Director of Public Prosecutions v Tulloch
[2022] VCC 2186
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-22-00458
CR-22-00459
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| RICKY TULLOCH & DANIEL BULT |
---
JUDGE: | JUDGE KARAPANAGIOTIDIS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 October 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 October 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v TULLOCH & Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 2186 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing.
Catchwords: Blackmail – Intentionally causing injury – Possession of a drug of dependence – Guilty plea – Covid-19 pandemic – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Family hardship – Verdins – Mercy.
Legislation Cited: ss 5, 6AAA, 18 Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Cases Cited:Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342; Jocelyn Zakhour v The Queen [2022] VSCA 63; Kamal v The Queen [2021] VSCA 27; Markovic v The Queen [2010] VSCA 105; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Siti Kamal v The Queen [2021] VSCA 27; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Zakhour v The Queen [2022] VSCA 63.
Sentence: TULLOCH: 14 month Community Corrections Order.
BULT: Five months’ imprisonment, 12 month Community Corrections Order, $500 fine.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | R. Casey | The Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For Ricky TULLOCH | S. Collins | Victoria Legal Aid |
| For Daniel BULT | S. Locke | Theo Magazis & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1Mr Tulloch, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of blackmail. Mr Bult, you have pleaded guilty to blackmail, intentionally causing injury, two charges of possession of a drug of dependence and one related summary offence of possession of a controlled weapon.
Background
2The summary of your offending is set out in the prosecution opening, marked as Exhibit A on the plea.
3At the time of the offending you, Mr Bult were aged 37 and you, Mr Tulloch were aged 48.
4The complainant in this matter is Sam Fitzgerald[1]. He was 56 years of age at the time of the offending and the owner of Fitzgerald Transport[2] and had operated the business for approximately 28 years. Mr Tulloch you previously worked for him as a driver in or around 2016. In 2018 and 2019 you sought, unsuccessfully, to enforce a debt you believed was owed to you by the complainant through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”).
[1] A pseudonym.
[2] A pseudonym.
5The two of you entered into an agreement for you, Mr Bult to attend the business premises of Mr Fitzgerald and demand payment of the debt. Such a demand was to be accompanied by the threat of violence.
6In summary, on the 2nd of August 2021, you Mr Bult, wearing “Hells Angels clothing, attended Mr Fitzgerald’s workplace in the company of another unknown male, who was in possession of a baseball bat. You had both attended earlier but were told that Mr Fitzgerald wasn’t there. When you returned and confronted him you Mr Bult demanded payment of an invoice. You handed him an invoice for $42,675.00 from a business in the name of R&M Haulage, a business owned by you Mr Tulloch. This invoice related to Mr Tulloch’s previous debt proceedings. When Mr Fitzgerald tried to hand the invoice back and told you the matter had settled in Court, you Mr Bult then assaulted Mr Fitzgerald by punching him to the ground and continuing to punch him on the ground.
7You told Mr Fitzgerald that you ‘will be back’ before leaving the premises with your unknown co-offender. You drove away in your vehicle with registration ‘VICTIM’, a car registered in your partners name.
8As a result of this incident, Mr Fitzgerald received lacerations and contusions to the left side of his head. Mr Fitzgerald was bleeding from his ear and from grazes on his head. He also suffered a sore back as a result of the assault. Mr Fitzgerald then contacted Police. This is the basis of Charge 2 for Mr Bult.
9Mr Fitzgerald was subsequently taken to Ballarat Base Hospital by Ambulance Victoria for treatment.
10Later that day there were text messages exchanged between the two of you as detailed in the prosecution opening. Mr Fitzgerald also received three missed calls and two text messages from a telephone number he did not recognise. The text messages included the following:
It’s me from the other day, call me. Just working out how I’m gunna follow this matter up. If your gonna pay and how long u need or if I’m coming back to shut the shop, it’s up to you. If your gonna be reasonable I can be reasonable if you’re not I can’t be.
11On the 6th of August 2021, Police attended your address, Mr Bult and executed a search warrant on your home and vehicle, seizing items outlined in the prosecution opening. In the driver’s seat area of your car was located an extendable baton, which is the basis of Summary Charge 7. In the main bedroom in the house police also located two small zip lock bags containing methylamphetamine in your wallet and in the rear room one small zip lock bag containing cannabis. This makes up the basis of Charges 3 and 4.
12You were arrested and transported to the Broadmeadows Police Station. You Mr Tulloch were also arrested that day. A search warrant was executed on your home and you provided police with your phone. Call charge records indicate that phone calls were made from Mr Bult’s phone to yours on the day of the incident. You were later interviewed and admitted to being the previous owner of R&M Express Haulage and to taking a debt matter to Court against Mr Fitzgerald where you had lost. You denied however making any efforts to recover the money since that time and denied any involvement in the manner or any knowledge of Mr Bult. Further interrogation of your phone Mr Tulloch exposed the untruthfulness or inaccuracy of your description of your knowledge of Mr Bult.
Plea of guilty
13On 29 August 2022, the matter resolved following a sentence indication hearing. On 4 October 2022 you were both arraigned after accepting the indications given by the court. Although your pleas were not entered at the earliest possible opportunities, and a contested committal did proceed, you are still entitled to an important sentencing discount for your plea of guilty. Your plea represents an acceptance of responsibility on your part and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. It is also of utilitarian value and I accept this is heightened or enhanced as it is entered at a time where the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic remains relevant[3]. In all the circumstances, I have difficulty accepting that your pleas indicate remorse. I also note the various comments in the corrections assessment outcome reports in this respect. Mr Tulloch you maintained a denial of any knowledge of Mr Bult and Mr Bult you apparently engaged in victim blaming. Notwithstanding, as I’ve already indicated you are both entitled to, and will receive, an important discount for your pleas of guilty.
[3] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
Gravity of the offending
14You both face charges of blackmail and you Mr Bult have pleaded guilty to additional charges, committed on the same day, 2 August 2021.
15I have had regard to the maximum available sentence and I accept the prosecution submission that blackmail is an inherently serious offence. By your plea of guilty you both admit to making a demand of Mr Fitzgerald, a demand that was intentionally unwarranted and with menaces, with a view to gaining, or intending to cause him loss. While I have not received a victim impact statement from Mr Fitzgerald your conduct was clearly unacceptable and would have been very confronting.
16On the evidence and given the history of the matter, it seems clear enough that you Mr Tulloch were the instigator and the reason why Mr Fitzgerald was targeted. You were aggrieved and believed he owed you a debt, notwithstanding some years earlier you unsuccessfully attempted to enforce this debt. Mr Bult you do not appear to have had any personal interest in recovering the debt and it is simply unknown, on the evidence, if you stood to gain anything.
17While you Mr Tulloch were the instigator, you had a more limited role in the actual crime and you only face the one charge. Mr Bult, as submitted by the prosecution, you played a greater role in the execution of the blackmail. You also face the additional charge of intentionally cause injury which arises from your decision to resort to violence on the day.
18In assessing the objective gravity of your offending on Charge 1 there are a number of relevant factors to consider. I accept that the offending was pre-meditated and planned. The blackmail is charged as a single date but I note there was some follow up with Mr Fitzgerald in the days after the offending.
19I have been referred to a number of comparative cases for blackmail by both prosecution and defence. They have been a useful guide but of course each case turns on its own facts and circumstances and there are a variety of forms of blackmail. I accept that the present case does not involve the same degree of moral culpability or objective seriousness as in cases such as Kamal v The Queen[4] or Zakhour v The Queen[5]. I also accept that while this was planned offending it was not particularly sophisticated. You Mr Bult attended at Mr Fitzgerald’s workplace, wearing ‘Hells Angels’ clothing but otherwise undisguised. You presented an invoice clearly tracing back to Mr Tulloch and drove your wife’s car, with very distinct numberplates, to his workplace. I also accept that the offending was relatively confined and not protracted or persistent.
[4] Kamal v The Queen [2021] VSCA 27.
[5] Zakhour v The Queen [2022] VSCA 63.
20You Mr Bult went further and inflicted actual violence on Mr Fitzgerald, causing an injury, which is the subject of the intentionally cause injury charge. While I consider this to be confrontational and serious offending I accept it was not protracted and that the injuries to Mr Fitzgerald were relatively minor.
21In relation to the possession of drug charges I note they were small quantities and I will sentence you on the basis of the lower available sentencing regime.
Personal circumstances
Mr Bult
22Mr Bult you are 38 years of age.
23You were born in Melbourne and grew up in the Northern suburbs in Epping. You were bought up in a relatively strict Greek orthodox household. Your parents supported you and your two sisters and operated takeaway businesses. Over the years they owned and operated 6 takeaway shops in different areas including Woodend and Reservoir and you and your sisters worked in the shops and helped out. Aside from moving around a fair bit your childhood was relatively unremarkable.
24Problems arose within your family when your youngest sister met her partner, Mr Hepworth-Joyce. It seems this has caused considerable difficulties and tensions within the broader family. He has been charged with making threats and breaching family violence intervention orders in which your wife was the protected person. I received into evidence a copy of your wife’s police statements of 11, 23 and 30 April 2019 and the original interim Intervention Order that was obtained. It is clear from her statements that the threats were persistent and serious and had a profound effect on her.
25Your prior criminal history relates to this individual and his history of intimidation, threats and violence directed towards your wife and children. While your reaction on these occasions was clearly inappropriate and resulted in criminal charges, your prior criminal offending occurred within this unique context. On your behalf it was submitted that this was also reflected in the dispositions of the Court imposed for the various charges of intentionally cause injury, criminal damage and contravene family violence orders. These charges attracted relatively modest results, including adjourned undertakings and fines. You have never been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or a Community Corrections Order (“CCO”). I was also told that now things have settled down considerably between your family and Mr Hepworth-Joyce and there has been no contact between you for over a year. I was informed that you have one other subsequent matter for alleged offending unrelated to the current charge before me. This further charge seemed to have led to your original bail being revoked on this matter and your return to custody. The case is listed in the Magistrates Court and is intended to proceed as a contested hearing.
26Returning to your personal history, you completed your VCE at Mill Park High School and upon doing so you went straight into a Boilermaker apprenticeship, which you completed. You were employed as a boilermaker for most of your early adult life until the last three years when you started your own business with your wife, Carli-Anne Bult. You ran an earthmoving (construction and worksite) and towing business (vehicles & transporting machinery). The business continues to operate under the name Raw Transport & Raw Bobcat Services. It is only a small business and it suffered in 2020 and early 2021 due to COVID-19 with some 13 workers laid off work as contracts dried up.
27Upon release from custody you are able to return to work with your partner. While you have been in custody there has not been anyone to operate the machinery, namely the bobcat and tow truck used in excavation works. In addition, you’re able to obtain employment as a paid worker operating machinery on various Government Projects including the Westgate Tunnel and the Craigieburn Rail Project.[6]
[6] Exhibit DB4.
28You have been in a relationship with your partner since you were 15 years of age. You married when you were 19 years old and you have three children aged between 17 and 12 years of age. You and your wife have worked hard to provide for your children who are doing very well in their activities and schooling. Your son has excelled at boxing and is the national champion in the youth lightweight division and has represented Australia overseas and continues to do so.
29You have been involved with the Werribee Districts Football Club for approximately five years. You were the assistant coach during your son’s time there. While you have ceased involvement with the club upon moving back to the country, you maintain contact with some it’s people.
30You do not have a history of substance abuse but approximately two years ago you commenced using methylamphetamines after your father’s death.
Mr Tulloch
31Mr Tulloch you are now 49 years of age and you are a mature first offender. You have no prior criminal history. You were born in Tasmania and raised by your mother, who gave birth to you at the young age of 16. Your parents separated when you were only five due to family violence perpetrated by your father. To escape this you and your mother fled Tasmania and settled in Mildura, Victoria. You are very close with your mother. She remarried when you were eight years of age and you have a positive relationship with your stepfather. They remain together and continue to reside in Mildura. You don’t have a relationship with your biological father.
32At age 19 you moved to Croydon but for some ten years you moved between Melbourne and Mildura because you missed your mother. You settled in Melbourne at the age of 29.
33You formed a relationship which bore a son, who is now aged 22. The relationship ultimately broke down and within the context of this breakdown it was very difficult to maintain, and continue, contact with your son.
34Shortly after your separation, you formed a relationship with Monica and you married within two years and have been together for the last 17 years. You have a close and loving relationship. You reside in Talbot together with your two children, aged 17 and 14. Your son has dyslexia and your daughter has undergone trauma which is currently the subject of investigation and referred to in Ms Cidoni’s report.
35You completed Year 11 at school and then commenced working. You first worked for a few years at McDonalds and then as a bicycle mechanic. When you moved to Melbourne at 19 you were employed as a car detailer for Yarra Valley Nissan for approximately seven years then worked as a truck driver. In 2012, you started a truck business which you maintained for five years, but had to sell the business as your wife’s health was rapidly declining and she required fulltime care.
36In 2000 your wife was diagnosed with stage three multiple sclerosis (“MS”). Over time, her symptoms have increased in severity. She has written a letter of 27 September 2022 where she provides details of her conditions and how she is impacted. She writes:
I have bad co-ordination and little strength in my legs, particularly my left leg, and have experienced numerous falls, including a recent fall where I suffered a concussion. My left leg is so stiff at times that Ricky needs to help bend it so I can get in the car or bed.[7]
[7] Exhibit RT2.
37You are her sole carer. Since 2020 you stopped working and have become her registered carer. She states:
He helps me with everything in my daily life, from cooking, cleaning, helping me dress and put my shoes on, removing trip hazard and driving me to appointments. He also drives the children around, including driving our son to the school bus stop every day so my son can get to school in Maryborough, about 15 kms away.[8]
[8] Ibid.
38She also describes how there is no one else, no family or friends, who could help care for her and your children the way you do. The court also received a letter from your mother, Jeanette Vale[9]. She indicates that she and your step-father offer to help but what they can provide is limited given they live in Mildura and also work. She also confirms that there is no one else to look after your wife and states that your mother in law is also not in the best health and you assist her as much as you can.
[9] Exhibit RT4.
39You currently receive a Centrelink disability and support payment, alongside your wife.
40You do not have a history of drug or alcohol abuse. You continue to experience some ongoing physical pain following a motorbike accident in 2014 for which you sustained serious physical injuries and were in and out of hospital for some two years. You report experiencing depression in the past, particularly in the context of your wife’s deteriorating health and also your exposure to domestic violence as a child. While you do not independently remember much of this your mother has disclosed to you what occurred and this has significantly impacted you. You regularly attend religious counselling sessions with Wayne Stevens which have been of assistance.
41As previously noted, you were arrested on 6 August 2021 and were bailed. You have remained on bail since this and there has been no subsequent offending.
Factors in mitigation
42On behalf of both of you, additional factors were relied upon in mitigation.
Time in custody – Mr Bult
43Mr Bult you have served to date a total of 57 days in pre-sentence detention. This consists of four days in custody from 6 August 2021 to 10 August 2021. On this day you were granted bail. On 29 August 2022 there was alleged further offending, as I’ve previously noted, and you were remanded in custody again until the present date.
44It was submitted on your behalf that your time in custody has been difficult due to the COVID-19 pandemic. You have had less hours out of your cell, restricted access to programs and course and visits with family have been largely reduced to non-contact zoom visits. I accept that your period on remand has been more onerous because of COVID related restrictions.
Mental health – Mr Tulloch
45Ms Cidoni assessed you, Mr Tulloch, and provided a report of 9 August 2022. During the assessment she administered various intelligence scale tests. She found a considerable variation between your nonverbal reasoning abilities and your verbal reasoning abilities. While this requires some caution in interpreting your full scale score, she found that you scored in the extremely low range indicating significant cognitive difficulties. Your full scale IQ was estimated to be 66. You suffer from a range of limitations including your capacity to think about intended actions, to consider possible consequences and to exercise restraint. She further identifies difficulties with language and communication and problems with attention, memory and intellectual rigidity. Psychometric testing indicated no psychotic disorders or obvious personality dysfunction. You suffer depression and a level of maladjustment that is likely in response to your wife’s chronic and debilitating illness.
46She opines that imprisonment would be onerous because of your personal situation caring for your wife who has significant needs and your dependent children. She also suspects that you would greatly struggle to adapt and cope with change, and your capacity to reason and focus on required tasks or instructions is low. She states ‘there is a risk of developing a major depressive episode owing to extreme distress levels anticipated.’
47I take into account the matters raised in Ms Cidoni’s report and her opinions as to your cognitive abilities and your mental health. The prosecution accept that this justifies some moderation of general and specific deterrence and that there is an increased burden of imprisonment. I accept these submissions and also that limb five of Verdins[10] is enlivened in your case by reason of your mental health and reduced cognitive capacity.
Family hardship – Mr Tulloch
[10] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.
48In your case Mr Tulloch I accept, and take into account, the family hardship that would be occasioned if you were to be imprisoned. I accept, on the evidence before me, namely Ms Cidoni’s report and the letter from your wife and mother, that your circumstances are exceptional, thus permitting the court to have regard to this consideration.
49Whether or not, in any particular case, family hardship gives rise to ‘exceptional circumstances’ must be a question of fact and degree[11]. I note that such cases are rare and I have had regard to the many examples in the decided cases of undoubted hardship which have, nonetheless, been held by appellate courts to fall short of ‘exceptional circumstances’.[12]
[11] Markovic v The Queen [2010] VSCA 105.
[12] Kepkey v The Queen [2021] VSCA 202; Cross v The Queen [2019] VSCA 310; George v The Queen [2017] VSCA 152; R v Xeba [2009] VSCA 205; Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Gerrard [2011] VSCA 2000.
50Your wife suffers from a chronic and deteriorating condition which significantly and profoundly impacts her day to day living. She has lost approximately 20 percent vision in her left eye. She cannot walk a few metres without a walking aid or support. She has bad co-ordination and little strength in her legs. She has experienced numerous falls; including 22 falls in one month, and one where she suffered a concussion. You, Mr Tulloch are her sole carer. In 2015 her father passed away. In 2016 her one and only sibling passed away. Her mother is 74, lives in Werribee and suffers from osteoporosis. There is no one else that can care for her.
51In addition, you have children aged 17 and 14. You drive the children around, including to drop your son off to the bus stop daily so that he can attend school in Maryborough. You take your wife to all her medical appointments which are in Ballarat, a 45 minute drive away. You are unable to access the full benefits provided through NDIS because you live relatively remotely and in a caravan on a property. This apparently restricts the provision of services. I accept on the evidence that you are the only sole carer for your wife and you have little respite available. It may be largely left to your 17 year old child, who is working part-time but no longer in school, to help and offer you some respite. The Court notes that no doubt there are many young people who help care for parents and other dependants but it’s hardly ideal or not without its challenges for a young person.
52I have therefore found that exceptional circumstances are established in your case such that attract the application of the principle of mercy; and that the sentencing discretion should be exercised in favour of a disposition that does not involve your imprisonment and its consequences for your wife (and children).
Prospects of rehabilitation
53Mr Bult I accept that you have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. On my assessment I have had regard to all your circumstances, including your prior criminal history. Importantly, you continue to have the support of your wife and family. You also have a long history of gainful employment which I take into account in your favour. Further, you have built a business with your wife that continues to run, though she is struggling to maintain it while you remain in custody. I also take into account the period that you have served in custody and accept that it has had a salutary or deterrent effect on you. On remand you have also not been able to celebrate, or support, your son’s significant achievements.
54I consider that you Mr Tulloch present with very good prospects of rehabilitation. You have no prior criminal history or subsequent matters. You have a strong work history. You have a close and loving family and have provided substantial and invaluable care to your wife. You present with no psychotic disorder or obvious personality dysfunction. While your limited cognitive abilities potentially compromise your functioning and your consequential thinking, it may be that this can be addressed through managing your mental health and engaging in appropriate programs.
55I have also had regard to the sentencing principle of parity in this case. The principle is an aspect of equal justice. It requires that like should be treated alike, but that due allowance must be made for relevant differences between co-offenders. I consider that there are important differences between your respective cases that must be reflected in the sentences imposed. These include: differences in your role in the offending and culpability; the different charge; your criminal histories; personal circumstances; and the different mitigating factors that apply in each case. I accept the prosecution submission that in all the circumstances a level of disparity is justified.
Sentencing principles
56The basic purposes for sentencing are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. I accept that general deterrence and denunciation are primary sentencing considerations in a case such as yours. I also accept, particularly in your case Mr Bult, that specific deterrence is important.
57I also take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act1991 (Vic), where relevant. Further, I have considered the general sentencing landscape for blackmail.[13] I note that a sentence of imprisonment is very often imposed for such offences. As previously noted, blackmail can occur in many and varied ways and the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the particular circumstances of each individual case.
[13] Qarau v R [2013] VSCA 1798; Director of Public Prosecutions v Oksuz (2015) 47 VR 731; Atkin v R [2017] VSCA 103; Kamal v R [2021] VSCA 27; Zakhour v R [2022] VSCA 63.
58In your case Mr Bult the prosecution submit that a gaol term, structured by way of a head sentence and non-parole period was the appropriate sentence. Your Counsel urged the Court to consider imposing a combined sentence of imprisonment and a CCO. In your case, Mr Tulloch the Crown accept that a CCO is a sentencing option within range. As noted, I provided an indication at the previous hearing that I would likely impose in your case Mr Bult a combined sentence and in your case Mr Tulloch a CCO.
59I had you both assessed for orders. Both of you were assessed as unsuitable for the orders for different reasons, as discussed at the plea hearing. Mr Bult you were assessed as a medium risk of re-offending. You were considered to have engaged in victim blaming during the assessment and you expressed concerns about co-managing your employment requirements with those of a CCO. The Forensicare report of 10 October 2022 noted that you expressed experiencing remorse and shame secondary to your offending behaviour and being in prison for the first time. Further, it notes:
Mr Bult reported that he understands the importance of not re-offending as he needs to focus on re-building his business, being an emotional support to his wife and being a stable role model for his children.
60Mr Tulloch in your case you were assessed as a low risk of general re-offending. In light of this, you were only recommended for community work and you were not deemed suitable for this condition because of your carer responsibilities. On your behalf, your Counsel submitted that a CCO is the appropriate order and that you hadn’t understood at the time of the assessment the actual requirements of such an order.
61Taking into account all relevant factors, and also the guidance offered by the Court of Appeal in R v Boulton[14], I have considered that a CCO is the just and appropriate order, in your case Mr Bult in the nature of a combined sentence. Such an order is intrinsically punitive and can also be fashioned to address your particular needs. In your case Mr Bult, as submitted by your Counsel, it might also help address you develop insight into your offending by participation in programs. In your case Mr Tulloch it may also help you develop, as was identified in the Forensicare report of 12 October 2022, strategies to cope with stress, distress and perceived provocation from others.
[14] Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.
62Taking into account all relevant matters and the submissions of the parties, both at the indication and plea hearing, I impose the following sentences with convictions –
Sentences
Mr Bult
63On Charges 1 and 2 I propose to sentence you to an aggregate sentence, as the offending is founded on essentially the same facts and forms part of the same series of offending. In so doing, I bear in mind the principles of totality and proportionality, which continue to have application.
64You are convicted and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment with a 12 month CCO.
65The following conditions will apply to the community corrections order. Supervision, 80 hours of community work. I will offset 40 hours against treatment. I order treatment, drug and alcohol treatment and programs to reduce the risk of reoffending.
66Along with those conditions, Mr Bult, there are mandatory conditions that attach to a community corrections order. They include that you have to advise community corrections of your address. You need to get their permission to travel interstate. You need to accept visits from them. You need to follow their lawful directions. Do you understand that?
67MR BULT: Yes, Your Honour.
68HER HONOUR: In terms of a community corrections order, I must also tell you that if you commit another offence punishable by imprisonment by the time it commences. So, I am going to take away the 53 days that you have done and then that leaves you with three months and something or other. So, it is a five months sentence in total on these charges.
69Once the order commences for that 12 month period you must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment. If you do then it will be a breach of the order. Do you understand the possible consequences?
70MR BULT: Yes, Your Honour.
71HER HONOUR: Do you consent to the order?
72MR BULT: Yes, I do. Yes.
73HER HONOUR: All right. Thanks very much. In relation to Charge 3 and
Mr Casey, that's the methylamphetamine possession charge?74MR CASEY: Yes. It is, Your Honour.
75HER HONOUR: Yes. I am going to convict and fine you. Again, bearing in mind totality and other relevant matters, I am convicting and fining you $200.
76Charge 4, which is the possess drug of dependence, cannabis, small quantity, you are convicted and discharged. On the summary offence, possess prohibited weapon, being the baton that was located, you are convicted and fined $300.
77Pursuant to s18, I declare that you have served 57 days of your sentence.
78Pursuant to s6AAA but for your plea of guilty,
Mr Bult, in relation to this matter I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of approximately one year and eight months and I would have set a non-parole period.Mr Tulloch
79
Mr Tulloch, on the charge of blackmail, you are convicted and sentenced to a CCO of 14 months' duration. The following conditions will attach: 70 hours of community work and I am offsetting
50 hours of that work against treatment, supervision, treatment for your mental health and treatment rehabilitation by engaging in programs to reduce reoffending.
80Core conditions apply for you as well. You have heard me go through them with Mr Bult and that is that you must accept visits from Corrections. You must advise them of any change of address. There are core conditions that apply to an order. Do you understand?
81MR TULLOCH: Yes, Your Honour.
82HER HONOUR: All right. Let me just - just give me one moment? Because this is a remote hearing it is the reason why I need to ensure that you do understand these conditions before indicating your consent. You are also required within two working days to report to Corrections.
83Mr Bult, you are also required to do so, once you are released from custody. Can I indicate, do you understand there is a requirement that you report within two working days?
84MR BULT: Yes, Your Honour.
85HER HONOUR: Thanks, Mr Bult. All right. Mr Tulloch, you are required to report within two working days to the relevant Corrections office and that you must notify them of a change of address or employment within two working days. You must not leave Victoria without first getting their permission.
86So, in relation to those conditions, Mr Tulloch, do you understand them?
87MR TULLOCH: Yes. I do, Your Honour.
88HER HONOUR: If you commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within the 14 months that I have stipulated, which commences from today, which is when this order is being imposed on you, then you can come back before the court and I will be required to deal with you for a breach and I can re-sentence you on the original charges. Do you understand?
89MR TULLOCH: Yes, Your Honour.
90HER HONOUR: And understanding that do you consent to the order?
91MR TULLOCH: Yes, Your Honour.
92HER HONOUR: Pursuant to s6AAA - I do not think I am actually required to provide a declaration in your case, Mr Tulloch but I certainly indicate to you, that had you not pleaded guilty I would have imposed a term of imprisonment, along with a much lengthier and more onerous community corrections order. So, your plea of guilty has translated in your case to an order and no term of imprisonment. Do you understand?
93MR TULLOCHA: Yes, Your Honour.
94HER HONOUR: All right. Mr Casey, Ms Locke and Mr Collins, is there anything further?
95MR COLLINS: No, Your Honour, I have nothing. Thank you.
96MR CASEY: Nothing.
0
10
0