdict. You expressed concern regarding how you might be dealt with by other prisoners in the event that you were incarcerated. Upon assessing you, Mr Cummins found that you are slightly below average intelligence. He found that you were mildly anxious and mildly to moderately depressed. He considered that your sleep disturbance, concentration difficulties and anxiety reflect your concern about the possibility of going to jail.
Plea submissions
36 I turn to the plea submissions made on your behalf. In relation to your culpability, while conceding that arson is a serious offence, your counsel submitted that there was no evidence that you were in the house when the fire was lit; no evidence that you shared the animus held by Mr Stokes towards his landlord; and no evidence that you shared Mr Stokes’ motive of revenge. It was submitted that as the fire was lit in the middle of the day, and there was no evidence that the fire posed a degree of danger to others in the neighbourhood. Accordingly, it was submitted the most that the court could find beyond reasonable doubt is that your role was one of a willingness to assist by being present in the front garden. Your counsel submitted that your role in the offending was a lesser one than that of Mr Stokes.
37 It was emphasised that you were 19 at the time of the offending and are now only 23 years of age. You have no prior convictions and, apart from being a drug user, have led a simple but blameless life. You are not a danger to the community. Given your youth and lack of prior convictions, you must be seen as having good prospects of rehabilitation. You have a slight build and an unassertive personality and are vulnerable to being bullied in prison.
38 It was submitted that in all the circumstances, an appropriately framed Community Correction Order would address the relevant sentencing principles and enable you to receive counselling of relevance to your current dependency on cannabis.
Analysis and conclusions
39 I note that you were first assessed by Corrections Victoria on 2 September 2019 but the writer of the report noted that you appeared drug affected and therefore was unable to consent to a Community Correction Order. I consider that it was entirely inappropriate, in the light of that observation, for the officer to do anything other than postpone the assessment, and certainly not appropriate for the assessment to be completed, and concluded in a manner adverse to you. I therefore attach no weight to that assessment.
40 I note that in a further assessment on 9 September 2018 you were assessed as being suitable to undergo a Community Correction Order, with recommended conditions including supervision, community work and drug treatment and rehabilitation. Again, I reject as completely inappropriate the last paragraph of the author’s report, which recommends that a condition for assessment and participation in SOATS be included in the order. In this case, there was absolutely no evidence in the trial or on the plea of any overt or underlying sexual deviancy. The only mention in the plea of the word 'sexual' was by your counsel emphasising that this case did not involve this element. Absent any relevant forensic psychological evidence about such an issue, the assessment should not have referred to such a condition and I have therefore ignored the last paragraph of that assessment report.
41 The jury’s verdict must have been based, at the very least, on the satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that you, Mr Wilson, attended at the property on the second occasion on 12 March 2016 having arranged with Mr Stokes and/or a third person to commit arson, knowing or believing that damage to property would occur, and that by your mere attendance and presence, were willing to assist in the commission of that offence.
42 Whilst there was evidence that you witnessed Mr Stokes’ animus towards the property’s owner on 2 March 2016, there was no evidence before the jury that you shared that animus. For this reason, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you shared Mr Stokes’ alleged motive of revenge for alleged deficiencies in the upkeep of the property rented by him.
43 I note that you continue to deny your offending and therefore cannot be said to have shown remorse for it. However, I accept the matters put in mitigation on your behalf. In particular, you were a young offender at the time of offending. You had no quarrel with Mr Skidmore, and were emotionally quite dependent on Mr Stokes and Ms Caddy. The circumstances of your offending are, in my view, quite unusual.
44 You have had a difficult background but have managed to live a blameless life in spite of your dependence on cannabis. You have no prior convictions and no pending matters. Whilst your offending is to be condemned and punished, specific deterrence plays less of a role in sentencing you that it might in relation to other offenders. You are a quiet, hardworking young man with good prospects of rehabilitation. I consider on the material before me that you are unlikely to reoffend. I do not consider that you present a danger to the community or that the community needs to be protected from you. There has been a delay of over three years in this matter, during which you have had to cope with anxiety and uncertainty over your future, and yet you have continued to work.
45 I note the personal references written by Kim Louise Sunderland and Jamie Leigh Cupples who have known you for the past three years and found you to be a person who keeps to yourself but is also very kind and helpful, and very good with your half-sister's children.
46 As was made clear by the Court of Appeal in Boulton[4] and in subsequent cases, in an appropriate case, which may include cases of very serious offending such as arson, a Community Correction Order provides a flexible sentencing option enabling punitive and rehabilitative purposes to be served at the same time. The punitive conditions such as supervision and the performance of community work can satisfy the sentencing principles of denunciation and just punishment, and the rehabilitative focus of sentencing which attaches to young offenders can be satisfied by conditions such as supervision, and participation in drug rehabilitation which will also help protect the community and minimise the risk of reoffending.
[4]Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308 (‘Boulton’).
47 In the unusual circumstances of this case, and taking into account your youth, absence of prior convictions and subsequent matters, as well as the considerable delay in finalising this matter, I consider that the relevant sentencing principles can be satisfied by the imposition of a non-custodial disposition.
Sentence
48 Would you please stand, Mr Wilson?
49 Luke Wilson, on Charge 6 - arson, you are sentenced to a two-year Community Correction Order, with conditions of supervision, drug treatment and rehabilitation and 100 hours of community work. I direct that up to 75 hours of your participation in drug rehabilitation and/or counselling may be credited towards, or as hours of, unpaid community work.
50 In addition to the conditions that I have specifically imposed, you must also abide by the terms that apply to all Community Correction Orders. These are: that you must not commit any other offences during the period of the order being enforced - that is, two years from today - for which you could be imprisoned, even if a court would not choose to impose imprisonment. You must report to and receive visits from a Corrections officer. You must report to the Community Correctional Services at Morwell within two clear working days, which will be 18 September 2019. You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission from a Community Corrections officer, and you must inform the Community Corrections Office of any change of address, where you live or work within 48 hours of that occurring. Finally, you must obey all lawful instructions from and the directions of Corrections officers. Do you understand all the conditions I have imposed and the general terms that apply?
51 OFFENDER WILSON: Yes, Your Honour.
52 HER HONOUR: Before you consent to the making of such an order, you must understand that contravening any condition attached to the Community Correction Order, except for a contravention of a direction of the Secretary, is itself an offence punishable by three months’ imprisonment. Contravention - that is breaching a Community Correction Order - also carries with it the prospect that you will be brought back before me and resentenced for the original offending; that is, for arson. Do you consent in these circumstances to the imposition of the Community Corrections Order?
53 OFFENDER WILSON: Yes, Your Honour.
54 HER HONOUR: Thank you. Take a seat, Mr Wilson.
55 The prosecution has also made an application for the provision of a forensic sample by taking a scraping from your mouth or a blood sample. Having regard to the seriousness of the circumstance of the offending, I find that the granting of the order is in the public interest and you do not oppose that order being made and so I will sign that shortly.
56 I am also required to warn you, Mr Wilson, that if at the time you are requested to supply a sample of your DNA by scraping from inside of the mouth under supervision by an authorised member of the police force, the sample will be taken in that way. But if, when requested by the authorised police officer to provide the sample in that way you either fail or refuse to provide the sample, the officer is authorised to obtain a blood sample, and to use reasonable force to obtain that blood sample. Do you understand?
57 OFFENDER WILSON: Yes.
Jason Stokes
Personal circumstances
58 I now turn to your personal circumstances, Mr Stokes, which were outlined by your counsel and detailed in the psychological report of Mr Warren Simmons dated 31 July 2019.
59 You are now 26 years old and were 23 at the time of offending. You had a very dysfunctional childhood and your parents separated when you were around seven years old. Following their separation, you remained in the care of your father and your mother drifted into heroin use. Your father re-partnered, and you have had little contact with your two half siblings but maintain regular contact with your older brother for whom you undertake casual work.
60 Your childhood was compromised by a diagnosis in Grade 1 of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (that is ADHD) for which you were prescribed medication. That medication did not assist you and your behaviours associated with ADHD meant you were difficult to control. As a consequence, your father often resorted to coercive measures such as locking you up in your room. You had significant problems at school in that you were baited by other students and reacted explosively, causing fights. You were expelled from three primary schools and later from three secondary schools. The last expulsion was due to your father’s conduct in attacking a teacher.
61 At age 16, you were able to obtain a Year 10 pass at Mission Australia, but then left school. You obtained several tickets in civil construction which qualified you to drive machinery including a bobcat, a backhoe and an excavator. You were also certified to perform traffic management. Your work history was compromised by significant injuries you sustained in a motor vehicle accident at age 19, which included a fractured back, six broken ribs, and a pierced lung and liver. You have not been able to work consistently since then. You are currently working casually as a truck jockey for your older brother on large removal jobs, but are otherwise in receipt of a Newstart Allowance.
62 You have a long history of drug abuse. You commenced using cannabis at age 12 as other family members were using it. It made you less hyperactive. Your father, who was a drug dealer, introduced you to amphetamines and ecstasy at the age of 13. You continued using those drugs until you left home when you were 19 years old. You then began smoking methamphetamine and continued to do so until the age of 21 when you met your partner. You continued to smoke cannabis but your use of it has declined. You managed to complete two residential drug withdrawal programs in the past, and were able to remain abstinent for several months. You also underwent anger management, parenting, and drug and alcohol courses with Salvo Care following the birth of your first son.
63 You are currently in a long term relationship with Mr Wilson’s half-sister with whom you have two children, the second of which was born only nine weeks ago. You are also the stepfather to three of her other children. Your partner has a strong religious belief and you are also attending church regularly since being baptised. Since the offending, you have moved to Morwell. You told Mr Simmons that you are making positive changes to your life.
Plea submissions
64 I turn to the plea submissions made on your behalf. In his written submissions, your counsel conceded the gravity of your offending and that a term of imprisonment was called for. Your counsel handed up sentencing snapshots dated 9 April 2019, a document which tabulates recent sentences in the higher courts for the charge of arson and which indicates that the mean sentence for the offence of arson, taken alone, is two to three years' imprisonment. When combined with other charges, the mean sentence increases to three to four years. Your counsel submitted that partial concurrency should be considered for the remaining charge and it was submitted that there should be some moderation of the non-parole period in the light of your youthfulness and delay until trial.
65 A number of matters were relied upon in mitigation. You were 23 years old at the time of offending and are now 26 years old. For this reason, rehabilitation should remain a significant consideration and you should be regarded as having reasonable prospects of rehabilitation because of your age, the fact that you have a stable family unit and are a dedicated father, and because you are working for your brother. Second, apart from contesting the arson charge, you had in June 2018 indicated a willingness to plead guilty to a number of the remaining charges. Your plea of guilty to Charges 1, 2 and 3, has saved the court time and resources and evidences an acceptance of responsibility for that offending behaviour. Third, you had a dysfunctional childhood in which you were raised by your drug-dealing father, introduced to drugs by him, and then were left to fend for yourself during your teenage years when he was in jail.
66 Finally, it was submitted, you have enjoyed strong support from your partner Ms Caddy, with whom you live. She has a serious medical condition. You have two young children with her, and also help her parent her three children from a previous relationship. You are to be given some credit for achieving a stable domestic life, given your own challenging background.
67 In his oral submissions, in relation to the offences to which you pleaded guilty, your counsel submitted that you did not know Mr Skidmore before meeting him on 2 March 2016, and that the prosecution was going too far in asserting that you hated him. As Mr Skidmore gave evidence that he did not take seriously your threat to inflict injury upon him, it was submitted that the most that could be said against you was that you were reckless as to whether he would fear that harm would result to him. For this reason, your moral and criminal culpability in relation to Charges 2 and 3 is reduced. In relation to the charge of criminal damage, your counsel submitted that this was a relatively minor offence, involving the removal of an archway, which was rotten, from a house which was boarded up and slated for demolition.
68 In relation to the arson charge, it was submitted that at the time the fire was lit, you remained in the car or standing on the street near the car, some 20 metres from the house. It was conceded that you bore some animus or hostility towards Mr Skidmore and that there must have been some arrangement between yourself and Mr Wilson and/or a third person, for you to remain in the getaway car and drive the other two men away. However, it was submitted that there was no victim impact statement from Mr Skidmore, that he had not been left out of pocket by the house being burned down, that it was fortunate that no one was hurt, but that there was no evidence of there being danger to residents from the fire.
69 In relation to your prospects of rehabilitation, it was conceded that you have two subsequent matters. One relates to your entering a home you knew to be empty in June 2017 to see if a friend of yours could squat there. You were fined $1000 for this offending. Another relates to your contravening a personal safety intervention order and breaching bail by having a conversation with a witness, Ms Dawkins, after the committal. You were sentenced to 21 days’ imprisonment for that offence. It was submitted that you have otherwise complied with your bail conditions.
Analysis and conclusions
70 I turn to my analysis and conclusions. I note that your plea of guilty in respect of Charges 1, 2 and 3 has utilitarian value in saving the court time and resources. I note that in his evidence, Mr Skidmore said that he did not take your threats seriously on 2 March 2016. He did not make a Victim Impact Statement. I accept that you became agitated in the context of being evicted from the property and that each of the offences occurred at the same time and in the context of that emotional state. I do not regard your conduct on 2 March 2016 as being very serious examples of the offences. I propose to impose an aggregate sentence in relation to your offending on Charges 1, 2 and 3.
71 I note that you have three prior convictions (one in 2013, one in 2014 and one in 2018 although it appears to relate to conduct pre-dating the offending) for criminal damage, and, as an adult, you have two prior convictions for threatening violence which were all dealt with by the Magistrates’ Court. You have previously been sentenced on a few occasions to short terms of imprisonment. You have some subsequent matters to which I have already referred.
72 I repeat the matters that I have earlier stated in relation to gravity. I consider that your offending, Mr Stokes, is aggravated by being motivated by personal hostility towards Mr Skidmore.
73 However, I consider that you have had a very disadvantaged background. You were separated from your mother, who was a heroin user, at a young age. You lived with your father, a drug dealer, who introduced you to hard drugs at an early age. You also had a difficult time at school because of your ADHD and your difficulty controlling your emotions. At the age of 19, your ability to work was severely affected by the injuries you sustained in a car accident. You had quite a few court appearances from a young age.
74 In spite of all of these difficulties, however, I note that since your offending, apart from the subsequent matters I have referred to, you appear to have entered a period of emotional stability in your current relationship with Ms Caddy, who holds strong religious beliefs and attends church regularly. You have been baptised and attend church with her. You have been helping her to care for her three children and for the two young children you have had with her in the past three years. I understand from your counsel that she has a medical condition relating to blood clotting, although I have not been provided with any medical evidence in this regard. You have been working with your brother casually as a truck jockey. I note that you told Mr Cummins that you are making efforts to change your life. You are still quite a young man and given the matters I have just referred to, I consider that over the past three years or so since the offending, you have demonstrated that you have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.
75 I also note again that there has been a very lengthy delay in finalisation of this matter.
76 In setting the non-parole period, I have given some consideration to your age, to the delay in finalising of this matter, and to the burden that imprisonment will be for you given your partner’s medical condition and the fact that you will be unable to care for her or to help care for the five children you are jointly parenting, including your newborn infant son.
Sentence
77 In all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to impose the following sentence. Would you please stand, Mr Stokes?
78 Jason Stokes, on Charge 6, arson, you are sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. That is the base sentence.
79 On Charges 1, 2 and 3, I impose an aggregate sentence of six months’ imprisonment. I direct that two months of the sentence on Charges 1,2 and 3 is to be served cumulatively upon the base sentence. I indicate that, pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act that but for your plea of guilty of Charges 1, 2 and 3, I would have imposed an aggregate sentence of nine months' imprisonment on those charges.
80 The total effective sentence is one of 18 months’ imprisonment.
81 Having regard to the matters I have just mentioned earlier in relation to the non-parole period, I impose a non-parole period of 10 months’ imprisonment.
82 The prosecution has also made application for the forfeiture of trader and false registration plates. I will make that order because I consider it in the interests of justice to do so, and because you do not oppose that order being made. And I will sign that in chambers.
83 We will adjourn. Thank you.
- - - -
1
0