R v Bloomfield
[2015] NSWDC 176
•31 July 2015
|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | R v Bloomfield |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2015] NSWDC 176 |
Hearing Date(s): | 31 July 2015 |
Date of Orders: | 31 July 2015 |
Decision Date: | 31 July 2015 |
Jurisdiction: | Criminal |
Before: | Berman SC DCJ |
Decision: | Taking into account the matters on a Form 1, the offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 3 years and a head sentence of 6 years |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Forms 1 - Aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence - Stealing - Obtain money by deception - Aggravated enter dwelling house with intent to steal - Possess cannabis - Cycle of offending and custody |
Cases Cited: | R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 |
Category: | Sentence |
Parties: | The Crown |
Representation: | Solicitors: |
File Number(s): | 2015/10531 |
SENTENCE
HIS HONOUR: Some of the most common offences that courts deal with these days are offences of breaking and entering and stealing so that money can be obtained to fund drug addiction. Addicts need to spend a great deal of money to satisfy their addiction and so almost invariably they resort to crime. In this case Mr Bloomfield, although apparently in the past demonstrating some ability to stay off the drugs and thus stay out of trouble, recommenced substantial drug use and committed a significant number of offences as a result.
There are two offences for which I must sentence him. To each of those is attached a Form 1 covering further offences. The first offence is an offence of aggravated break, enter and commit a serious indictable offence, in this case stealing. The offender jumped over a front veranda wall of some premises in Hamilton and opened a closed but unlocked sliding door whilst people were asleep in the premises. He took some passports, two wallets, a Mastercard and a house key. He then left the way he came. The maximum penalty for an offence of that kind is 20 years imprisonment. It carries with it a standard non-parole period of five years. In deciding the sentence for that offence I have taken into account both the standard non-parole period and the maximum penalty in deciding the appropriate sentence. My reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole period do appear in these remarks on sentence.
After taking the property from those premises the offender committed a number of crimes which appear on the Form 1 attached to that offence. Using cards taken from the premises he obtained property by deception on three occasions, making purchases of $124.57, $120.40 and $30.
A few days after committing that offence he committed another one of a similar kind. This time, because he went through a door which was left ajar, he did not break into the premises. On this occasion he committed an offence of aggravated enter with intent to steal. Once again people were asleep inside when the offender entered the premises through a rear open sliding door. He took two handbags hanging by the kitchen bench as well as a watch, a credit card holder and some personal cards. Later that same day he committed a number of other crimes appearing on the Form 1 attached to that offence. He obtained property by deception using one of the cards that he had taken and then entered into secured areas at Ravenshaw Street, The Junction. In one of those he entered a car and stole an iPod, satnav, GPS and some coins.
When he was arrested on 12 January he was found to be in possession of not only items linked to the offences I have described but also a small amount of cannabis. The possession of that drug also appears on the second Form 1.
The offender is 38 years of age. He is of Aboriginal Australian heritage. He was brought up on an Aboriginal mission near Taree. He told a psychologist that this was a negative area in which to grow up because of excessive alcohol and violence perpetrated by other individuals who lived on the mission. The offender was raised in the context of antisocial behaviours and individuals.
His home life was chaotic. His mother was an alcoholic and his stepfather was violent and so at 15 years of age he decided to leave the family environment. He went to Sydney. He lived on the streets in Newtown for a few years in the company of his maternal aunt, returned briefly to Taree to try and complete his schooling, but was unsuccessful and so went back to Sydney. At one point he and his aunt obtained a Department of Housing home but soon after that Mr Bloomfield began to be sentenced to periods of custody. A cycle of offending, custody, release, offending, custody and release has then developed.
It has to be said that not everyone has the same advantages in growing up. The choices that individuals make as they develop are clearly influenced by the choices of others around them. People who are brought up in law-abiding households find themselves in an environment where good behaviour is modelled. Unfortunately for the offender, he was brought up in an environment which modelled aggression, excessive use of alcohol, and crime. Mr Bloomfield’s decision to begin to use drugs and then to commit numerous offences to support his habit has to be looked at in the context of his sad and much less than ideal upbringing.
A psychological report tendered on Mr Bloomfield’s behalf explains his drug taking history and the circumstances in which, having been doing relatively well for some time on a Drug Court program, he relapsed to the stage where he was using methylamphetamine daily for the few weeks before committing these offences.
It is apparent that custody really holds no fears for the offender. If he is not yet institutionalised he soon will be. That is a terribly sad thing to say about a 38 year old man. He will, I expect, eventually reach the age where he looks back on his life with a great deal of regret. Through spending a great deal of his adult life in custody he has missed out on many of the things which freedom brings.
However, it is my duty to sentence him when he commits criminal offences and other judges in my position will continue to send him to gaol when he offends as he has on this occasion. It is a very serious matter to break into someone’s home when they are inside or enter through a door which is ajar. Not only do people suffer a financial loss but the victims of such offences almost invariably feel more apprehension when they are at home. Items of sentimental value are often taken and the effects of offences such as these extend far beyond the individual householders. Insurance premiums go up. There is additional security required on houses and so there is rightfully a great deal of community concern with offences of this type. That concern was reflected firstly by the guideline judgment of R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327and secondly by the selection of break, enter and steal as one of those offences which carries with it a standard non-parole period.
The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and so the sentences I impose upon him will be 25% less than they would otherwise have been. I will backdate the sentence I am about to impose to 24 March 2015. I have done this because whilst the offender has been in custody for a longer period, for some of that time he was serving sentences of imprisonment.
I have applied the principle of totality in the selection of the aggregate sentence I will shortly announce and of course in the selection of the indicative sentences which underlie that aggregate sentence.
There are clearly special circumstances in this case. Although I could not say that the prospects of Mr Bloomfield rehabilitating are good, it is in his interests and perhaps more importantly in the community’s interest that he be given as much assistance as possible to break the cycle of offending and custody, offending and custody.
Were it not for the circumstance that I am imposing an aggregate sentence, I would have sentenced Mr Bloomfield as follows. For the offence of aggravated break, enter and steal I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of two and a half years.
For the offence of aggravated enter dwelling with intent to steal I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment of three years.
The aggregate sentence I impose consists of a non-parole period of three years to date from 24 March 2015 and a head sentence of six years, thus the non-parole period will expire on 23 March 2018 on which day the offender is eligible to be released to parole.
**********