R v Christiansz
[2015] VSC 166
•30 April 2015
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 0094 of 2014
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| JOSEPH GEORGE CHRISTIANSZ |
---
JUDGE: | KING J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 March 2015 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 30 April 2015 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Christiansz |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VSC 166 |
---
Acquitted on one count of attempted murder of a police officer; Acquitted of three counts of common assault relating to three police officers.
Convicted: Using a firearm to resist arrest; Common Assault of a police officer; Being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
Verdins not applicable - Sentencing Act s 16.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr R Gibson | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms C Randazzo SC | Melasseca Baylee & Kelly |
HER HONOUR:
Joseph George Christiansz, on 9 April you were convicted by a jury of one count of using a firearm to resist arrest and one count of common assault related to a then serving police officer, Sergeant Sean Raab. You had, prior to the commencement of the trial, pleaded guilty to one charge of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. You were acquitted of three counts of common assault relating to the police officers Normoyle, Parker and Rogers. You were also acquitted of one charge of attempted murder, as a result of a direction to the jury that there was insufficient evidence to convict you on that charge. The trial commenced on 18 March 2015 and had continued through until 8 April 2015, including a five day break for Easter between the 2nd and 6th April.
In my opinion this is a case that should have been heard in the County Court and not one that occupied three weeks of the trial division of the Supreme Court. It was here because the charge of attempted murder is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There are some points that should be noted, first that when you were originally charged with offences as a result of your conduct on 12 November 2012, you were not charged with an offence of attempted murder, that charge was not laid until the time you were originally listed for a committal hearing in the Magistrates’ Court. Second, that the magistrate who ultimately heard the committal, after the matter was adjourned to allow you time to consider and prepare for the new charge, refused to commit you on the charge of attempted murder, although committing you on the other charges. Despite the Magistrate’s refusal to commit on the charge of attempted murder, a special decision to file a direct indictment must have been made in this case pursuant to Part 8 Div 2 of the Public Prosecutions Act 1994. A director’s committee, pursuant to s 45C, must have been convened for the purpose of providing advice to the director in respect of the special decision. Third, when the matter was first brought before this court, it was the subject of some expressed surprise from the judge before whom the indictment was filed, who indicated that on the evidence in the case, it would be exceedingly difficult to prove the offence, and it was the subject of some discussions between myself and the prosecutor pointing out the lack of evidentiary basis for the laying of the charge.
It is, of course, an executive matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and those who sign indictments, whether it is appropriate for a matter to be charged by way of indictment, but it does behove those who are responsible for the laying of indictments to consider the criticism of three separate independent judicial officers, who all foresee very similar issues confronting the prosecution of a particular charge.
I must consider in your favour the fact that you were presented on an exceedingly serious charge, as well as charges relating to a number of police officers, and you were acquitted of that most serious charge as well as of the charges relating to three out of the four police officers.
The facts in this case of which I am satisfied, consistent with the verdicts of the jury, are that in early November 2012 the South Melbourne and Stonnington Criminal Investigation Units commenced an operation which related to a number of theft and deception offences. Two of those offences included theft of a black Range Rover Sport, which was valued at $180,000 and the theft of a Holden Maloo utility. You were one of the suspects in respect of the theft of those cars, the other being your then friend Jamie.
On Monday 12 November 2012, four police members from the Melbourne Divisional Response Unit attended at the apartment complex above the Etihad Stadium in Docklands, arriving just after 11am. They attended at the car park and located the two stolen vehicles to which I have referred. The police were in surveillance vehicles, an unmarked camper van vehicle and an SUV. The intention was to arrest any persons that approached either of those vehicles.
The four police officers were Sergeant (as he then was) Sean Raab, Senior Constable Warren Normoyle, Senior Constable Simeon Parker, and Constable Sarah Rogers. They had been present for a considerable period of time prior to your arrival at around 3.05pm, both vehicles had been disabled prior to your arrival.
You came downstairs from the apartment you were renting, being the penthouse, Apartment 4003 on the 40th floor of the Docklands apartment complex. You came out of the lift, approached the surveillance van, peered in the windows of the van, were unable to see the officers inside because of the window treatment, walked to the Holden Maloo and appeared to examine it, and then proceeded to the black Range Rover Sport vehicle parked quite some distance from the Holden Maloo and the police undercover combi-van, closer to the police SVU. You went to the driver’s side of that vehicle, opened the door, sat down, appeared to look inside the vehicle whilst your body was still partly remaining outside, and then left the vehicle and commenced walking down the aisle behind the vehicle. You had originally crossed paths, on your way to the range rover, with Sergeant Raab and you each acknowledged the other. Sergeant Raab had continued on towards his vehicle, and indicated to Senior Constable Normoyle, with hand movements, that you in fact were the person that they were seeking to arrest, the police officers having previously obtained a photo of you.
Normoyle who was in the vehicle then got out of the vehicle, Sergeant Raab was ahead of him, he walked towards you and, as he walked towards you, he produced his lanyard and said words to the effect of ‘police mate, let’s have a chat’. Senior Constable Normoyle was coming up behind Sergeant Raab at the time that this was stated. You immediately screamed, ‘No, no, no’ and began to run to the back and on an angle for a short distance of one or two steps, and then indicated that you were about to run forward. Senior Constable Normoyle moved to cut off that avenue of escape, and Sergeant Raab moved towards you, as he did so you reached into your clothing with your right hand and produced a loaded .22 calibre revolver. You pointed it directly at Sergeant Raab, at his face, with your arm fully extended. It was held in this position for a very short time as Sergeant Raab came to a stop, aware of the gun pointing in his face and he then began taking evasive action, turning, running and dodging away from you and the potential that you would shoot him in the face.
Senior Constable Normoyle was screaming, ‘gun, gun, gun’ and had withdrawn his firearm to point at you. You commenced running as fast as you could in the direction of the Holden Maloo. Parker and Rogers, who were in the combi-van at the other end of the car park near the lifts had started to leave that vehicle, with Parker first, followed by Rogers.
I am unable to say exactly step-by-step where you ran, as this was undoubtedly a scene of fast moving actions, chaos and screaming. What I am satisfied of is, that you had produced a gun and pointed it quite directly at the face of a police officer, who was attempting to arrest you ‑ undoubtedly causing him to be frozen in fear prior to the adrenalin kicking in and he then turning and running for his life. That you have run towards the Holden Maloo is the most that I can say about the direction you took. I am unable to know exactly where you were when you were shot, but you were shot on two occasions by Senior Constable Parker. He shot you because he saw the gun pointed at Sergeant Raab and thought you were going to kill him. You were some distance away when he first shot at you. I am unable to say where you were when you were first hit, or even which part of your body was hit first, although I would presume that once you were hit in the hip it would be difficult for you to continue running for anything other than a couple of steps. You were shot in the buttock, which damaged quite severely the hip area associated with that buttock and in the back of the left upper arm. That bullet is believed to have travelled through your upper arm and into the lower arm fragmenting and smashing your wrist area. You collapsed at the side of the black Holden Maloo. Some of the police officers appeared to be under the impression you were attempting to jump over that vehicle, but I am unable to say one way or another.
Those details are not in fact important, what is important is that you pointed the gun directly at Sergeant Raab and used it to attempt to escape from a lawful arrest by the police. The firearm, together with your sunglasses, was found on the other side of the Holden Maloo. It was loaded and contained one spent shell and five live rounds. That spent shell had not been fired on that day. The revolver could not be fired unless it was cocked using the cocking mechanism. There was no evidence from any police officer that you had in fact cocked the gun and I accept that as a fact. You were familiar with how to use the gun, having fired it in that same garage some time earlier – a matter of weeks earlier - when you were present with your friend Jamie.
Evidence was given by Sergeant Raab as to two jerks of the firearm whilst it was pointed at him. I do not act upon those as being any indication of you attempting to pull the trigger, because to do so would be highly speculative, and inconsistent with the directed acquittal, but it does go to the issue of fear in which you placed that officer.
It was submitted by your counsel that the evidence of the other three officers as to the pointing of the gun by you at them, I should disregard and treat as the jury rejecting them as witnesses of truth, in respect of the firearm being pointed at them at different times. I do not agree, Sergeant Normoyle, stated that the firearm was pointed at him only as it was swung around to point at Sergeant Raab, and I am far from surprised that a jury acquitted in respect of that charge as there was nothing to indicate an intent on your part to place Mr Normoyle in fear. In respect of the evidence of Parker and Rogers, the evidence of Parker is that he saw you pointing the gun directly at Sergeant Raab and that he was fearful that you were going to shoot Sergeant Raab. What he stated was that you in fact were ‘following Sergeant Raab so he appeared to be sort of chasing Sergeant Raab and pointing the firearm at him at the time. His back was partway to me and the gun, the firearm, was pointed out in front of him’. Parker said that he initially fired one shot which did not appear to have any particular effect upon you, in that, you turned around, did not fall down and you commenced to run towards the area where Parker was. He had observed you pointing the firearm at Sergeant Raab and he described you as being very, very, very close to one-another and Sergeant Raab appearing to be trying to scramble, turn and twist and get out of your way. He said he thought that Sergeant Raab was about to be shot. He thought that as you ran towards him and Sarah Rogers that you still had your arm extended, with the firearm in it and that it was pointed at either himself or at Sarah Rogers and he continued firing.
Sarah Rogers was of the view that you came running towards them with the firearm held out in front of your body and pointing at them. She was not out of the van and observing the interaction with Sergeant Raab, as she came second out of the van. She said she observed a figure run towards them with his right arm out-stretched and a firearm being pointed in their direction. She said she heard gunshots and ducked, veering off to her left. She had no idea where the shots came from and it was not until after the shots that she noticed Senior Constable Parker had his arm extended with a firearm in it.
The jury have acquitted you in respect of each charge of common assault relating to those three officers and I cannot assume the basis on which that occurred. As indicated earlier, this was a scene of fast action, chaos, screaming and great tension and fear. The jury have given you the benefit of the doubt in respect of this matter and, accordingly, I must determine the facts consistent with the jury verdict, and as a result can only be satisfied that you pointed the firearm at Sergeant Raab rather than at any of the other officers, either with or without any intent to cause them to fear for their own safety. It is on that basis that I will sentence you. The verdict does not mean that they disbelieved the officers, merely that at least one element of the offence had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
When you were arrested and as you were on the ground, you were searched and located in your pockets was a false driver’s licence, $5,000 cash and a small quantity of methylamphetamine. A search of your premises subsequently revealed $5,000 cash secreted within a hidden area of your en-suite bathroom together with a plastic bag containing a significant quantity of heroin in the same location.
You gave evidence on oath before the jury. Your evidence being to the effect, dealing with just the important issues, that as you left the Range Rover Sport and headed down the aisle with your head down, you were approached by Sergeant Raab, who said ‘G’day mate, you’re under arrest for the theft of two motor vehicles’ and you could see the police lanyard around his neck. It was apparent to you that he was a police officer.
You told the jury that you took a step backwards and said to Sergeant Raab, ‘Listen mate I’ve got a firearm’ with your hands held at about waist-level. You said, Raab just kept looking at you – didn’t say anything. You said you looked down, that you were wearing baggy G-Star Jeans with deep pockets, and the firearm was in fact in your pocket. That you took your right hand, put it in your pocket, pulled out the firearm in a manner that the firearm was next to your leg and pointing towards the ground and then squatted on the ground, which you demonstrated to the jury and then slid your firearm along the floor away from yourself and the police officers and you demonstrated a fairly wide-arc in which you drew your hand across the front of your clothing, and with a backhand gesture slid the firearm across the floor. All of this being done with your head down. You said when you raised your head you saw Sergeant Raab and Senior Constable Normoyle running towards the Colorado ute.
You claimed neither police officer said anything to you when you said you had a gun, neither police officer said or did anything in respect of taking possession of the gun but merely fled in fear. You stated that after they had fled you then stood up removed your sunglasses which were on the top of your head to your right hand, you removed your keys to the Holden Maloo ute from your left hand pocket and then started running towards the Holden Maloo with the intention of absconding. You said that at some point you heard the words ‘gun, gun, gun’ being screamed out. When you were running you said that you were running full-pelt and as you were running there was no one visible in your direction, that you could not see anybody there and all of a sudden you lost the ability to use your left leg when you were about two or three metres away from the Maloo. You claimed you had your keys in your left hand and your sun glasses in the right, not a firearm. You described what occurred on that occasion as the police shooting an unarmed man in the back, you said it was an attempt by the police to murder you. All of this on oath.
The jury rejected your version of events, unsurprisingly. It was, having heard it, in my view, a farrago of lies. I have no doubt you have convinced yourself by this stage that you are indeed the victim in this case. Let me assure you Mr Christiansz you are not. The only reason you have been shot is because you produced a firearm and pointed it at a police officer at point blank range. That police officer was attempting to lawfully arrest you for a series of crimes that you had committed. Every other police officer present believed that you were going to kill or shoot Sergeant Raab, certainly he believed it. The police officer shot you in self-defence of his colleague.
You told the jury you were going shopping for clothes and some cooking ingredients and yet you were taking with you a fully loaded revolver, $5000 cash and your ‘ice’. Your actions cause me great concern. The best description I could give for you on this day is that you were totally out of control, you seemed to have watched too many gangster movies, this is Melbourne, not the mean streets of an American ghetto, we do not have shootouts with police. It was like you were living out some king of fantasy in which you believed that you were some kind of top level criminal. At that time you had been, and were continuing to, employ a minder at the cost of $1,000 a day to be at your beck and call as you put it ‘24/7’, for reasons that you described as relating to a business disagreement, and which I found entirely implausible, all of this occurring at a time when you were unemployed, and possessing no apparent source of income.
You have prior convictions. You have spent time in prison and nothing seems to have taught you any type of lesson, your behaviour, if anything, has got significantly worse. The courts can and do take an extremely poor view of persons who behave in the manner that you did on this day, producing a firearm and pointing it in the particularly threatening manner that you did at a police officer, an officer that was performing duties protecting the community from your criminal behaviour. Police officers in that position deserve the full protection of the law, and that those who threaten them in this manner will receive condign punishment.
In relation to the offences I am sentencing you for, you pleaded guilty, albeit at a late stage, just prior to the empanelment of the jury, to being a prohibited person possessing a firearm, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. You have been convicted of using a firearm to prevent a lawful apprehension which is an offence that carries 10 years’ imprisonment and one charge of common assault which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment. You have no pre‑sentence detention that I need to consider as you are currently undergoing sentence. You were on bail at the time of the commission of these offences, an aggravating matter, which results in the court being required to consider, pursuant to s 16 of the Sentencing Act, the issue of concurrency of these sentences, a matter I will deal with shortly.
The current sentences you are undergoing are those imposed firstly by Judge Coish of the County Court on 3 October 2013 where you pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of motor vehicles. Those related to the Maloo utility and the Range Rover, the motor vehicles for which you were being arrested in this case, a charge of attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception, burglary, four charges, another charge of theft and one of criminal damage. You received a total sentence of 3 years with a minimum non-parole period of 2 years and his Honour noted 326 days of pre-sentence detention. The head sentence for that is due to expire on 11 November 2015. The minimum non-parole period expired on 11 November 2014.
On 13 August 2014, you were dealt with by Judge Chettle of the County Court on one charge of dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The sentence imposed was 12 months’ imprisonment. Such sentence commenced on 13 August 2014 and you were ordered to be released on a recognisance release order after serving 6 months, that is, the recognisance release order was due to start on 12 February 2015. The period for which you had to be of good behaviour on the recognisance release order was a period of 2 years. I have read both of those sentences.
Your criminal history whilst not of great duration has certainly been diverse and has increased as time has gone on, rather than reduced. You have, apart from the sentences to which I just have referred, also been convicted on 1 February 2007 of three counts of obtain financial advantage by deception and three counts of attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception and sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months, with a pecuniary penalty of $353,524. Again on 13 March 2007 convicted on one charge of theft and one of burglary, and sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment on each count concurrent, with 3 months to be served cumulatively on the sentence then undergoing, making a new non parole period of 2 years and 6 months. Finally, on 26 November fined an aggregate of $500 for possession of amphetamine and cocaine.
I have received in this case a victim impact statement from the former Sergeant Raab. As a result of what occurred on this day, Sean Raab is no longer a serving police officer. He has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and has been pensioned out from the police force. He read his victim impact statement to the court and it is clear that he is overwhelmed by what occurred to him on this day. He continues to see a psychiatrist on a weekly basis, which he has done for over two years to this time. He suffers from violent nightmares, flashbacks of the incident, constant fear, loss of interest in life, being over-protective of his children and his surroundings, he lacks motivation and is dependent on medication to sleep and to reduce his anxiety. He had been a police officer for 25 years, a position he can no longer occupy. He receives less in the way of income and he has become, above all, fearful. His ultimate description is of relevance:
As I have previously stated, I was a very social person prior to this incident and now I rarely leave the house and feel very disinterested in gathering socially. I was once very social minded and interested in helping others. Currently, I feel that I cannot even help myself.
While these may seem to be extreme reactions, it is hard to know exactly how a person would react if a gun is thrust into their face and they believe they are about to die. One would expect that Sergeant Raab would have been a fairly robust character from all of that time involved in policing, but it just may have been the wrong time, the wrong incident or even the final straw. It matters little. What you have done, through your actions, is destroy the career of a police officer, cause his life now to be one of stress, concern, fear, sleeplessness and horrible recurring nightmares.
Your conviction and incarceration for those offences will not change Sean Raab’s life back to what it was, but they are matters that I have to, and will, take into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Equally, I have to take into account your personal circumstances.
You were born on 19 November 1977 and now aged 37. Your counsel did not discuss any of your personal background in the plea but relied upon the reports tendered to the court from Pamela Matthews and Dr Anthony Cidoni, psychiatrist. She did this with my permission, because at that stage you were trying to repair your relationship with your father from whom you have been estranged, and she was concerned that going through the materials and describing material of which your father was unaware could be traumatic to that attempt. It was explained and accepted that I would need to refer to some of those matters including the child of which you had not told him during my sentencing remarks and I presume you will have had the necessary discussions with your family.
You were born in Australia of Sri Lankan background. You grew up, until the age of 12, in Carnegie when you moved to Toorak with your parents who are now aged approximately 63 and 62. Your father worked as an accountant for a large firm, whilst your mother was a personal assistant to your father. You have a younger sister aged approximately 25 who had previously been a professional ballerina and has subsequently completed a psychology course at Swinburne University. You described delayed development as a child with a suspicion that you may have been autistic but an assessment around the age of 8 excluded that possibility. You told the psychiatrist that you were slow to read and write but that you were exceptionally good at maths and won the Premier’s Award in year 12 for receiving a perfect score in specialist maths. You described yourself as being the class clown and being suspended a few times at school for fighting.
Despite this, you completed Year 12 with tertiary studies following which you qualified in accounting. You worked for Ernst & Young for some five years, then for another company for one year and started your own firm in approximately 2010/2011. You said that you also owned a bar/nightclub for three years from the age of 25, and after your release from imprisonment sometime in 2008, you worked for two years for your father’s company and then eight months as finance director for Stockdale & Leggo, a real estate company. You also set up your own consultancy prior to setting up a property management company called Allianz Property Management. It was submitted that this was a very successful business but it is difficult to say if it was successful or not because it was certainly non-operational by the time that you were arrested and had been closed down, I believe, for some months prior. You claim it to be successful but it was during this time that you had that organisation that you were charged with the money laundering charge and arrested.
You had a lengthy relationship with a woman by the name of Ms Carlin and together you had a child. The child tragically died at the age of 1 after it fell off a change table, and your relationship ended shortly after that. Ultimately, you became involved in a four year relationship with a woman by the name of Ms Marchant, to whom you were engaged, although that had ceased at the time of your offending. Despite that, she was at court to support you at times during this trial, and on your plea, as a friend.
In discussion with psychologists you described your family life growing up as exceedingly strict. You were not allowed to go out outside of school hours. You said that you had no happy memories from your childhood other than Christmas and you reported domestic violence and child abuse from your father towards your mother and towards yourself. You stated that your parents were ‘controlling people, rich aristocracy facades, basically never saw dad growing up, worked for a big firm so not much time for me.’ You reported that you were in fact closest to your sister whilst you were growing up but you have also fallen out with her.
At the time that you purchased your nightclub called ‘Circus’ you stated to those assessing you that you also ‘got involved in the drug scene, spun out of control, at the same time that the accounting practice was going downhill’. In terms of your drug and alcohol usage, you reported to Pamela Matthews, psychologist, that you began drinking alcohol at the age of 16 and consuming between 2-4 litre of wine a night on weekends. At the age of 23 you commenced using ecstasy, having three to four pills every weekend and sometimes during the week until you were introduced to cocaine and amphetamines. You decreased your ecstasy use to once every fortnight until you were first imprisoned when you were 27.
Your counsel informed me that you ceased using any illegal substances whilst in prison. You were totally compliant with your two years of parole in which you used no illicit drugs, but recommenced using methamphetamine immediately at the expiration of your parole period, and you used methamphetamines and amphetamines interchangeably in 2012 using around a gram a day. You indicated that you had significant gambling involvement in the period of 2011 to 2012 and like most gamblers claim that you won, you stated that you could take it or leave it when you were there, you felt it gave you some relief and you were fairly good at it, in your own opinion.
During your first period of incarceration, you were prescribed the anti-depressant Effexor which you continued using for the two years whilst on parole. You determined to cease taking the medication once you had concluded your parole as you were dissatisfied with the weight gain which was a side effect. You also received counselling during your parole period from Dr Michael Papasava from the Chadstone area in relation to drug and alcohol support. You had previously been an in-patient prior to your first period of incarceration in the Raymond Harder Clinic and Drug Rehabilitation Centre in Ivanhoe.
In relation to the issues raised by the psychologist and the psychiatrist, I have a report dated 15 August 2013 from Pamela Matthews, forensic psychologist, as well as a report dated 23 July 2014 from the same author, together with a psychiatric report from Dr Anthony Cidoni dated 7 December 2012. The psychiatric report was prepared for the remand hearing. The first of the Matthews’ reports was prepared for the hearing before Judge Coish and the second for the hearing before Judge Chettle. It does not appear that you have been receiving any on-going psychiatric or psychological assistance from any of those practitioners during your time in custody.
In respect of diagnosis and opinion, in the report dated 2013 Pamela Mathews found that you used self-enhancing behaviour to provide a sense of self-worth, using luxury cars, nightclubs, gambling and substance use to provide a positive self-view and a sense of success, demonstrating features of a narcissistic personality disorder but not to such a level that it makes the criteria for that as a disorder. She was of the view that you met the criteria for a stimulant use disorder whereby you experienced a mal adaptive pattern of use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress and was of the view that such a condition would have disinhibited you increasing your likelihood of acting impulsively at the time of your various offences. She was of the view that the following conditions:
(a) childhood exposure to trauma
(b) poor coping skills
(c) self-enhancing behaviour, and(d) stimulant use disorder
have combined to contribute to your likelihood of offending. She said you appeared to be managing the conditions of imprisonment given those conditions, although you are experiencing some increased depressive symptoms.
Most importantly, she stated at page 6 of the report:
Mr Christiansz tended to minimise personal responsibility when discussing offending behaviours. This tendency is likely to impact on rehabilitation, suggesting low motivation towards change. Mr Christiansz has however also experienced positive change while on parole in the past, abstaining from substance use for two years, remaining medicated for mood and not reoffending during this time. Mr Christiansz is therefore likely to respond well to rehabilitation given he is supported with a significant degree of supervision.
Her report of 2014 has the same conclusions – word for word.
Dr Cidoni under ‘Opinions and Recommendations’ stated:
1.Mr Christiansz has suffered from periods of depressed mood consistent with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood in the context of his previous imprisonment and recent difficulties with his business being shut down.
2.He does not appear to require anti-depressant treatment at this point in time but it would be important for him to be linked in with psychological support.
3.Mr Christiansz also has difficulties with his personality, which come under the realm of anti-social and narcissistic personality traits.
4.[Not relevant.]
5.It is important that he has specific psychological therapy to assist him to recognise and manage the impulsivity and proneness to anger that are aspects of his personality. There appears to be unresolved anger towards his father that may be contributing to his difficulties with anger.
6.Mr Christiansz also suffers from methylamphetamine dependence.
7.It is likely that he self-medicates with substances to avoid dealing with the then negative emotions of his past and his current difficulties.
8.[Not relevant.]
9.Mr Christiansz disputes the details of the alleged offending. He reported to be under the influence of amphetamines at that time which may have affected his behaviour at that time.
10.[Not relevant.]
11.[Not relevant.]
You are not a person to whom Verdins is applicable, but the reports do not give me any real encouragement as to your future prospects of rehabilitation. A narcissistic personality disorder is not a psychiatric illness that is capable of cure, it is just who you are, and may never change, that diagnosis is consistent with my view of the evidence that you gave in this trial. Equally your behaviour and your evidence during the trial causes me to have grave concerns about any positive signs of rehabilitation. I do not believe that you are without any hope for the future, but your prospects are at best guarded.
I will take into account that you have suffered significant physical consequences as a result of your actions on this night in that you were shot, which caused serious damage to your hip and wrist areas, the consequences of which will be ongoing with damage to the ulna and radial nerve, which causes you pain and you have obvious scarring to your arm from the operations you underwent.
I have received character references from your uncle, a family friend, who has continued to visit you in prison and your father, and will take those contents into account.
The charge of using a firearm to resist arrest and the circumstances under which that offence occurred requires a sentence that clearly demonstrates the principles of both general and specific deterrence.
I must also consider the matter of totality remembering that you have been in custody since your arrest in 2012, and have no pre-sentence detention to be taken into account due to you undergoing other sentences. Without the considerations of totality applying, your overall sentence would have been significantly longer.
Those factors must also be balanced by the consideration pursuant to s 16 of the Sentencing Act, as you were on bail at the time of the offending, a matter of aggravation. I have also considered the matters to which I have earlier referred as well as delay, denunciation, the consequences upon the victim, and just punishment.
You are convicted and sentenced as follows:
·Charge 2 - Using a firearm to resist arrest – convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 3 - Common assault of Sean Raab – 18 months’ imprisonment
·Indictment 2 Charge 1 - Being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm - 12 months’ imprisonment.
I direct that the sentence on Charge 2 is the base sentence, and direct that 4 months of the sentence on Charge 3 be served cumulatively upon Charge 2, making a total of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. I direct that you are to serve a minimum non parole period of 2 years and 2 months before becoming eligible for parole.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that the sentence I would have passed on Charge 1 of Indictment 2, but for your plea of guilty, would have been a sentence of 18 months.
I make the forfeiture and disposal orders as requested and not opposed.
---
0
0
0