Director of Public Prosecutions v Vandergulik
[2023] VCC 657
•20 April 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR-22-01866
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CASSEY VANDERGULIK |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE ROZEN |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 12 April 2023 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 April 2023 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Vandergulik |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 657 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Threat to inflict serious injury – Prohibited person possess a firearm – Storing a firearm in an insecure manner whilst unlicenced – Persistently contravene a family violence intervention order – Attempting to pervert the course of justice – Related summary offences
– Prior convictions for violence – Mental health – Substance abuse – Applicability of Verdins principles –
LegislationCited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Firearms Act 1996 (Vic); Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic); Bail Act 1977 (Vic); Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic)
CasesCited: R v Buscema [2011] VSCA 206; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence: Imprisonment for 3 years and 3 months – Non-parole period of 2 years
– Fine – s 6AAA declaration – Imprisonment for 4 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms T. Stokes | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr N. Sood | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTING SERVICE
(Prepared by Legal Transcripts Pty Ltd) 232870
HIS HONOUR:
1Cassey Vandergulik, you have pleaded guilty to five indictable offences and four related summary offences. The indictable charges are:
a) Making a threat to inflict serious injury contrary to s 21 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), which attracts a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment;
b) Prohibited person possess a firearm contrary to s 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic), which attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;
c) Storing a firearm in an insecure manner whilst unlicenced contrary to s 129A of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic), attracting a maximum penalty of four years' imprisonment;
d) Persistently contravene a family violence intervention order contrary to s 125A of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic), attracting a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment; and
e) Attempting to pervert the course of justice contrary to common law, which attracts a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.
2Each of these offences also has a fine as an alternative sentence.
3In addition, you pleaded guilty to four related summary offences:
a) Breaching a family violence intervention order contrary to s 123(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic), which carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment;
b) Committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, namely making a threat to inflict serious injury, contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), which attracts a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment;
c) Possessing a controlled weapon without lawful excuse contrary to s 6(1) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic), which attracts a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment; and
d) Possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence or permit contrary to s 124(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic), which attracts a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units.
Procedural History
4The Court has previously given you a sentence indication on 16 February 2023 and the Court was informed on your behalf that the indication was accepted. You were arraigned in relation to these matters on 12 April 2023 at which time you pleaded guilty to the charges and accepted the Court's jurisdiction in relation to the related summary offences. The Court heard submissions on your behalf and from the prosecution on that day and reserved its decision and today I proceed to sentence you.
Summary of Offending
5I will start with the factual basis upon which you are to be sentenced. It is set out in the summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 11 April 2023 which was read to the Court.
6By way of background in around September of 2018 you and Iedida Lucinda[1] commenced a romantic relationship. You separated in 2020 but continued to have contact. On 19 May 2021 an apprehended domestic violence order protecting Iedida Lucinda from you was issued at Corowa Local Court in New South Wales. The order was served on you in June of 2021. On 27 September 2021, you were bailed at the Shepparton Magistrates' Court in relation to unrelated drug possession charges.
[1] A pseudonym.
7In relation to Charge 1, and Summary Charges 3 and 4, that is threat to inflict serious injury, breach family violence intervention order and commit indictable
offence on bail, the facts are as follows.
8At around 6.30 pm on 13 December 2021, Iedida Lucinda was at home with Phyllis Cleo[2] and her son Marduk Ascanius[3]. You arrived by car, parked in their driveway and started banging on the front door of the house, shouting Phyllis Cleo's name. You briefly returned to your car and then returned a few minutes later. An unknown friend of yours was in the car with you. Mr Lucinda hid in a cupboard, while Phyllis Cleo went to speak to you. You shouted at Phyllis Cleo, 'I'm going to shoot you, you fucking cunt.' She replied, 'Get the fuck off my property.' She and you continued to shout at each other and Iedida Lucinda called Triple-0.
[2] A pseudonym.
[3] A pseudonym.
9At some point Marduk Ascanius shouted at you, ‘this isn't going anywhere’. You made a shooting gesture with your hands. You then shouted to Phyllis Cleo, 'as soon as your son isn't here I'm gonna come back and shoot you', before getting back in your car and leaving. Shortly afterwards police arrived but were unable to locate you.
10On 15 December 2021, police stopped you whilst driving your white utility vehicle and arrested you in relation to the events of 13 December 2021. A search of your car revealed an intervention order relating to Iedida Lucinda, two black hunting knives, and three mobile phones. At approximately 6 pm that day, police executed a search warrant at your home in Epping. During the search of your home they found, in your bedroom, a sawn-off shotgun wrapped up in material under the mattress on the bed, a box of Winchester Bushman 22 Rifle high velocity ammunition and shotgun shells, and a machete and a knife which are not subject to any charges but in respect of which a forfeiture order is sought.
11Subsequent analysis of the shotgun determined it was a 12 Gauge Harrington and Richardson brand, model 1900 single barrel break open shotgun. The barrel had been shortened by being sawn down and it was capable of firing in
the normal way by applying pressure to the trigger.
12At about 4 pm you were conveyed to Craigieburn police station where you participated in a record of interview. During that interview, you generally denied or minimised your offending.
13Turning to Charge 5, attempting to pervert the course of justice.
14You were remanded to Ravenhall Correctional Centre. While on remand you contacted Iedida Lucinda by telephone on a number of occasions. The full details of these conversations will be included in an annexure to these reasons.
15In summary, in the course of conversations on 18 February 2022, 23 February 2022, 26 February 2022, 27 February 2022 and 28 February 2022, you went to considerable lengths to convince Iedida Lucinda to withdraw a statement to police that she had made in relation to offending committed by you.
16On 1 March 2022, you contacted Heracles Neptuno[4] by telephone and requested that he contact Phyllis Cleo to ask her to withdraw her statement. This conduct constitutes Charge 5, attempt to pervert the course of justice.
[4] A pseudonym.
17Also while remanded you made a series of telephone calls to Iedida Lucinda in breach of the intervention order condition that you must not contact her in any way, unless the contact is through a lawyer. Those calls were made between 14 February 2022 and 1 March 2022. There is some overlap between the calls that are the basis for Charge 5 and those for Charge 4 and I have taken that overlap into account so that you are not to be doubly punished in relation to those calls.
Gravity of Offending & Moral Culpability
18Turning then to assess the nature and gravity of your offending and your moral culpability.
19Firstly, in relation to the charge of threatening to inflict serious injury, I consider that the aggravating features of that offending are that there were two specific threats made as well as the gesture. The offending involved a breach of a family violence order and you were on bail at the time. It is also relevant in my view that you owned a gun at the time and were therefore in a position to carry out the threat that you made.
20I assess your culpability in relation to this offence against your background, which includes a preparedness to commit violence and violent acts, particularly against women. I note that you have prior convictions for violence dating back to 1995.
21I accept that it is certainly not the most serious example of the offence of threat to inflict serious injury. You were not actually armed at the time that you made the threats. It is also that the overall circumstances of the offending mean that I consider this to be a mid-range example of that offence.
22Turning to the offence of prohibited person possessing a firearm. This relates to the sawn-off shotgun that was found. It is relevant that you had hidden this shotgun, that it being sawn-off meant that it could be potentially used as part of criminal activity, no other legitimate reason is apparent in relation to why you had this gun. I note that you have some prior convictions relating to guns and ammunition.
23Charge 3 is storing a firearm in an insecure manner while unlicenced. There is obviously considerable overlap between that charge and Charge 2 and I have taken that into account, in relation to the orders I make for cumulation.
24Turning to Charge 4, which is the charge of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order. The evidence is there were 13 occasions on which you contravened the order. I note again, this is not the most serious example of this offending to come before this court. The contact was made on the phone and not in person. A number of the conversations were quite benign and not particularly threatening, but nonetheless, against your background of having
committed serious domestic violence in the past, the Court views this contravention as a matter of some seriousness.
25Finally, there is the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, Charge
5. As indicated, this is a very serious offence as it goes to the heart of the justice system. And you made five separate calls to Iedida Lucinda and one call to Heracles Neptuno therefore there were two witnesses involved and your conduct can only be described as serious in relation to your intent which was to interfere with the proper course of the criminal justice system.
26The case of R v Buscema[5] provides guidance to the courts in assessing offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice. In the judgment of Nettle JA, His Honour set out the circumstances which bear upon the assessment of the nature and gravity of a particular case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.[6] His Honour drew attention to the following matters.
[5] [2011] VSCA 206.
[6] [2011] VSCA 206, [6].
27Firstly, the consequences which the offending was calculated to avoid. Here the offending was calculated to avoid criminal liability, that puts it in a serious category.
28Secondly, the time for which the deception was maintained and whether it was actively repeated or persisted in and the evidence is that you carried out the conduct on a number of occasions.
29Thirdly, where the deception involved some other person, either his accomplice or his victim, in this case, you prevailed upon Heracles Neptuno, albeit only on one occasion to in turn prevail upon Phyllis Cleo.
30Fourthly, whether there was any threat or violence involved. In your case, there was not.
31Fifthly, whether the offence was spontaneous or premediated. I consider there was a degree of premeditation involved.
32Sixthly, whether the deception resulted in the deception of the court. In this case it did not, you are only prosecuted for an attempt.
33Based on the application of those criteria, I would consider your offending to be relatively serious but certainly well short of the most serious category of cases of attempting to pervert the course of justice. I note in particular, that the absence of threats puts it in a lower category.
Personal Circumstances
34The Court has been provided with submissions on your behalf which set out your personal circumstances in some detail to which I will now consider.
35You are now 47 years of age. You were born in New South Wales and moved to the Shepparton area when you were in Grade 6. You had a strong relationship with your mother who tragically passed away when you were six and you recall sitting by her bedside as she drew her last breath.
36You have three older brothers, a younger brother and two sisters. You were the victim of violence as a young person, including violence directed to you by your father who abused alcohol and also a brother. In addition, your stepmother Margaret Vandergulik was abusive and neglectful and you were, yourself, the victim of sexual abuse when you were about 14 or 15 years of age.
37You attended Numurkah Primary School, Shepparton High School and Numurkah Secondary School, leaving school in year 10, working in a range of jobs including working primarily as a concreter for the majority of your life and including running your own business.
38You were in a lengthy relationship with a woman you met in high school, that resulted in five children. That relationship ended in 2009. You have been engaged in several intimate relationships since that time and have had a further two children. Your relationship with Iedida Lucinda commenced while you were on parole, initially it was a positive relationship and you believed that you would ultimately marry Iedida Lucinda, but that relationship ultimately broke down in December of 2021 and it was a relationship that was marked by mutual drug use. You have a long history of polysubstance abuse, including alcohol, cannabis, methylamphetamine and heroin
Mental Health
39And in terms of your mental health, the Court has been provided with several reports, two of which are quite dated now, one from Forensicare and one from Dr Cunningham, dating back to 2014. More importantly, the Court has been provided with a report prepared by Ms Gina Cidoni, who saw you in March of this year, on two occasions, and provided a report to the court dated 30 March 2023.
40Ms Cidoni reports that your insight of judgment were fair at the time that she spoke to you, that you were able to express how your high levels of stress and drugs impacted your behaviour, and you also expressed regret regarding your offending actions and their impacts on Iedida Lucinda.
41Ms Cidoni reports that your verbal reasoning abilities are in the extremely low range and above those are only 1 per cent of your peers. Ms Cidoni reports that based on the Ontario domestic assault risk assessment scale you are assigned to risk category seven. She informs the Court that 74 per cent of risk category seven people commit another assault against their partner that comes to the attention of the police within an average of about five years.
42Ms Cidoni, described you as someone with especially low verbal comprehension and as a result of testing diagnosed you as suffering from major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality style and stimulant, cannabis, and alcohol-use disorders.
43Ms Cidoni expresses the view that your psychological presentation is for multiple, negative and traumatic exposures from childhood, which are linked to chronic issues and maladaptive coping in adulthood. This relates in high susceptibility to stress, difficulty managing and expressing emotions and inappropriate responses to stressful situations.
44Ms Cidoni, expresses the view that the cumulative effect of the various factors identified provides a causal link to your offending and while drug use was a major factor affecting your behaviours, your underlying conditions also had a role in impacting your self-control, judgment and decision making. Drug-use is employed to calm yourself, but it works to exacerbate anger and stress and contributes to feeling aroused and over-reactive.
45In terms of your risk of future offending, Ms Cidoni assesses your risk of committing future family violence as high.
46Finally, in relation to the impact of imprisonment on you, Ms Cidoni expresses the view that imprisonment is an onerous experience for many offenders. Your depression and trauma exposures are likely exacerbated in the setting because of your vulnerabilities and personality style and there is an increased risk of self- destructive behaviours. Further, while prison enforces abstinence from illicit substances, it does not equip you with the skills needed to overcome your drug problem.
47The conclusions the Court draws from the evidence before it in relation to the application of the Verdins[7]principles based on Ms Cidoni's report, is that there is some link identified by her between the mental health condition she has diagnosed you with and your ability to exercise self-control and make good decisions. The difficulty with giving it more than minimal weight is that it is mixed up in her report. Those matters are mixed up with your drug use which you described as a major factor affecting your behaviours.
[7] R v Verdins (2007) VSCA 102, [32].
48In the circumstances, in relation to a reduction of your moral culpability for your offending, I consider that to have only a small role to play overall in the sentencing task the Court has before it.
49I also consider that the assessment Ms Cidoni makes about your future risk of committing family violence means that specific deterrence and community protection become important considerations in the sentencing task.
50Finally, I accept that based on what appears at paragraph 96 of Ms Cidoni's report, that Verdins limbs 5 and 6 are enlivened, that is that you will find and have, no doubt, found custody to be more difficult than someone who does not suffer from the conditions that she has diagnosed you with and, further, there is a significant risk of future deterioration in your mental health as a result of your incarceration. In those circumstances I have moderated the sentence that I impose in your case to some extent.
Criminal History
51You have a lengthy criminal history which you have admitted. There are relevant priors, for example in relation to possession of weapons, assault with a weapon. Of particular concern is the most recent matter for which you were sentenced in this court, by His Honour Judge Mullaly on 30 October 2014. His Honour sentenced you to a sentence of five years and six months with a non- parole period of four years.
52That offending involved intentionally causing serious injury; possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption; contravening a family violence intervention order; carrying a prohibited weapon without exemption; harassing a witness and possessing a drug of dependence. Of particular concern was the serious family violence that you engaged in that gave rise to the main offence being the intentionally causing serious injury offence.
53The concerning aspect of that sentence in relation to the offending before the
Court is that you clearly have not been deterred from offending. Whilst I do accept your counsel's submission that the offending that is before the Court presently is not of a nature that is anywhere near as serious as the offending that His Honour sentenced you for in 2014, it is still a concern that that sentence does not appear to have had the deterrent effect that no doubt His Honour hoped it would have done.
Consideration
54Turning then to consideration of the appropriate sentence in this case. In light of all of the above I consider that your rehabilitation whilst always important is of lesser concern than general deterrence and denunciation and protection of the community. I consider these to the be key sentencing considerations.
55Your counsel sought a combination sentence of time served which exceeds 300 days plus a Community Correction Order. I rejected that on the sentence indication- nothing that I've heard since then changes my view. I agree with the prosecution that only a head sentence and a non-parole period are appropriate in this case, having regard to the nature of the offending, your history and the matters of mitigation that have been referred to above.
56I note that in mitigation of sentence your plea of guilty is a matter of considerable utilitarian benefit to the court, saving the court time and also saving witnesses the ordeal of having to give evidence. In relation to a plea of guilty at this time, as the Court of Appeal has made clear in the case of Worboyes,[8] you are entitled to an additional discount because of the backlog that the court is continuing to deal with.
[8]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
Orders
57Turning to the individual sentences that I impose in your case.
58On Charge 1, make threat to inflict serious injury, you are convicted and
sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
59On Charge 2, prohibited person possess firearm, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
60On Charge 3, store firearm in an insecure manner whilst unlicenced, you are sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
61On Charge 4, persistently contravene family violence intervention order, you are sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.
62On Charge 5, attempting to pervert the course of justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment.
63On the related summary offences, on Summary Charge 3, breaching a family violence intervention order, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
64On Summary Charge 4, commit indictable offence on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
65Summary Charge 5, possess controlled weapon without lawful excuse, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
66And on the charge of possessing cartridge ammunition with a licence or permit, Summary Charge 12, you are convicted and fined $500.
67The court has to impose a sentence overall that is proportionate to your criminality, that is the principle of totality. And the way in which the law requires the court to achieve what is a just outcome and appropriate sentence is by appropriate cumulation of the individual sentences, so that the overall sentence that is imposed is proportionate to the offending.
68In doing that I consider the most serious offence to be Charge 5, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and that is the base sentence.
69I order that eight months of the sentence on Charge 1, 10 months of the
sentence on Charge 2, one month of the sentence on Charge 3, three months of the sentence on Charge 4, and one month of the sentence on Summary Charge 3, together with the sentence on Summary Charge 4, which is one month and the sentence on Summary Charge 5, all of those sentences are to be cumulative - served cumulatively on the base sentence, which is the sentence on Charge 5.
70That gives a total effective sentence of three years and three months. And I order that you are not eligible for parole until you have served two years of that sentence.
71Can I confirm the pre-sentence declaration with counsel? I have got 358 days, does that sound right Ms Stokes?
72MS STOKES: Yes, Your Honour.
73HIS HONOUR: And to confirm that with you Mr Sood, 358?
74MR SOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
75HIS HONOUR: All right. I will declare, pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), that 358 days that you served on remand, is to be reckoned against the sentence imposed by the court today.
76Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I declare that if you had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty of the charges, you would have received a total effective sentence of four years and seven months with a non- parole period of three years and three months.
77And finally Ms Stokes, I think there are some forfeiture orders that are sought by the prosecution?
78MS STOKES: I think the forfeiture orders have been filed.
79HIS HONOUR: Have they been filed? And you've seen those Mr Sood?
80MR SOOD: Yes, Your Honour, I have.
81HIS HONOUR: Is there any opposition to me making the orders that are sought?
82MR SOOD: (Indistinct) Your Honour .
83HIS HONOUR: Sorry, I didn't quite catch that Mr Sood, I think it was a no.
84MR SOOD: Yes, it was a no, Your Honour, no opposition.
85HIS HONOUR: I'll make the forfeiture orders that are sought by the prosecution noting that there is no opposition to them.
- - -
Annexure
22. On 18 February 2022, the following conversation occurred between the accused and Lucinda:
MR VANDERGULIK: … all's you gotta do, right, is go, "I wanna retract me statements," right?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah.
MR VANDERGULIK: That fuckin' rat, right. Hey, do whatever. Keep a - have - keep
an order on me, get an order, like I said, [Iedida], and we can live together, right, no
domestic violence, right. You've gotta do this for yourself, right. But for me, right,
you just say, "I wanna retract" - you - you tell 'em you want to retract me statement.
If they go,
"Why?" - they're gunna jump and down, [Iedida], that's normal, right.
….
MR VANDERGULIK: … [Iedida], they've gotta be dropped, yeah. They've got - you've
just gotta walk in there and go, "I wish to retract my fuckin' statements." You can get
- you can keep that - - -
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah, I - I'll - - -
MR VANDERGULIK: - - - fuckin' order, right.
IEDIDA LUCINDA: I'll do that, but I'm telling ya now and I - - - MR VANDERGULIK: Yeah.
23. After some further discussion Iedida agreed to retract her statement.
24. On 23 February 2022 the following conversation occurred between the accused and Iedida.
IEDIDA LUCINDA: "I - I need to speak to him and I need to sit down with him and re- do a
statement."
MR VANDERGULIK: Just - re-do it? You've just gotta retract it, [Iedida]. IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah, and I need to re-do another one.
MR VANDERGULIK: Yeah. What do you mean? Don't - but, [Iedida], you don't need to.
Don't give 'em anything. Like IEDIDA LUCINDA: No, but the - - -
MR VANDERGULIK: But listen, you don't need to.
25. On 26 February 2022 the following conversation occurred between the accused and Iedida:
MR VANDERGULIK: Have you sorted your statement out? IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yes, I'm sorting it out.
MR VANDERGULIK: When?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: He's not happy about - - -
MR VANDERGULIK: Him? What's he saying, then. IEDIDA LUCINDA: Conner ..........
MR VANDERGULIK: Hey?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Conner.
MR VANDERGULIK: Yeah. IEDIDA LUCINDA: Mm.
MR VANDERGULIK: What's he, fuckin', on about, what's he saying?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Just, he - he hasn't really said anything. I know he doesn't want me to
change it.
MR VANDERGULIK: Well, [Iedida], you've got to, right. You know you know the one
you fuckin' wrote that - the one that got typed, yeah, do you know that one? IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah.
MR VANDERGULIK: That's the one that they read out in the fuckin' court, [Iedida], that I've got - - -
IEDIDA LUCINDA: O.K.
MR VANDERGULIK: - - - this gun, that gun, fuckin', that I seen youse going in the
room. [Iedida], you never seen the fuckin' gun, do you know what I mean. IEDIDA LUCINDA: I never once said I seen a gun in the room.
MR VANDERGULIK: Hey?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: I never once said I seen a gun in the room - - - MR VANDERGULIK: That's bullshit, [Iedida].
IEDIDA LUCINDA: - - - ever.
MR VANDERGULIK: It's on paper.
IEDIDA LUCINDA: No, I didn't. Well, that's not what I fuckin' said.
MR VANDERGULIK: [Iedida], it's on paper, it's like, you seen the gun that looked like a
pistol in the main room, fuckin', I could read 'em to you, [Iedida]. That's what the
- - -
IEDIDA LUCINDA: You could read 'em to me, I'm telling ya - - -
MR VANDERGULIK: This is the typed one that'll get read out to the court by the
prosecutions. Do you know what I'm saying? IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah. When's it going to court?
MR VANDERGULIK: Well, it's s'posed to be the 4th of March. IEDIDA LUCINDA: Mm.
MR VANDERGULIK: Huh?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah, all right.
MR VANDERGULIK: What do you mean, "Yeah, right." IEDIDA LUCINDA: I said, "Yes, all right."
26. On 27 February 2022 the accused contacted Iedida by telephone. During that call the following exchange occurred:
MR VANDERGULIK: Fucked if I know. Listen, when are you gunna be going fuckin'
back to the jack shop, [Iedida]?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Tomorrow.
MR VANDERGULIK: Hey?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Tomorrow.
MR VANDERGULIK: Listen, and you know when you went in and fuckin', you know,
you made that fuckin' statement at the jack shop, whatever one the fuck it is, yeah.
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Mm.
MR VANDERGULIK: [Iedida], you've just gotta jump up and down about the fuckin' -
retracting the cunt, yeah? IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah, I know. MR VANDERGULIK: Hey?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: But I can tell you now, I never once ever made a statement saying I
seen that in the bedroom. Never. MR VANDERGULIK: [Iedida] - -
IEDIDA LUCINDA: So why they've put that on there, I don't know.
MR VANDERGULIK: Yeah, well, when I fuckin' - the next time I come ring you or
whatever, I'll read it out to ya. IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah.
MR VANDERGULIK: But you know, [Iedida], there's fuckin' four pages. IEDIDA LUCINDA: I'm gunna ask 'em to see it.
MR VANDERGULIK: Hey?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Tomorrow, I'm gunna ask them to see it tomorrow.
MR VANDERGULIK: Not only that, [Iedida], you know, you're telling him that I've got a
fuckin' shotgun and you're telling him that I've got a fuckin' pistol and you're telling
him that I've got another 22. You're, like, this - - - IEDIDA LUCINDA: No, I didn't. No, I did not.
MR VANDERGULIK: [Iedida], there's three - there's three statements, you know
- - -
IEDIDA LUCINDA: I'll tell ya what I told 'em. Do you wanna know what I told 'em? IEDIDA LUCINDA: That you've got a pistol and a sawn-off.
MR VANDERGULIK: Yeah. And another one. IEDIDA LUCINDA: Mm. Nuh.
MR VANDERGULIK: Yeah, well, it's in the fuckin' statements, yeah. IEDIDA LUCINDA: Nuh.
27. After some further discussion about changing the statement the following conversation occurred:
MR VANDERGULIK: Fuckin' hell. Anyways, look, what time are you gunna go in
there tomorrow, huh?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: I'll be there at 10.00.
28. On 28 February 2022 the accused contacted Lucinda by telephone from Ravenhall. During that call Lucinda asked the accused to arrange for his solicitor to call her for advice about ‘lifting this statement.’ The following exchange occurred:
IEDIDA LUCINDA: I went in there today.
MR VANDERGULIK: And what happened? Huh?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah. Well, I think they - I think they've withdrew it, but he's not happy.
MR VANDERGULIK: They've withdrew it? IEDIDA LUCINDA: Yeah, I think so.
MR VANDERGULIK: How do you know?
IEDIDA LUCINDA: Because I signed a thing that says that I want to withdraw.
29. On 1 March 2022 the accused contacted Heracles Neptuno by telephone and requested that Neptuno contact Clio and ask her to withdraw her statement. In that call the accused said:
MR VANDERGULIK: Do me a favour [Heracles], ask [Phyllis] if she’ll fuckin go and pull-retract
her statement.
MR VANDERGULIK: ‘just tell her I don’t want no fuckin dramas, I know she’s
done it cos of [Iedida], right … could she retract it mate’.
0
3
0