R v Hewett and Lacey
[2016] VSC 749
•8 December 2016
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2016 0047
S CR 2016 0048
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| EDWARD CHARLES HEWETT |
| ANDREW DAVID LACEY |
---
JUDGE: | Beale J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 29 November 2016 & 8 December 2016 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 December 2016 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Hewett & Lacey |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VSC 749 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – Intentionally causing injury – Home invasion by 3 offenders (H, L & P) – Victim assaulted in his bed with a baseball bat by P – H and L played supporting roles – No antecedents for H and limited antecedents for L – Pleas of guilty entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Youthful offenders, aged 21 and 22, at time of offending – Combined sentence of imprisonment and Community Correction Order imposed on both H and L – R v Parry [2016] VSC 685.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms S Coombes | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Hewett | Mr D Hallowes QC | Vale Criminal Law |
| For the Accused Lacey | Mr T Marsh | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
Edward Charles Hewett[1] and Andrew David Lacey,[2] you have both pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary (Charge 1) and intentionally causing injury (Charge 2).
[1]You, Hewett, pleaded guilty before me on 12 September 2016.
[2]You, Lacey, pleaded guilty before Lasry J on 19 August 2016.
I propose to pass a combined sentence on each of you – that is, a sentence that combines a sentence of imprisonment with a Community Correction Order (CCO), assuming that you both consent to being placed on CCOs.
If you do consent to the CCOs, the effect of my orders today will be that you both become eligible for parole immediately.
It will then be for the parole board to determine if and when you get parole.
I will go into more detail regarding my sentences at the conclusion of these sentencing remarks.
The facts
Charge 1 states that:
At Werribee in Victoria on the 5th day of July 2015 [you] entered as a trespasser a building at 19 Myrtle Street with intent to commit an offence involving an assault to a person therein and at the time knew that the co-offender Daniel Nathan Parry had with him an offensive weapon namely a baseball bat.
Charge 2 states that:
At Werribee in Victoria on the 5th day of July 2015 without lawful excuse, [you] intentionally caused injury to Garry Phillip Coulson.
I dealt with your co-offender Daniel Nathan Parry recently. He pleaded guilty to murdering Gary Phillip Coulson on 5 July 2015 in the course of the home invasion to which the two of you, regrettably, were a party. I sentenced Parry to 19 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.
The two of you are not criminally responsible for that murder. You fall to be sentenced only for the two offences to which you have pleaded, which preceded the murder.
By way of background, on Thursday 25 June 2015, Parry contacted police, stating that his house in Bacchus Marsh had been burgled and that some of his property had been stolen. Parry believed that Gary Coulson was responsible for the burglary and theft although he did not have hard evidence.
On Sunday 5 July 2015, Parry texted Bernadette Lees, one of Coulson’s sisters, trying to find out his whereabouts. He learned that Coulson was at an address in Werribee. Parry then sent his girlfriend, Elise Mauger, the following two texts:
(At 3:24pm) Just got the address on that very helpful guy that did the work on my place while I was at work two weeks ago. So I’m popping over to say “thanks”
(At 3.25pm) Getting boys together but everyone away or not answering. Can you think of anyone staunch I can take with me?
At 3.27pm, Parry’s girlfriend replied:
No not really [….] Edward… as much as he’s a little shit he can rumble though.
It appears that Mauger’s reference to ‘Edward’ was a reference to you, Hewett. What her opinion was based on, and whether that opinion was accurate, I cannot say.
Parry got in contact with you, Hewett, and you agreed to help out. You also tried to organise additional help. Between 5.36pm and 6.05pm, you had the following exchange of texts with a friend who wisely declined your invitation.
(5.36pm) Hewett: Hey call me might shout ya a blazz if you get back to me in time need a hand bro
(5.48pm) Friend: Na I’m all good over the shit
(6.02pm) Hewett: Good to hear going for a drive just need someone to site (sic) back and look scare lol
(6.05pm) Friend: Na I got my kids here but taking it easy while they are down
At 6.23pm, Parry sent you, Hewett, another text which read:
Tell them Imam shout whoever comes.
By about 7.30 pm, the two of you and Parry were on your way, in Hewett’s car. You, Lacey, had become involved through Hewett.
At about 7.40pm, the three of you attended at the Werribee home of one Christine Slattery, Coulson’s aunt.
Present at that address were Coulson’s mother Patricia, brother Michael, and sisters Bernadette, Brenda and Tara. Parry asked Coulson’s mother where he could find Coulson, saying he (that is, Parry) owed him money. She told Parry the same address in Werribee that Bernadette Lees had told Parry earlier.
The three of you then drove to Coulson’s address, arriving there about 8pm.
All three of you entered Coulson’s house. As is admitted by your plea of guilty to Charge 1, both of you knew when you entered the house with Parry, that Parry was armed with a baseball bat and that he intended to assault Coulson. That word ‘assault’ can mean the unlawful application of force, or the unlawful threat of such force. I find, for reasons I will elaborate on later, that both of you understood that Parry intended to physically injure Coulson, not just threaten him with violence, and that your participation in the home invasion was based on that understanding.
Once you had entered the house, you, Lacey, did not venture past the kitchen/lounge area. You, Hewett, and Parry made your way to the bedroom where Coulson and his girlfriend Ashleigh Taylor were asleep in bed.
As you, Hewett, stood in the doorway of the bedroom, Parry approached the bed with his baseball bat. I will now quote from the prosecution summary as to what happened next:
Ashleigh TAYLOR states that she was woken by a tinging sound and saw two males in the bedroom both wearing dark clothing with hoodies pulled down over their faces. HEWETT was standing in the doorway and PARRY was above COULSON who was in the bed, and striking him with a baseball bat, which caused COULSON injury. A knife was then produced. PARRY stabbed COULSON with a knife several times. TAYLOR saw PARRY lift COULSON out of bed, she jumped out of bed and as she did so the two males ran from the bedroom.
There are at least two things to note about this passage from the prosecution summary. First, it does not specify the nature of the injury suffered by Coulson from the blows with the baseball bat but, in written submissions, the prosecution indicated that Coulson sustained bruises which constituted the injury referred to in Charge 2.[3] Second, the passage does not say who produced the knife but I find, as I did in sentencing Parry,[4] for reasons it is not necessary to go into here, that the knife was produced by Coulson in self-defence, that Parry disarmed him and that Parry then used the knife to stab the defenceless Coulson, repeatedly and fatally. As I said earlier, neither of you are criminally responsible for these unilateral actions by Parry with the knife.
[3]See prosecution’s written submissions on the plea [15], footnote 8.
[4]See R v Parry [2016] VSC 685, [23]–[29].
After the stabbing, Parry and the two of you ran from the house and drove away.
An ambulance was called. Coulson was still alive when paramedics arrived but, en route to the hospital, he went into cardiac arrest and passed away at 8.32pm. A subsequent autopsy found the cause of death to be multiple incised wounds.
At 10pm, Parry sent another text message to his girlfriend, saying:
It didn’t go down exactly as I wanted but I am home and 100% injury free.
The basis on which the prosecution puts its case against each of you, and the precise roles attributed to each of you by the prosecution are detailed in [20] to [23] of the prosecution summary. I will read out those paragraphs:
20. It is the Prosecution position that the three men agreed to attend at this address so that injury would be caused to Garry COULSON. PARRY had determined that COULSON had stolen his property and went there to confront him and punish him for doing this.
21. Edward HEWETT was recruited as backup to assist. Andrew LACEY’s role was to keep the girlfriend out of the way and to keep her calm whilst injury was intentionally caused by PARRY to COULSON. The Crown say there would be no need for LACEY to keep her calm if this was just meant to be a nice social chat. It is an indication that violence was planned and that LACEY understood and agreed to that being the case.
22. The Crown says this agreement was a joint criminal enterprise between the three of them and that PARRY took a baseball bat in order to intentionally cause injury to COULSON with it and that the other 2 understood and agreed to this.
23. The Crown says they are guilty, that is the two accused men are guilty of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury because they entered as trespassers with PARRY knowing that PARRY had a weapon (the baseball bat) and knew that he would be intentionally causing injury to COULSON with it.
You, Lacey, admit that the original plan included injuring Coulson. You, Hewett, do not admit that. You say that at the point in time when the three of you entered the house, you only believed that force was to be threatened, not inflicted, in order to recover Parry’s stolen property.
Unlike Lacey, you, Hewett, made no admission to police that you believed that Parry’s plan included injuring Coulson. You also rely on the text message you sent your friend which merely talked about needing someone to come along and look ‘scary’.
I reject your version of events for several reasons. First, the fact that you sent a text message only seeking the assistance of a friend to look scary is in no way inconsistent with an agreed plan that Parry would physically punish Coulson: the weight of numbers – scary looking numbers – would discourage Coulson from getting physical himself. Second, you knew that Parry believed that Coulson had burgled his home and stolen property. In other words, you knew Parry had a motive to physically punish Coulson. Third, you knew, before you entered the house, that Parry had a baseball bat with him. Fourth, you knew Lacey’s role was to keep Coulson’s girlfriend quiet: Lacey’s role suggested Parry had more in mind than just giving Coulson a scare. Fifth, once Parry entered the bedroom, he proceeded immediately to mete out physical punishment whilst you looked on without protest. I infer beyond reasonable doubt from these facts that, like Lacey, you knew or believed, before you entered the house, that Parry’s plan included physically injuring Coulson, and that you agreed to it.
On 7 July 2015, Parry surrendered himself to police at his solicitor’s office.
Also on 7 July 2015, you Hewett were arrested and interviewed by police. You were selective with the truth, to say the least. You told police that Parry said he had to get a massive TV set back which would not fit in his own car. Parry asked to borrow your car but you offered to drive him if Parry paid for fuel. You told police that you and Parry went to a house in Werribee and then onto another house. When you got to the second house, Parry had a bat with him. You told police you heard yelling and a commotion and then heard someone say, ‘let’s go’. You said there was another bloke with Parry when you picked Parry up that afternoon, but you didn’t know who he was. You said the other bloke stayed at the first house and didn’t go to the second house.
On the 3rd August 2015 you, Lacey, were arrested and interviewed. You said that Hewett asked you to go for a drive and the two of you ended up at Parry’s house. The three of you then talked about going to Werribee. Parry told you that a bloke stole his stuff. You say the three of you went to a house and then onto another house. On the way your role was discussed, which was to talk to Coulson’s girlfriend and calm her down, and you agreed to do this. You said Parry grabbed a small bat and all three of you walked into the second house. You said you walked into the kitchen. Parry walked into the bedroom and you heard sounds of a baseball bat hitting something and yelling. Parry and Hewett walked out and you all got into the car, Parry told the person that he rang from the car, ‘I’ve stabbed your brother, make sure he gets to hospital’.
On 5 August 2015, the police interviewed you again, Hewett. In this second interview, you admitted that another person had been with you and Parry that night and that all three of you went to both addresses. You said there was a lady crying at the second house. Parry had a bat or pole with him. On the way home in the car Parry told you to keep your mouth shut.
Seriousness of offending
Aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury are both serious offences, as the maximum penalties reflect: 25 years’ imprisonment for aggravated burglary and 10 years’ imprisonment for intentionally causing injury.
These were not low range examples of these offences. The offending was premeditated. There were three of you involved in this home invasion. As you well knew, one of your number had a weapon and intended to use it. You expected that the victim’s girlfriend would be present but that did not cause you to desist. Pursuant to your plan, Parry started hitting the victim with the baseball bat almost immediately on entering the bedroom, while the victim was still on the bed, highly vulnerable. The fact that Parry believed – and you may have believed – that Coulson had burgled Parry’s home and stolen his property does not reduce the seriousness of the offending: vigilantism is a circumstance of aggravation. In my view, these were mid-range examples of the charged offences.
I appreciate that it was Parry’s idea to commit the offences. Parry brought the weapon. Parry alone used the weapon. Further, Parry was considerably older than the two of you. He was 36 at the time of the offending[5] whereas you were 21 and 22. Parry had been a foreman at Westside Meat when both of you worked there. On this night, he was very much the leader and you his followers.
[5]Parry was born on 26 December 1978.
But the fact that I view Parry’s culpability as greater than the two of you does not mean that your culpability is of a low order. You both agreed to and participated in a home invasion, knowing physical injury would be inflicted on the victim. Just punishment, denunciation and general deterrence are important sentencing considerations in both your cases. But I bear in mind that the two of you played supporting roles only.
Your supporting role, Hewett, was greater than that of Lacey. As mentioned above, you sent texts trying unsuccessfully to get another friend involved. Then you brought Lacey along. You provided the transport. You went with Parry to the bedroom whereas Lacey, you didn’t venture past the kitchen/lounge area.
It might be thought that the fact that you, Hewett, played a greater role than Lacey means you should receive a heavier sentence than him. But your greater role is, in my view, offset by the fact that you have no antecedents whereas Lacey was on a CCO at the time of the offending. I will say more about that CCO later.
I turn now to your personal histories.
Personal Histories
Hewett
Hewett, you were born on 9 September 1993. You are now 23 and were 21 at the time of the offences.
Your parents, who raised you as an only child, separated for the final time when you were 16. You continued living with your father. You found adjusting to your parents separation difficult. Your relationship with your mother, who had moved some hours away to live with and look after her ailing mother, deteriorated, at least from your perspective.
You were not a good student and dropped out of school in Year 9 when you were 15.
You began using cannabis at the age of 15 and methylamphetamine from the age of 18.
Eventually you got work at Westside Meat Abattoir in Bacchus Marsh, where your co-offenders Lacey and Parry also worked, Parry as a foreman. You worked at Westside Meat for three to four years, then in early 2015 you decided to leave that employment, mainly because of what your counsel called ‘transport issues’.
You were still unemployed at the time of the instant offences. You reported to the forensic psychologist Dr Aaron Cunningham, whose report was tendered on your plea, that you ‘decided to assist [Parry] when he asked for a lift to improve your chances of gaining an employment position’.[6]
[6]Report of Dr Aaron Cunningham, dated 22 November 2016, 4.
You were in a relationship for several years with a young woman but that ended around the time of your offending.
You were charged on 5 August 2015 with aggravated burglary and other offences - and released on strict bail conditions with which you complied. You resided with your father.
On 22 October 2015, the charges against you were upgraded. You were charged with murder and remanded in custody. You have spent most of your time on remand in Port Phillip prison.
You have no prior or subsequent convictions. This is the first time you have been incarcerated and it would appear that the 13 or so months that you have spent on remand has been a particularly confronting experience for you.
Dr Cunningham assessed you as being of low average intelligence and psychologically and emotionally immature. He writes:
Mr Hewett stated that he is being ‘stood over’ in gaol. He does not keep [possessions] so that he is less of a target for victimisation. He has seen two people stabbed. He is scared in gaol. He does not trust the other prisoners. He stated that he made a friend in gaol but this man later broke his nose in an unprovoked attack.
……………
Mr Hewett is having a more onerous experience of imprisonment by virtue of his relative immaturity. He is being stood over and victimised in gaol. He reported symptoms of depression and has been suicidal. He is scared of disclosing further suicidal ideation due to fear of being incarcerated in solitary confinement.
Throughout most of your time on remand you were anxiously awaiting trial on murder. Ultimately, in August 2016, the prosecution offered to drop the murder charge against you. On 12 September 2016, you were arraigned and pleaded guilty to the current offences. The prosecution accepts that your plea of guilty was entered at the first reasonable opportunity.
The fact that, for approximately 11 months, you were in custody awaiting trial on a charge of murder, which was ultimately dropped, is, in my view, a significant sentencing consideration.
During your time in custody, you have not been idle. To your credit, you have undertaken a number of courses for which certificates were provided. These included the Narcotics Anonymous program (41 attendances between November 2015 and November 2016), the Youth Substance Use Program and Youth Relapse Prevention Program. There were also clean urine screen results for samples taken on 22 November 2015, 24 February 2016, 29 March 2016, 5 July 2016 and 1 September 2016.
I have received and read character references from your mother, your uncle Gary and your aunt Kay. They confirm that your conduct on the night of 5 July 2015 was out of character, that you are remorseful and that you can look forward to significant support upon your release.
Having regard to that support, your plea of guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity, evidence of remorse, your youth, the fact that you have no prior or subsequent convictions, your work history and the efforts you have made to rehabilitate yourself whilst in custody, I consider that you have good prospects of rehabilitation and, accordingly, I will moderate the weight I give to specific deterrence in the sentence I impose on you.
Lacey
Turning to your personal history, Lacey, you were born on 18 April 1993 in Bacchus Marsh, the youngest of four boys.
You are now 23 and were 22 at the time of the offences.
Your parents separated when you were only two.[7] You continued living with your mother. As you were growing up, your relationship with your father was very limited and strained. You stopped visiting him when you were about 12 or 13.
[7]Character reference of Lesley Lacey, dated 2 November 2016.
You struggled at school and left during Year Nine. Soon after you got a painting apprenticeship. You held that position for about six months, then you moved onto a roofing apprenticeship but you were subject to bullying and eventually left.
When you were about 17, you started work at Westside Meat Abattoir, which is where Parry and Hewett also worked. You were with Westside Meat for about four years.
During this time you began a relationship with a troubled young woman named Dimity Shaw, whom you met on your 18th birthday. Ms Shaw had significant mental health and drug dependency issues. You had been using illicit drugs since your mid-teens and your new relationship led to more drug use, including the regular use of ice.
The two of you moved into a place together. Your daughter Arya was born in August 2014. There were already many difficulties in your relationship with Ms Shaw and these were not eased by the responsibilities of parenthood. Your work attendance deteriorated and, by December 2014, you had lost your job. Your mother writes:
The stresses of his family and work life began to take their toll, and, after missing too many days off work in dealing with his personal life, he eventually lost his job. This was a new low point in his life, and I had never seen him feel more worthless and depressed.
Unfortunately, you sought solace in illicit drugs, including ice.
In January 2015, an intervention order was taken out against you, the aggrieved family member being Ms Shaw. You and Ms Shaw separated, Arya remaining in her care. You repeatedly disregarded that order, attending at her home, even marching into her bedroom on one occasion where you found her in bed with another man. You were charged with offences over these contraventions. At Ballarat Magistrates Court on 21 April 2015, that is about 10 weeks before the instant offences, you were convicted of burglary, criminal damage, persistent contravention of a family violence order, using a carriage service to harass and using profane language in a public place and released on a CCO for 24 months. It was a special condition that you ‘participate in an accredited men’s behaviour change program as directed’. You were also ordered to perform 50 hours of unpaid work over 12 months, undergo mental health assessment and treatment. The CCO was to be the subject of judicial monitoring.
The instant offences occurred on 5 July 2015.
As previously mentioned, you were interviewed at the beginning of August 2015, charged and bailed to live with your father and step mother in Hoppers Crossing. You remained living there on bail until your charges were upgraded to murder in later October 2015.
It seems that the strengthening of the bond between you and your father whilst you were on bail has been one positive from all of this. Your father writes of the period between August and October 2015 when you were living with him on bail:
I spent a lot of time, one on one with him. I never had the opportunity to have this sort of bonding with him previously.
The author of the psychological report tendered on your behalf, Ms Elle Gianvanni, writes that you reported:
A positive and close relationship with [your] mother throughout your life and a negative and distant relationship with [your] father until recently.[8]
[8]Report of consultant psychologist, Ms Elle Gianvanni, dated 21 November 2016, 7.
Your father is willing for you to resume living with him in Hoppers Crossing when you are eventually released from custody.
Whilst on bail to your father’s house, you continued on your CCO. You missed a number of appointments but you attended 12 times for supervision and completed the work component of the CCO shortly before you were remanded in custody in October 2015.
Whilst remanded in custody, you have undertaken various programs including drug treatment, “work planning and life skills” training and managing worry and loss programs. You claim to have been drug free. The results of four clean urine screens were tendered on your plea.
According to an affidavit from Brendan Money, assistant commissioner of the Sentence Management Branch of Corrections Victoria, you had very little time out of your cell at Melbourne Remand Centre between October and December 2015 due to prisoner lockdowns following the prison riots on 30 June and 1 July 2015. In my view, this would have added considerably to the harshness of your first experience of incarceration.
Ms Giovanni states in her psychological report:
Mr Lacey disclosed that during his first few months he was highly distressed particularly for being in lockdown with only two hours out of his cell [each day]; this was a severe ‘introduction’ to prison given that he had never been incarcerated before. Collateral sources corroborate Mr Lacey’s self-reported distress indicating that he was assessed to be experiencing anxiety and depressive symptoms by a number of MRC medical staff and his mental health was regularly monitored. In this context of heightened distress Mr Lacey threatened to harm himself on 15 December 2015.[9]
[9]Report of forensic psychologist Ms Elle Gianvanni, dated 21 November 2016, 16.
Between January 2016 and September 2016, you have attended about 40 sessions in custody with the Mobile Forensic Health Mental Service.
Since 19 January 2016, you have been working in the prison laundry nine days a fortnight. There is no suggestion in Mr Money’s affidavit that you have caused any problems in custody.
From October 2015 until August 2016, you had a charge of murder hanging over your head. On 12 August 2016, the prosecution offered to drop the murder charge if you pleaded guilty to the original charges, which you did on the 19 August 2016.
The fact that for approximately 10 months in custody you also had to deal with the anxiety of facing a murder charge is to my mind a significant consideration, especially when added to the fact that from October to December 2015 you were in lockdown 22 hours a day.
I have received and read references from your mother, your father, your eldest brother, your maternal grandparents, your cousin Joy and a friend Lisa. The references indicate that your offending occurred during a very troubled time in your life following a relationship breakdown. They also indicate that you will enjoy considerable family support on your release and have a strong commitment to your infant daughter’s welfare.
Having regard to your plea of guilty at the first reasonable opportunity (which I regard as indicative of remorse), your limited priors, your youth, your employment record, your efforts at rehabilitation whilst in gaol, your family support and your commitment to your daughter, I find that you also have good prospects of rehabilitation and, accordingly, I will moderate the weight I give to specific deterrence in the sentence I impose on you.
The prosecution’s submissions
The prosecution submitted that the offending by both of you called for total effective sentences of more than two years’ imprisonment and that, consequently, it was not open to me to impose sentences of imprisonment in combination with CCOs[10]. To my mind, the prosecution submission gives too little weight to the significant mitigating considerations that apply to both of you and fails to give sufficient weight to what was said by the Court of Appeal in the case of Boulton[11] about the potentially harmful effects of imprisonment, especially in the case of young prisoners.
[10]See s 44 Sentencing Act 1991.
[11]Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308; [2014] VSCA 342.
Summary of Mitigating Circumstances
Let me summarise what I consider are the main mitigating considerations that apply to each of you.
Hewett
In your case Hewett, they are:
· Your plea of guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity;
· The fact that you have no prior or subsequent convictions;
· Your youth – 21 at the time of the offence, 23 now;
· The fact that, by reason of what Dr Cunningham called your psychological and emotional immaturity, you have found the experience of 13 or so months in gaol particularly hard-going;
· The fact that you had a murder charge hanging over your head for much of that time;
· The fact that you have tried to better yourself in jail by undertaking courses, especially with regards to remaining drug free;
· Your good prospects of rehabilitation.
Lacey
In your case, Mr Lacey, the main mitigating considerations are:
· Your plea of guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity;
· Your limited priors and the fact that have you no prior sentences of imprisonment;
· Your youth – 22 at the time of the offences, 23 now;
· The fact that whilst on remand, you suffered from the post-riot lock downs for several months;
· The fact that you had a murder charge hanging over your head for most of the time you have been on remand;
· Your efforts to better yourself in custody, including your sustained participation in mental health treatment in custody;
· Your good prospects of rehabilitation.
Sentence
In my view, it is open to me to impose combined sentences on each of you and I think that the interests of the community, not just your interests, will be best served by doing so.
Hewett
Mr Hewett, please stand.
On Charge 1 – aggravated burglary – I sentence you to 15 months’ imprisonment.
On Charge 2 – intentionally causing injury, I sentence you to six months’ imprisonment.
I order that three months of the sentence on Charge 2 be cumulative on the sentence on Charge 1 making a total effective sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 12 months.
I declare that you have served 415 days of presentence detention.
I also order, in relation to Charges 1 & 2, that you be placed on a CCO for a period of 18 months with the following conditions:
· 150 hours of unpaid community work.
· Supervision as directed by the Secretary.
· Drug assessment and treatment (including testing) as directed by the Secretary.
· Alcohol assessment and treatment (including testing) as directed by the Secretary.
· Mental health assessment and treatment as directed by the Secretary.
I declare that each of the above special conditions apply for the period of the CCO.
But for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.
I make the Disposal Order sought by the Prosecution.
Lacey
Mr Lacey, please stand.
On Charge 1 – aggravated burglary – I sentence you to 15 months’ imprisonment.
On Charge 2 – intentionally causing injury, I sentence you to six months’ imprisonment.
I order that three months of the sentence on Charge 2 be cumulative on the sentence on Charge 1 making a total effective sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 12 months.
I declare that you have served 415 days of presentence detention.
I also order, in relation to Charges 1 & 2, that you be placed on a CCO for a period of 18 months with the following conditions:
· 150 hours of unpaid community work.
· Supervision as directed by the Secretary.
· Drug assessment and treatment (including testing) as directed by the Secretary.
· Alcohol assessment and treatment (including testing) as directed by the Secretary.
· Mental health assessment and treatment as directed by the Secretary.
I declare that each of the above special conditions apply for the period of the CCO.
But for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.
I make the Disposal Order sought by the Prosecution.
2
0