Director of Public Prosecutions v Young

[2015] VCC 499

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-13-00651

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

STEVEN YOUNG

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCINERNEY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 April 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 April 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v YOUNG
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VCC 499

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:  Sentence – common law assault – criminal damage – aggravated burglary (person present)

Legislation Cited:     Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:            Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA 302

Sentence:Convicted and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 months imprisonment

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J. Livitsanos	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms K. Blair	Ann Valos Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR: 

1Mr Young has pleaded guilty to five charges in Indictment No. C12544579; three counts of common assault, being Charges 1, 4 and 5, one count of criminal damage, being damage to the windows of a home, and of course the most serious charge, one of aggravated burglary.  The maximum offence for the other charge, respectively the assault, five years, the criminal damage 10 years.  However, one jumps into the big league when you are charged with aggravated burglary and the maximum offence prescribed by Parliament is 25 years. 

2We have recently been assisted by, not so much a guideline judgment, but a judgment in setting out how Courts should go about sentencing in aggravated burglary cases in Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA 302.

3Mr Young has had a lengthy criminal history.  He disputes my suggestion that he has become institutionalised and indeed the matters put by his counsel as to the steps taken in his life from 2002 tend to support his comments.  As I said to him in Court today, let us hope he is right, and he shows us all that he is right in the future.

4Coming to the offences themselves, as I classified them, the assaults are clearly at the lower end.  There are no victim impact statements in regard to the assaults on the first two victims.  We do have a victim impact statement, Exhibit B, in so far as the third victim is concerned.  In so far as the emotional impact upon her, there being actually no physical impact, in the circumstances, an object used in that way, combined with the comment, would in my view lead to no other conclusion than she reached, although there is no evidence there was a gun there.  But of course, the whole episode is something that has impacted upon her.  She is a young girl.  The comments she made are not necessarily exaggerated.  She does have concern and one can imagine, given the circumstances as have been detailed in Exhibit A, this would have been a pretty frightening experience especially for a young girl. 

5However, as I say, one has to classify these charges in the circumstances as one finds them in this Court, and I find the common assault charges are at the lower order.  Criminal damage, on its face seems a bit more serious, however, fortunately the proprietor has got a very reasonable repair job done, so, in effect, the only cost by way of damage, apart from the affront to their ownership, was the sum of $100.  As I say, the difficult issue in this case is the one of aggravated burglary, to which Mr Young has pleaded guilty.  I do not resile from my comments.  It seems to me that that is a very valuable plea.  The circumstances of this case are such that of course Mr Young should not have come back. However, he did.  I am not quite sure what was the aggravating factor, but there was clearly some background between him and/or his son and these young people and he has lost his head, but, as I say, it seems to me that by way of comparison to the aggravated burglaries dealt with in this Court, the proposition put to me that this is quite of the lower order, indeed, I would put it at a lower order than was put by both counsel, needs to be taken into account. 

6In so far as the priors, they have been admitted.  One is never sentenced for one's priors.  Again, however, of course, when you have got a serious set of priors and you have had gaol before for a considerable period, it illuminates the criminality in this matter and limits the alternative remedies.  I accept the matters put to me by Ms Blair this morning, in particular the matters set out in Exhibit 1, being the outline of the defence submissions.  Ms Blair essentially went to the terms of the offences itself, its classification and also relied by way of background material on the exhibited medical material and I take that into account. 

7I accept that, with his current condition there would be a burden of imprisonment, especially in regard to the hepatitis, although as I understand it, he will not be on his own.  I also accept that he has had difficulties in his life.  Things will not be that easy in the sense of his anxiety issues, which were referred to by Mr Young and Professor Carroll, and I accept that prison itself will limit his contact with his son.  However, as I said, there is only one person responsible for that.

8Insofar as taking into account all of the matters and in particular the issues of specific deterrence, general deterrence, and the need for punishment, there is no doubt that the victims would have been quite terrified.  However, all of this has to be balanced against the actual circumstances of the offences, and the matters put to by Ms Blair. 

9In the circumstances, I intend to sentence you as follows, Mr Young, if you could stand up please. 

10Insofar as the assault counts, they are as set out in the information, that is Counts 1, 4 and 5, I will sentence you to a period of imprisonment of three months. In regard to the criminal damage charge, that is Charge 2, I will sentence you to a period of imprisonment of six months and in regard to the aggravated burglary, a period of imprisonment of 14 months. I would order that the minimum period that you must serve before being eligible for parole is a period of eight months, which is an appropriate order under s.11 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘the Act’) and pursuant to s.18 of the Act, I would order that the 149 days that Mr Young has served, be deemed to be service of this plea.

11In layman's language, Mr Young, I have taken into account what you have served, you have got another three on top, all right?

12OFFENDER:  Thanks very much, Your Honour.

13HIS HONOUR:  I do not want to see you back again - love you to prove me wrong, all right.

14OFFENDER:  I think I'm going to, Your Honour.

15HIS HONOUR:  Good.  Look after your boy.

16OFFENDER:  I will.  That's what I want to do, Your Honour.  I'm going step up to it, Your Honour.

17HIS HONOUR:  No grog and drugs.

18OFFENDER:  Yes.

19HIS HONOUR: Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Act, obviously in the circumstances, had Mr Young not pleaded guilty, I would've sentenced him to a period of imprisonment of 18 months with a minimum period of 12.

20MR LIVITSANOS:  If Your Honour pleases.  Thank you, Your Honour.

21HIS HONOUR:  Good luck.

22OFFENDER:  Thank you very much. 

23HIS HONOUR: I thank both counsel for the professional way in which this plea was attached, or perhaps I should say prosecuting counsel's instructor. 

‑ ‑ ‑