R v Goldson and Stebbings

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION

No 1464 of 2009

THE QUEEN

ROBERT ALLAN GOLDSON
and

STEVEN STEBBINGS

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 October 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 December 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Goldson and Stebbings
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 592

---
---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms D Piekusis	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused Goldson	Mr P Chadwick	Ronald & Tait Solicitors
For the Accused Stebbing	Dr T Sullivan	Ann Valos Solicitors

_________________________________________________________________________________
HER HONOUR:

Robert Allan Goldson, you have pleaded guilty to one count of recklessly causing serious injury to Daniel Smart on 12 October 2008. You Steven Stebbings have pleaded guilty to one count of recklessly causing injury to Daniel Smart on that same occasion.
Robert Goldson, you are aged 26 years of age, having been born on 2 June 1983. You are a boilermaker by occupation.
You Steven Stebbings are 25 years of age, having been born on 6 January 1984 and you are a plasterer by occupation.
The maximum penalties for the offences are 15 years' imprisonment for recklessly causing serious injury and five years' imprisonment for recklessly causing injury.
You Robert Goldson have a number of prior appearances including the Children's Court at Sunshine in November of 1999 on one count of theft and on one count of escaping from lawful custody for which you received a good behaviour bond. At the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine in July of 2001 four counts of burglary, five counts of theft, one of handling stolen goods, one of failing to answer bail, possession of cannabis and three driving offences. In relation to those charges you were dealt with by being placed on a community-based order for a period of 12 months, with a special condition of 150 hours of unpaid community work and that you undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol, drug addiction and submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment and treatment as directed. You were fined in respect to the driving offences. Finally, in February of 2008 you were convicted at Sunshine Magistrates' Court of unlawful assault and fined $750; a matter in which you were a co-offender with Steven Stebbings.
You, Steven Stebbings, have a number of prior court appearances including three appearances at the Children's Court at Sunshine, one in 2002 and 2001, including possession and use of cannabis, burglary and theft, .05 and other driving offences, having unauthorised explosives, possession of property being the proceeds of crime and being in possession of a prescribed weapon without exemption. You were placed on a good behaviour bond for a short period of time in respect of one matter. You were placed on probation, with part of the conditions of the probation relating to counselling for alcohol abuse and drug usage and on the last of those appearances you were, in fact, placed in a youth training centre for a period of three months.
You then appeared in the County Court in September of 2001 in relation to burglary, theft, being a prohibited person and possession of a firearm and unlicensed driving. You were sentenced to be detained in a youth training centre for 18 months, on the counts of burglary and theft, and for six months on the matter relating to the possession of a firearm - all concurrent.
In December of 2001, you were at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court for unlawfully harassing witnesses and there were three charges relating to that. You were sentenced to be detained in a youth training centre for a month on each of those charges, concurrent with each other, but cumulative on the sentence you were then undergoing.
In November of 2003, you were sentenced at the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine in relation to charges of theft and recklessly causing injury, placed on a community-based order for a period of 12 months with 150 hours unpaid community work and to, again, undergo assessment and treatment for drug and alcohol problems as directed, including attending and participating in stress and anger management and to undergo assessment for programs to reduce re-offending.
In March of 2006, you were dealt with at the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine for exceeding .05, driving whilst suspended and other driving offences and were released on a community-based order for 12 months; once again, with conditions in respect of alcohol and drug addiction.
And, finally, at the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine, as indicated, you, together with Robert Goldson, were convicted of unlawful assault. You were also convicted of being in possession of cannabis and using cannabis. In relation to the assault, you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a month, which was suspended for a period of 12 months and, in respect of the cannabis, you were fined $200.
You were both originally charged with more serious offences in relation to this incident and this was a negotiated settlement with the Crown. The Crown opening in this matter is very brief and represents an agreed statement of facts. I will, accordingly, act upon what is contained in this agreed statement and I will repeat what was put to me as being the agreed version of the offence. It is contained in Exhibit 1. It reads:
1.           On 12 August 2008 the victim, Daniel Mark Smart, was visiting Robert Goldson's girlfriend, Sarah Graham. They had been communicating, via Facebook, for some weeks before arranging to meet at the home Goldson shared with Graham.
2.           Goldson and Steven Stebbings were driving past Goldson's house when they noticed a car parked outside. Goldson became jealous when seeing Graham had a visitor. Stebbings parked the car at a nearby service station. Goldson and Stebbings walked to Graham's house and approached the front door. Goldson positioned himself to the side of the house whilst Stebbings knocked on the door. Graham answered the door. Goldson drew Stebbings’ attention to a person leaving the property.
3.           The victim left the property and was approached by Stebbings. Stebbings punched and kicked the victim, before Goldson arrived armed with a handmade gun. Goldson assaulted the victim, during the course of which the gun carried by Goldson discharged. A portion of the bullet entered the victim's head, behind his left ear.
4.           Forensic testing of the firearm, indicates that the gun can only discharge when the handgun is cocked. The gun is cocked by withdrawing the cocking handle, thereby moving it into the cocking notch and dislodging the cocking handle from the cocking notch.
5.           Stebbings and Goldson walked towards the service station. Stebbings gave Goldson his jumper, as he did not want to be identified at the scene. Stebbings returned to his vehicle and left the area. Goldson left on foot. The victim managed to drive himself from the scene, before meeting his sister and being taken to Werribee Hospital. The victim received a superficial injury, behind his ear, from the gunshot wound. A portion of the bullet and shrapnel remain in his head, but they have not penetrated any bone. Further, the victim sustained swelling and soreness to his left jaw and cheek.
6.           Police obtained telephone interception warrants for telephones used by Stebbings and Goldson. Between 10 and 24 September 2008, both accused were aware police were looking for Stebbings and both accused were endeavouring to avoid apprehension. Further, they counselled each other not to discuss the incident with other people or police. However, on 17 September 2008, Stebbings spoke to the informant, indicating his desire to surrender and co-operate with police.
7.           Stebbings surrendered to police five weeks after the incident, on 22 September 2008, participated in a video re-enactment, made admissions in the record of interview and made a statement. Goldson was arrested two days later and made admissions in the record of interview.
8.           Both accused told police that on the day of the incident Goldson had had an argument with Graham. Later that night Stebbings and Goldson were driving past Graham's property, when they noticed a car parked in front of the property. Goldson wanted to see if Graham had a visitor. Goldson and Stebbings stated that they parked the car at a service station down the street, approached the property and Stebbings knocked on the door, whilst Goldson waited around the corner and kept an eye on the fence. Graham answered the door, but shortly thereafter, Goldson noticed someone jumping the fence. Stebbings approached the victim and asked him what he was doing. The victim replied, he was looking for someone. Stebbings punched and kicked the victim. Meanwhile Goldson entered the house and returned with a homemade handgun. Goldson assaulted the victim and struck him over the side of the head with the gun, during the course of which, the gun discharged a bullet into the victim's head. Goldson told police, he did not cock the gun when he collected it from his bedroom, but assembled it, whilst approaching the victim. He believed it was unloaded. Further he states, he just wanted to scare the victim and find out what he was doing at his home, because Graham would not tell him. Stebbings stated, that he and Goldson did not plan to assault the victim.
9.           Both accused had been drinking.
10.         The maximum penalty for recklessly causing serious injury is 15 years' imprisonment
11.         The maximum penalty for recklessly causing serious injury is five years' imprisonment.
The summary, as put forward by the Crown, is brief to the point of not being properly informative. You have both clearly had the benefit of the Crown accepting, a version of the events which appears to be based entirely upon your records of interview and which seems to ignore, to a large degree, any other independent evidence. As indicated, I am bound to accept the version as put forward by yourself and the Crown, as that is the basis upon which you both pleaded guilty.
I am not, however, bound to rely upon any views or opinions, as to motivation, mitigation or aggravation, as contained within those particular facts. By way of example, just dealing with the obtaining of the gun, you Robert Goldson went inside the premises to obtain the gun. It was in a makeup bag in pieces under the bed, in the main bedroom. You had to go into the premises, enter the bedroom, search under the bed, locate the makeup bag, remove it from the makeup bag, then put the gun together, as it was in two pieces. That gun was examined by the firearms examiner, Mr Vincent, who stated that it was a homemade single shot handgun at approximately .38 calibre, with no safety feature. The weapon was loaded by unscrewing the barrel from the action, placing a cartridge into the breech end of the barrel and the barrel containing the cartridge, then being screwed back on to the action. The weapon is then cocked, by withdrawing the cocking handle the full length of travel capable and moving it into the cocking notch. There is no trigger as such. The dislodging of the cocking handle from the cocking notch causes the action to fall on to its own spring tension and discharge the cartridge.
It was put by your counsel, Mr Goldson, that you were unaware that there was a cartridge within the gun and that you were unaware that it was cocked. I do not accept that you were unaware that it was cocked or that you were unaware that there was a cartridge within the gun. The gun, you admitted to the police, was in two separate pieces when you acquired it from the makeup bag under the bed. You assembled that gun by screwing it together. That is not done without looking at it. You could not have failed to recognise that the gun was cocked. Equally, in my view, the bullet was either deliberately placed within it, or at the least would have been obvious to any person screwing the gun together and you were the person who put the gun together. It was your gun. You knew how it worked. You knew how to put it together. So, although I accept, and will act upon the fact, that at the time you hit Daniel Smart with that firearm, you did not intend for the firearm to discharge and cause the cartridge to enter his head, I also act upon the basis that at the time that you hit him with that firearm, you knew that it was loaded and cocked.
In terms of your motivation for being there, it is clear that you were exceedingly jealous of Ms Graham. Two motivations were put forward by your counsel. One referred to your jealousy of Ms Graham. The other related to the fact that this was transitional housing and the prior persons who had been in the premises had been drug dealers and you may have been concerned as to who was in the premises with Ms Graham, in terms of concern for her safety. Once again, I do not accept that you had any concerns for Ms Graham's safety. The only concerns you had were that she had no right to be entertaining anyone else in that home, as she was your partner and you were concerned that she may have been being unfaithful to you at that time. As indicated, that material is consistent with what is contained in the Crown opening, together with the other evidence as it stands, and I make those findings.
In relation to this matter there are three victim impact statements. I have received one from Danny Smart, the victim in the case, another is from Kristy Smart, the victim's sister, and one from Brian and Yolanda Smart, the parents of Danny Smart. It is clear that what you did to Daniel Smart that night has had a long-term and significant impact upon not only him but the rest of his family. His parents have had to leave the city and move to the country taking with them the youngest child who is aged 11 as she has suffered continuing nightmares as a result of her brother Daniel being shot. That has left Daniel and his sister Kristy in Melbourne. Kristy was rung by Daniel on this night and she is the one who travelled across town to find him, as a result of that call.
One of the worst aspects of what has happened to Daniel Smart is that he lives in fear, constantly checking to see if someone is after him. He has panic attacks, he yells out in his sleep. He has a great deal of trouble socialising in the larger world and is heavily reliant upon his sister, Kristy. He has not been able to work. He has physical ailments also as a result, including the fragments of the bullet which remain inside his head. All of this means that it has had a marked impact upon the life of Daniel Smart and also his family. I am bound to, by law, and I will, take into account those matters when determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed for this offence.
I also have to take into account your personal circumstances.
Robert Goldson, you were born in Essendon and lived with your mother alone. Your parents had been married but separated when you were approximately six weeks old. You remained unaware of your biological father until you were approximately 12 years of age, at which stage you were informed. Shortly after your parents' separation your mother became involved with a man by the name of Graeme Goldson. Your mother and Goldson lived together for the next ten years as a family. Your mother, Noelene Eccles, and Graeme Goldson had two children, Grant who is 23, a spray painter, and Katherine who is 22 and works in the café/restaurant of a bowling alley, as does your mother. All of them were present in court to support you.
Your step-father initially had problems with alcohol, when you were quite young and was verbally abusive when affected by alcohol. Your mother and Mr Goldson would clash verbally and Mr Goldson would throw you and your mother out, but not the other two children. You say that you were sexually assaulted at the age of three by an 18 year old Downs Syndrome young person. It was reported to the police and you had some counselling in respect of it. In primary school you were involved in various sporting activities and it was at approximately the age of ten that your mother separated from your step-father. Upon the separation, your mother had to leave the house in which she was living and you and your siblings moved into a house with another woman, who was a friend of your mother, and her children. It made a total of two women and six children in a very crowded house.
Your step-father in giving up alcohol had turned to the use of cannabis instead.
By the age of 12 to 13 you described yourself as out of control. You were truanting and abusive towards your mother. Your mother did her best to try and get appropriate counselling but you continually ran away. By the age of 13 to 14 you had begun smoking cannabis and consuming alcohol. The house in which your mother and your family had moved, after sharing the house with her friend, was no longer available to you. You all moved into a two bedroom unit, you sharing with your brother, and your sister sharing with your mother.
You had maintained your relationship with your stepfather, Graeme Goldson, after he and your mother separated. At about the age of 15 you left school, halfway through Year 9. You said that you were drinking on weekends and smoking cannabis daily, obtaining the money to finance that from whatever source you could, but often and mainly from Graeme Goldson. Your mother became involved in another relationship with a man by the name of Gavin, who is her partner to this day.
You commenced a pre-apprenticeship course in Newport, but you were consistently in trouble with minor thieving and ultimately the police came around to your premises, yet again, in respect to the matter of theft. Your mother had warned you that if the police came again she would throw you out and subsequently she lived up to her word and you left those premises and went to live with Graeme Goldson, your step-father. He had repartnered with a woman by the name of Claire who had four children - two of whom were sharing the house. You spent a year living with that family and you transferred your pre-apprenticeship to Broadmeadows and commenced an apprenticeship in Tullamarine with a company called Dish and Flanged Ends.
Graeme Goldson and his partner separated. You stayed with Graeme and the two of you got a unit in Tullamarine. For 18 months you rented a unit and you worked. You rode your pushbike and, it would appear, lived a relatively ordinary life. However, you were still smoking cannabis daily, drinking on the weekends and, according to the information you provided to your counsel, experimenting with other illegal substances such as amphetamine and ecstasy. Although this was a productive time in your life you missed your relationships from Melton and you resigned your job and moved back to the Melton area. That is when the burglaries occurred, when you moved back to that same group of friends.
You became involved with a young woman who did not drink. She was a non-smoker and she did not indulge in cannabis. You actually toned down and almost ceased your use of cannabis, but replaced it with alcohol.
You learnt to drive a forklift and you took up a position as a sheet metal apprentice in Melton. Unfortunately that did not last. As you described it, you became sick of apprentice wages. You have then worked, from time to time, on a casual basis as a forklift driver. You did agency work, which was sporadic and you lost the relationship you had with that girlfriend. You had, by that time, moved back in with Graeme Goldson who, as I said, is a long-term cannabis smoker and you once again started using cannabis heavily. You were about 21 when you moved back in with Graeme. From that stage you basically moved between the two houses - that of your mother and that of your stepfather. Your mother had purchased a house in South Melton and you moved between the two.

When you broke up with your girlfriend, who was named Kiera, you started to use heavier drugs, particularly amphetamine, instructing your counsel that you were using up to 3-and-a-half grams a week, a tablet of ecstasy a day, not working, running out of money and moved back in with your mother or back in with your step-father.
Drugs ultimately became the focus of your life and, apart from that, you did nothing, other than the occasional forklift driving.
You moved out again and, whilst renting a house, you decided you would grow some cannabis as you were finding it expensive and you say that you grew some seven plants in your backyard. You state that two older men kicked in the door of your premises, that you were attacked and badly frightened and your plants taken and it was on that occasion that you acquired the gun, which was used in this particular offence. You instructed your counsel that you paid $400 for the gun and it came with a handful of ammunition. You tested it, in that you claim you fired it once and once only, which was some considerable time before this offence.
Your counsel also says, that you have been using ice and have had the hallucinations and paranoia that goes with such usage. You were seen and assessed by Mr Bernard Healey, psychologist, and a report dated 3 October 2009, which is Exhibit 4 on the plea, was tendered to this court. In his conclusions he indicated that specific testing in relation to you revealed an average intellectual capacity, your powers for delayed recall were sound and your personality testing was indicative of vulnerability to substance abuse, depression and anxiety. He did not say you were suffering from any of those particular illnesses.
It became apparent during the plea that you had, on your time in remand, spent a period in the St Paul's Unit in Port Phillip Prison, which is a psychiatric unit. I asked for, and received, a report from Forensicare in relation to an assessment of your psychiatric well-being, together with your history. I received that report on 1 December 2009 and it has been provided to counsel, to permit them to have the opportunity to comment, if they so desired. As indicated, I also received other material relating to your time in custody.
Dr Kate Roberts, consultant psychiatrist, provided that report and she stated in her opinions and recommendations:
Mr Goldson is a man with a history of a very dysfunctional background,
typified by domestic violence and alcohol in his step-father, with an experience of child sexual abuse in early childhood. Mr Goldson described what appears to be conduct disorder in childhood.
He has used extensive amounts of substances, including stimulant drugs and
alcohol, as well as cannabis, from a young age. He has experience of drug and alcohol counselling, but it seems he was using cannabis, amphetamines and alcohol, in the lead-up to the offence.
From his history, it seems that Mr Goldson suffered a drug-induced
psychosis in the past, in the context of methamphetamine use, although he
did not receive any psychiatric intervention at this time.
There is no evidence from the material facts that Mr Goldson was psychotic
at the time of the offences, although he had been using drugs and alcohol
that day.
He experienced a further psychotic episode shortly after his arrest and
incarceration. He was treated with antipsychotic medication and is essentially in remission, presently, although his insight into his condition remains partial at best.
She indicated that you needed lengthy counselling to assist you in respect of your drug and alcohol problems, which have had a significant impact upon your psychiatric well-being.
You became involved in a relationship with Ms Sarah Graham. The relationship could be described as volatile. You met in January of 2008 and these offences occurred in August of 2008. You met Ms Graham at your family home and she was the mother of two children. Ms Graham's mother was, in fact, caring for those two children when you met her, which was New Year's Day. Ms Graham has a significant problem in respect of alcohol consumption, which also led, in part, to the volatility of the relationship that existed between the two of you. She moved in initially, at your mother's home. You eventually left there and together went to a hostel in Heidelberg. That was far from satisfactory. You slept in your car at times and ultimately sought the assistance of the Good Shepherd Foundation who arranged, what is described as, transitional housing. This was with the prospect of Sarah Graham, being able to resume care and custody of her two children. The house where this occurred was that transitional housing. Sarah had received custody of her youngest child, Sky, who was three and had weekend custody of her son, Zack, who was seven. It would appear that you were quite distrustful of Ms Graham and after you had a fight on this particular day and left the premises, you later drove past with Stebbings and saw another vehicle outside the premises. You believed she was having some form of sexual liaison with the person who you ultimately injured. It would also appear that Ms Graham was in the early stages of pregnancy at that time and gave birth to a daughter, Chloe, on 3 May 2009. I have no information as to whether you were aware of that fact at the time or not. Initially, Ms Graham bought the child to see you on a regular basis as well as to see your mother.
You have been in custody since the time that you were apprehended by the police and it is of recent time that Ms Graham no longer attends and you consider that the relationship is at an end. You have not seen your daughter since that time, a matter of some months.
You spent some three-and-a-half-months in the St Paul's Unit at Port Phillip Prison for psychiatric issues, as I have referred to.
You have an enhanced prisoner status within the prison. You are involved with programs to try and assist you to become alcohol and drug-free and they will require a great deal of application on your part.
You Steven Stebbings have a background that could best be described as horrendous, as is, unfortunately, often the case with regards to persons who appear before this court.
You are the third of three sons that your mother has given birth to. All three of you have different biological fathers. Your biological father has apparently sired a number of other children but you have no contact with them. Your brothers are Anthony who is 29, who suffers a mild intellectual disability, and a younger brother Paul who is 23. He does not suffer from an intellectual disability but has some problems in respect of reading and writing. Your mother was until approximately four years ago a heroin addict. She is now in a stable relationship with a man by the name of Joe Unuku. Your older brother Anthony lives with them and you also stay with them. You share your time between there and with your partner, Nikita. Nikita, like your mother, has been a heroin user. She has been incarcerated and is still methadone dependent. She also suffers from epilepsy. You have been with her for almost four years. In July of this year you had a daughter together, Mineaka. Your partner had been in custody until two days prior to the birth of that child. There are two older children that she has from two other fathers. They had been in the care and custody of your partner's foster-mother, but as a result of the foster-mother's unexpected death, in July of 2008, the children were returned to your care and you were rehoused in the foster-mother's accommodation so the children could remain at school. You are, and have been, working hard to try and produce a good relationship with those children.
As I indicated earlier, you have a particular prior conviction, from February 2008, which relates to an offence that occurred on 25 April 2006, which was Anzac Day. You were originally charged with indictable offences, which ultimately resolved to be dealt with at summary level. This is a matter that you have in common with Mr Goldson. The circumstances of the offending, as they have been explained to me, do not make a great deal of sense. But there is a police summary that has been put forward which is Exhibit 7, which reads as follows:
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 at approximately 19:10 the victim was driving his
red sedan in an easterly direction along Ballarat Road, Deer Park. Also in the car was his wife and three children. The car broke down outside the Deer Park club and the victim attempted to start it again. The two offenders were walking west along Ballarat Road en route to the Deer Park club, they stopped at the vehicle and both parties began verbally abusing each other. The victim got out of the vehicle and approached the offender with an unknown object in his hand which he used to cause a 2 centimetre cut to Stebbings' face. A scuffle then occurred with three people and the victim was hit to the ground and kicked. Stebbings and Goldson were interviewed and claimed their actions were in self-defence and the victim was the aggressor.
That is very much the story put to me by your counsel. The reason I find it difficult to understand is that both of you were convicted of unlawful assault with you, Goldson, being fined $750 and you, Stebbings, being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of one month, with that sentence wholly suspended for a period of 12 months. Such a penalty does not appear consistent with the magistrate accepting that whilst you have in some way committed an unlawful assault, that you have done it as a result of defending yourself, being over-enthusiastic in that defence. But I have no other version of what occurred and I must accept that those are the facts. The consequence though for you, Stebbings, is that at the time that you committed this offence, you were in fact on a sentence of imprisonment, wholly suspended, in relation to an offence of violence against a person.
You have a fairly consistent work history, although it is more casual based than regular employment. As a result of your forklift licence, you have been able to do that, as well as roof installations, and your current employment, which is plastering. It is usually around three days a week that you currently work.
As the material discloses, you had at best what could be described as a traumatic childhood with your mother and her heroin use and abuse. You were many times left on your own to assist in the care of your brothers. You found your aunt overdosed in a toilet. There are many examples throughout your life. They are just too numerous to mention at any length.
Ultimately, the psychologist Dr Michael Crewdson diagnosed you as having chronic substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic dysthymic disorder with present indications of a greater degree of depression which appears, on my reading of his report, to be a reactive depression to the situation that you currently find yourself in.
In relation to your offending, whilst ultimately the consequences of your offending were fortunately not as bad as they could have been, each of you need to realise that your behaviour is entirely unacceptable. You have both been involved in the attack on a man that you do not know, on the basis that you believed, rightly or wrongly, he may have been having some form of relationship with the then partner of you, Robert Goldson. You both clearly believed that it was right and appropriate for you to punishment him, by inflicting injury upon him. You, Goldson, hit him, including hitting him to the head with the firearm, causing it to discharge in the manner indicated. You, Stebbings, had punched him two or three times, earlier, before Goldson became involved and you had desisted, by the time that Goldson had. It is clear, however, from what you said to the police and the psychologist, that you still think he deserved a beating, for being involved with Ms Graham, he just did not deserve to be shot.
You had both, earlier that year, been before a court to be dealt with for an unlawful assault. You must learn that behaviour of that kind is unacceptable. It is clear that only a term of imprisonment will drive that point home to you. I accept that both of you have some prospects of rehabilitation in the future, but each of you will need to make a concerted effort to achieve that.
You have both pleaded guilty and you are entitled to the benefit of the plea. I do not accept that it is an indication of remorse, as there is nothing in the material that indicates any remorse for your actions. But you are entitled to the practical benefit that it provides to the community.
Your prior convictions, in both cases, are not extensive but are relevant and I will give them the appropriate weight.
The victim impact statements to which I have earlier referred will also be taken into account. I also have to consider the aspect of both personal and general deterrence and impose a just and appropriate sentence in respect of each of you.
In relation to you, Robert Goldson, on the charge of recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years and six months. I direct that you are to serve a minimum term of two years and six months, before being eligible for parole.
Pursuant to s.6AAA I declare, that the sentence I otherwise would have imposed would be a period of four years and three months with a minimum of three years and three months.
In relation to you, Steven Stebbings, you are convicted on the one count of recklessly causing injury and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 18 months. I further direct, however, that such sentence is to be wholly suspended for a period of three years. I believe your circumstances warrant that.
I further direct that the sentence I would otherwise have imposed pursuant to s.6AAA but for your plea of guilty would have been a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with a minimum of nine months.
Now, I made consequential orders in relation to Mr Goldson relating to forfeiture and retention of the forensic sample.
I declare that the amount of pre-sentence detention in respect of Robert Goldson is 407 days and I direct that such be entered in the records of the court. I do not need to - do I need to make any declaration in respect of Mr Stebbings?
I am not doing this on the basis, Mr Stebbings, I except you not to breach. I hope that you are not back before this court. I have to say, Mr Goldson, I hope that the court never sees you again either. You have a chance to do something with your lives. Hopefully you will take that chance.
I will declare that there has been 15 days pre-sentence detention in respect of Steven Stebbings.

---

[2009] VSC 592

16 December 2009