R v Jackson
[2000] VSC 168
•12 April 2000
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA |
| CRIMINAL DIVISION |
No.1509 of 1999
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| STEVEN FREDERICK JACKSON |
---
JUDGE: | Hampel J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 12 April 2000 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Steven Frederick Jackson | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2000] VSC 168 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing serious injury – Aggravated burglary – False imprisonment – One criminal enterprise - Accused assailed former boyfriend’s brother in attempt to contact former partner – Bizarre actions – Out of character – Absence of previous convictions – Prospects of rehabilitation - Remorse
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | Mr G. Horgan | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr J.M. Toal | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Steven Frederick Jackson, you pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, one count of false imprisonment and one count of intentionally causing serious injury.
Your victim was Christopher Cartmel. You met his brother, Anthony Cartmel, in early 1998. About one month later you began a relationship with him, and in about September or October 1998, you began living together at Anthony's home in Collingwood. Initially you had a good relationship and visited each other's families in Victoria and Tasmania. In December of 1998 you made a mutual decision to move to Queensland. You moved into a unit together on the Gold Coast. Anthony obtained a job at a resort and you applied for a croupier's licence. Because of your financial difficulties, your parents provided you with occasional financial assistance.
After six or seven weeks in Queensland your relationship deteriorated, partly because of financial problems and partly because of your belief that your partner was unfaithful to you. You started arguing and you both became unhappy in the relationship. Ultimately, you asked Anthony to leave. When he left, he took some of your personal items, furniture and photographs. You were concerned about this. You were also anxious that you may have contracted a sexually transmitted disease, that is genital warts, from him. You made repeated attempts to contact him, but were unsuccessful.
In early 1999 you returned to Tasmania to stay with your parents and again endeavoured to make contact with Anthony. On Thursday, 25 March, a few days before the events for which you are about to be sentenced, you came to Melbourne and again attempted to contact Anthony, without success.
On the morning of Wednesday, 31 March, you decided to make contact with Christopher to see if he could intervene. You made enquiries at his place of work and found that he was at home. You rang and pretended that you were a florist and had a delivery for him. A short time later you went to his flat at Box Hill. You entered the house under the pretext of delivering flowers. Christopher immediately recognised you as his brother's ex-boyfriend. You produced a knife to gain entry into the flat. You had brought the knife and tape with you. You told him to sit down and said that you wanted to speak to him about Anthony. Initially you were both seated and you described the conversation as jovial. You told Christopher that Anthony had knowingly given you a sexually transmitted disease. You asked Christopher to contact Anthony and ask him to come to the flat or to speak to you over the telephone. Christopher refused, as he feared for his brother's safety, as well as his own. You attempted to call Anthony from the flat, but again were unsuccessful.
The conversation got out of hand and, as you described it, Christopher became "smart and pushy". You said you feared that he may seek a restraining order. You made him tape himself to a chair so you could leave and get a head start before he called the police. You finished binding him to the chair, taping his legs , ankles, wrists and upper body. You offered him water and offered to contact a friend of his. You then put tape over his mouth so that he would not yell out. A short time later you walked behind him and attempted to suffocate him with a pillow. Christopher began to struggle. He slid down the chair and broke the tape that was restraining him. You forced him back on to the chair and taped him round the eyes , mouth and body. Whilst you did this, you kept telling Christopher you were not going to hurt him.
Christopher said that you struck him on the head with a saucepan and immediately after that you cut his throat with the knife, causing him to bleed profusely. He said he managed to slide out of the chair on to the floor and was able to see partially as the tape covering his eyes came off. At this stage, he was struggling and kicking out at you in an attempt to defend himself. You later said that you were not able to recall and piece together some of these events. However, you did recall that Christopher struck you on the knees with a frying pan and you hit him on the head. You also described the struggle in which the knife came into contact with Christopher's neck.
The violence against Christopher probably took place towards the latter part of the approximately two hours that you were at the flat. Apart from other injuries, Christopher sustained a severe six centimetre laceration to his neck. You left the flat and ultimately went to the police and admitted what you had done. The knife and a balaclava were found in your car.
You are now 29 years of age. You have had a happy, supportive family and school life and a commendable work record. You left school before completing Year 12 to take up a full-time position with the ANZ Bank. You worked there for one and a half years, before returning to Gippsland. A few years later your father purchased a large pet shop in Lilydale and put you in charge of it. In 1997, when you were about 26 years of age, you were devastated when your father, with whom you had a very close relationship, suffered a stroke, leaving him paralysed on the left side, with a severe speech impediment. As a result of that, the pet shop business was sold. In order to increase your opportunities for employment, you qualified as a travel agent and trained as a croupier. You worked at the Crown Casino as a croupier from 1997 to December 1998. You have been a valuable member of the community and worked as a volunteer with the Australian Red Cross, at a Nursing Home and the St Kilda Street Mission.
You realised your homosexual orientation some years ago and, although both of your parents were accepting, your sister was not. This, unfortunately, diminished your contact with your sister and her family.
Mr Toal, on your behalf, submitted that your behaviour was not part of a clear or designed plan to hurt the victim, but was, rather, bizarre behaviour and out of character. You are not a violent person, he submitted, but because of the build-up of stress in your life, including your break-up with Anthony, your father's illness and your loneliness without a partner, you acted irrationally. Mr Toal submitted that the fact that you turned yourself in to the police, made admissions and then pleaded guilty, all support the conclusion that you are remorseful.
Mr Leckie, for the Crown, submitted that there was a degree of planning in what you did, although your motive was to get to Anthony. You used a device to invade Christopher's flat and then subjected him to violence, fear and serious injury. The stabbing in the neck, fortuitously, did not result in much greater injury, or even worse. He submitted that your anger and frustration was directed to an innocent victim; that is of course true. Although apparently you were taking some medication for depressive feelings, you did not present with any psychiatric or psychological evidence of a depressive illness.
I accept that, to act as you did, you must have been in a state of turmoil and confusion, caused no doubt by your frustration at not being able to confront Anthony. I think you had, as you described it, "lost the plot" after attempting to get to Anthony through his brother. I have read the victim impact statement and take into account the suffering and trauma you caused as a result of your bizarre and violent actions, which I think were out of character, as you have a good background, no previous convictions and no history of violence.
You have now spent about a year in custody, during which time you have maintained a positive attitude and have been productive. You have undertaken courses in information technology and industrial cleaning. You have also attained the status of being on the essential work programme. Despite some of the contradictions which appear in your record of interview, I accept that your behaviour and attitude overall after these events show a significant degree of remorse, and that you have generally good prospects of rehabilitation. Nevertheless, you committed very serious offences, for which you must receive a substantial term of imprisonment. Because the offences are part of the one criminal enterprise, I think a significant degree of concurrency is appropriate. I also think that, given your prospects of rehabilitation, as I think they are, a relatively low non-parole period should be imposed.
Balancing those various considerations to which I have referred, I sentence you as follows: Count 1, three years' imprisonment; count 2, two years' imprisonment; count 3, four years' imprisonment. I order that one year of the sentences on counts 1 and 2 be made cumulative upon the sentence on count 3, making a total effective sentence of five years' imprisonment. I fix a period of two and a half years as the period before which you will not be eligible for parole. I declare that 379 days have already been served pursuant to this sentence, and that this declaration be entered into the records of the court.
I make the orders sought by the Crown for disposal of the tape, balaclava and knife. As to the order I made for the intimate sample, that is a blood sample, I should tell you that should you withdraw your consent to the taking of such a sample, the police may use reasonable force to obtain it.
----
0
0