R v Fairlie No. DCCRM-02-1301, DCCRM-02-1244, DCCRM-03-193, DCCRM-03-194, DCCRM-03-236, DCCRM-03-237
[2003] SADC 93
•16 June 2003
R v Shannon Renee FAIRLIE
[2003] SADC 93
CRIMINAL
JUDGE DAVID SMITH
Shannon Renee Fairlie has pleased guilty to six offences and has acknowledged the breach of two bonds.
I set out the particulars as follows:
on the 4th January 2002 at Campbelltown she received a Pioneer car stereo, Elvis doll, papers, owner manual, diary and Nokia mobile phone cover together of the value of $460 the property of Gareth Dale Hampshire knowing it to have been obtained in circumstances amounting to an offence: – contrary to s196(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 (DCCRM-02-1301).
Guilty plea entered in Adelaide Magistrates Court on 30th September 2002.
The maximum penalty for this offence is 8 years imprisonment.
Between the 13th February 2002 and 15th February 2002 at Windsor Gardens or another place received a wetsuit of the value of $200 the property of Andre Alfonso knowing it to have been obtained in circumstances amount to an office:- contrary to s196(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 (DCCRM-02-1244)
Guilty plea entered in this Court today.
The maximum penalty for this offence is 8 years imprisonment.
On the 15th February 2002 at Klemzig in confirming information to Cash Converters, Klemzig, a second hand dealer as contemplated by the Second Hand Dealers and Pawnbroker Act, 1996, made a statement that was false:- contrary to s20(2) of the Second Hand Dealers and Pawnbroker Act, 1996. It is further alleged that the defendant made the statement knowing that it was false.
Guilty plea entered in this Court today.
The penalty for this offence is a maximum fine of $10,000.
On the 20th February 2003 at Adelaide used a motor vehicle without first obtaining the consent of Lynette Leonard the owner thereof:- contrary to s86a of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 (DCCRM-03-194).
Guilty plea entered in Adelaide Magistrates Court on 28th February 2003.
The maximum penalty for this offence is 2 years imprisonment.
On the 20th February 2003 at Adelaide drove a motor vehicle on a road, namely North Terrace whilst she was not the holder of an appropriate license:- contrary to s74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1959 (DCCRM-03-194)
Guilty plea entered in Adelaide Magistrates Court on 28th February 2003.
The penalty for this offence is a maximum fine of $1,250.
On the 21st February 2003 at Adelaide without reasonable excuse contravened a term or condition of a bail agreement entered into by her:- contrary to s17 of the Bail Act, 1985 (DCCRM-03-193).
Guilty plea entered in this Court on 13th May 2003.
The penalty prescribed for this offence is a maximum fine of $10,000 or a maximum period of imprisonment for 2 years.
Bonds
For an offence of armed robbery committed on the 27th July 2001 the defendant in this Court on the 24th October 2001 was imprisoned for three years with a non-parole period of two years but the terms of imprisonment were suspended upon her entering into a bond with conditions including to be of good behaviour for a period of three years.
The above six offences together with an additional offence of disorderly behaviour breached the above good behaviour bond. The defendant acknowledged the breach of the bond in this Court on the 13th May 2003.
For offences of Receiving, Attempted False Pretences, Disorderly Behaviour and several other offences committed between 23rd June 2001 and 29th May 2002, in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court on the 27th August 2002 the defendant was imprisoned for three months but the term of imprisonment was suspended upon her entering into a good behaviour bond for a period of 12 months.
The defendant breached the above bond by committing the above offences of Illegal Use and Drive Unlicensed on the 20th February 2003. The defendant acknowledged the breach of that bond in this Court on the 13th May 2003.
Circumstances of offences
The circumstances of the above battery of offences are set out not only in the apprehension reports and files forwarded from the various magistrate courts but also in a helpful schedule handed to me by the Crown. Defence counsel, Ms O’Connor, took no issue with the material and I will not repeat it here, save that at the heart of the offending is that the defendant was influenced by criminal associates. For instance, in respect of the Receiving offences her associates gave her property they had stolen from motor cars. In respect of the Illegal Use offence the vehicle involved was stolen by a male companion who picked her up in the vehicle. I have taken into account counsel Ms O’Connor’s submissions about the offending and the reasons for it.
Circumstances of offender
I have read and taken into account the following materials:
Antecedent report;
A psychological report by Mr Richard Balfour dated 9 October 2001;
A psychiatric report by Dr Michelle Trowse dated 25 September 2002;
Three psychiatric reports by Dr Craig Raeside dated 30 January 2003, 26 February 2003 and 9 May 2003 and
Two pre-sentence reports by Mariana Ilic dated 4 February 2003 and 12 May 2003.
The defendant is now 20 years old. She was born in Adelaide. The above reports, supplemented by Ms O’Connor’s submissions, detail a history of physical and emotional abuse as a child. Though a competent student the defendant was unsettled at school and left after Year 11. At about the age of 15 she became addicted to amphetamines. She ascribed her addiction to the separation of her parents which was acrimonious and hurtful to her. She has used not only amphetamines but also heroin. Though she has had work, it has not been on any sustained basis. She suffers with a Borderline Personality Disorder marked by behavioural disturbance, mood instability, difficulty controlling anger, impulsivity and suicidal behaviour. Dr Raeside noted episodes of psychotic behaviour which have been caused either induced by drugs or the effect of stress on her disordered personality. Until being taken into custody on the 28th March 2003, she has lived with her mother and has been in receipt of a disability support pension.
Sentencing considerations
The defendant has pleaded guilty to the above six offences and has acknowledged the breaches of the bonds. She is therefore entitled to a discount for doing so. From time to time in the course of the offending she has been held in custody for periods which I am told totalled three weeks. I will take that into account. Finally, she has been in custody continuously since the 28th March 2003 and so it is appropriate that that terms of imprisonment which I am about to impose be backdated so as to commence on that date.
I am satisfied for the purposes of sentencing that the defendant has throughout suffered from the personality disorder referred to by the reporters and in particular by the psychiatrist Dr Raeside. Whilst not excusing the offending it does diminish her responsibility and so is a matter of mitigation.
For that reason also I regard the spat of six offences committed by her as being part of one course of erratic criminal conduct and therefore I intend to make the separate penalties of imprisonment concurrent.
There are no grounds pursuant to s58(3) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 which would justify the forgiving of the breaches of the two bonds and nor are there any special circumstances justifying the reduction of the terms of the two suspended sentences pursuant to s58(4)(a) of the said Act.
Sentence
For the six offences particularised above it is the sentence of the Court that the defendant be imprisoned for four months. That sentence is arrived at as follows:
| · Receiving offences for which there will be one penalty imposed pursuant to s18A of the said Act | 6 months imprisonment |
| · False statement | Conviction without penalty |
| · Illegal use | One month imprisonment to be served concurrently with the above term of imprisonment |
| · Driving without licence | Conviction without penalty |
| · Contravening bail agreement | One month imprisonment to be served concurrently with the above terms of imprisonment |
| Total | 6 months |
| Less one third for pleas of guilty and for three weeks spent in custody | 2 months |
| Balance | 4 months |
In respect of the breached bond entered into in this Court on the 24th October 2001 for the Armed Robbery offence, I revoke the order suspending the sentence of imprisonment of three years. That sentence is to be cumulative upon the sentence of four months imposed for the said six offences.
In respect of the breached bond into in the Magistrates Court at Holden Hill on the 27th August 2002 I revoke the order suspending the sentence of imprisonment of three months. That sentence is to be cumulative upon the previous two sentences, namely the four months for the said six offences and the three years for the District Court bond.
Accordingly the head sentence is now:
For the six offences 4 months
For the breach of the District Court bond 3 years
For the breach of the Magistrates Court bond 3 months
Total 3 years and 7 months
I see no basis for reducing that accumulative sentence pursuant to the principles of totality and accordingly the head sentence will remain three years and seven months. I fix a non-parole period of 15 months.
The head sentence of three years and seven months and the non-parole period of 15 months is to commence on the 28th March 2003.
I direct that copies of the seven reports particularised by me in these reasons be forwarded together with these reasons to the Department of Correctional Services to assist in the placement, care and management of the defendant whilst she is imprisoned and later on parole.
0
0
0