R v Janna Maree Sladic
[2015] ACTSC 31
•10 February 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v JANNA MAREE SLADIC |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 31 |
Hearing Date(s): | 6 February 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 10 February 2015 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. Janna Sladic’s conviction for the offence of aggravated robbery, committed on 13 November 2011, be confirmed. 2. Janna Sladic be sentenced to three years imprisonment to commence on 11 January 2014. 3. That the sentence be suspended for two years from 10 February 2015. 4. That Janna Sladic be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years, with the following conditions: (a) a probation condition that she be subject to the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising her; and (b) that she engage in counselling for drug use and mental health issues to be discussed and agreed between her and the person supervising her or, failing agreement as directed by the person supervising her. (c) that she submit yourself to urinalysis as and when reasonably required by the person supervising her. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Aggravated Robbery – Knife crime – Sentencing – Breach of good behaviour order – History of drug addiction – Attempts at rehabilitation |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 18, 137 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310(a) |
Cases Cited: | Ashdown v The Queen [2011] VSCA 408 Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353 |
Texts Cited: | Willow Bryant and Tracy Cussen, Homicide in Australia 2010-2011 and 2011-12, National Homicide Monitoring Program Report (Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra, 2015) AIC Monitoring Report No 23, |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Janna Maree Sladic (Accused) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr D Sahu-Khan (Crown) Mr T Crispin (Accused) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) S & T Lawyers (Accused) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 46 of 2012 |
Refshauge J:
The principles of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) do not always point in the same direction and the instinctive synthesis that is sentencing (Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 at 611; [75]) often requires competing considerations to be finely balanced and traded off to impose the just and appropriate sentence.
Appearing before me now for sentence is Janna Sladic who, on 6 December 2012, pleaded guilty to one count of committing on 13 November 2011 robbery in company with Taras Twerd and who, at the time had a knife with her, being an offensive weapon. That offence of aggravated robbery is prohibited by s 310(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) which provides for a maximum penalty of 2,500 penalty units (that is a fine of $275,000 at the time) or imprisonment for 25 years or both.
Judged by this penalty, the High Court in cases such as Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353 at 364, has said that such an offence is, prima facie, a very serious offence.
The Crown accepted this plea in full satisfaction of the indictment dated 25 July 2012 containing two counts and which it presented and, following the requirements of R v DF (No 2) (2012) 6 ACTLR 105, I assume that, following sentence, a Notice Declining to Proceed in respect of the other count on the indictment will be filed by the Crown.
The facts
On 13 November 2011, Ms Sladic and Mr Twerd went to a fast food store in Hawker. They both had knives when they entered the store. At the front door, they met an employee whom Mr Twerd grabbed by the neck and forced back towards the counter.
The employee, however, broke free and leapt over a counter where three other employees were standing. Mr Twerd threatened them with his knife. Ms Sladic walked slowly towards the counter with her knife, but not pointing it at anybody.
Mr Twerd demanded that the employees hand over money and threatened to stab them if they did not do so. The employees then handed over about $300 to Mr Twerd which he gave to Ms Sladic. She put it in a black shopping bag.
Mr Twerd leapt over the counter and tried to remover other cash trays but failed. Ms Sladic remained where she was. She neither climbed the counter nor pointed the knife at anyone. The two then left the store in a four wheel drive vehicle. The whole incident, however, had been captured on close circuit television.
A couple of days later, police attended Ms Sladic’s house and, after obtaining her consent, commenced a search of it. They found a number of items of clothing that appeared to have been worn by Mr Twerd during the robbery and Ms Sladic and Mr Twerd were arrested.
Ms Sladic was interviewed by police and made admissions of her involvement in the robbery. She said, however, that Mr Twerd had given her a knife and clothes to wear to cover up her identity.
The proceedings
The proceedings have taken a somewhat convoluted history, responsibility for which is partly to be laid at the feet of Ms Sladic.
Ms Sladic was arrested on 15 November 2011 and appeared in the Magistrates Court the next day. She was remanded in custody and remained in custody until 14 December 2012, a total of 394 days pre-sentence custody. On that day, I sentenced Ms Sladic to three years imprisonment to commence on 15 November 2011, a reduction from five years and six months for her plea of guilty and offer to give evidence against her co-offender. I suspended the sentence on that day and made a good behaviour order for two years. The start date for the sentence was to give her credit for the 394 days she had already spent in custody. See R v Sladic (Unreported, ACTSC, Refshauge J, SCC 46 of 2012, 14 December 2012).
The intention was that Ms Sladic move to Melbourne to live with her sister and continue her rehabilitation. That, unfortunately, did not happen and Ms Sladic returned to drug use relatively soon after and committed further offences. They were, however, not as serious as the principal offence. There were offences of trespass, driving while her licence was suspended by law, unlawful possession of stolen property and burglary.
These offences breached the good behaviour order I had made. After hearing submissions, however, I was persuaded to give Ms Sladic a further chance and I made a deferred sentence order. See R v Sladic [2014] ACTSC 56. This provided her with an opportunity to attend a drug rehabilitation facility in Queensland, Surfcity Transformations.
That option met with some mixed success. Ms Sladic did appear to have achieved some rehabilitation and recognition of the challenges that her addiction created. She had difficulties at the facility which seemed to have some unnecessarily restrictive practices, especially as to access to her legal practitioners. She left the facility on 17 July 2014 and was subject to urinalysis drug screening soon after and no illicit substances were detected.
On 14 August 2014, she entered another drug rehabilitation facility, Destiny Haven in the Hunter Valley, but the staff there expressed some doubts about her commitment to rehabilitation. There was, however, no further offending and she did not appear to be continuing to use illicit drugs. She completed the four month period, though there were some disciplinary challenges along the way. She reported that the program was one of the hardest things she had to do, especially as she had a problematic relationship with the therapist assigned to her. She was subject to urinalysis during the period and there were no adverse reports.
On 19 December 2014, she returned for a review of her bail and I permitted her to remain in the community on bail and appear before me on 6 February 2015 for sentence.
When making the deferred sentence order, I said to Ms Sladic, as I was required to do under s 118 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT):
I indicate that if you do not comply with this order and the bail conditions I consider that you should be sentenced to three years imprisonment, or to serve the balance of that term that was earlier imposed, namely, approximately one year and eleven months.
I indicate that if you do comply with the order and the bail conditions I consider that you should be sentenced to imprisonment for a similar period to be served either by way of periodic detention or wholly suspended with a good behaviour order, possibly including a community service condition.
Ms Sladic appeared on 6 February 2015 and her counsel, Mr T Crispin, submitted that I should now impose sentence. Mr D Sahu-Khan, who appeared for the Crown, submitted that there was really more that Ms Sladic should do and that it was too early to make a final determination, especially considering that she had not yet actively completed a full program of residential rehabilitation.
In my view, the time has now come when sentence must be imposed. Ms Sladic has been out of custody for over two years; the original offence was committed over three years ago. The proceedings must be brought to an end.
Accordingly, I propose to proceed to sentence.
Subjective circumstances
I have set out Ms Sladic’s subjective circumstances in the decision I made on 14 December 2012 (R v Sladic). I do not need to repeat them, but I should summarise them as follows.
Ms Sladic is now twenty-nine years old. She was born in Canberra, the youngest of her parents’ four children and was brought up by her father. She had, apart from the departure of her mother when Ms Sladic was three, a happy childhood.
She completed Year 11 at school and undertook 6 months of a beauty therapy course at the Canberra Institute of Technology.
Leaving home at sixteen, she moved in with her boyfriend but he was a substance abuser and subjected her to physical and mental abuse. She left him after four years.
Ms Sladic was always active at sport and became a reserve player for the Canberra Capitals. Unfortunately, she was involved in a motor vehicle collision in 2005 and the resultant injuries ended her sporting career, leaving her with significant mental health issues.
While recovering, she met a well-known drug user and they established a relationship, indeed becoming engaged to be married. The relationship, however, was unstable and it led to Ms Sladic using heroin and, unsurprisingly, becoming dependent.
She has previously attempted pharmacotherapy and other rehabilitation.
Her commitment to her church has been a significant feature in the recent past and she maintains that commitment.
She has some continuing disabilities from the motor vehicle collision but otherwise no physical health problems. She has some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder from the collision and other traumatic events.
She has a criminal history which includes 37 offences and a breach of a court order. The vast majority of these offences, 27, are dishonesty offences, including Burglary and Theft offences, often associated with drug addiction. Her most recent offence was in New South Wales in August, 2013. While that is not so long ago, it pre-dates her more intensive recent rehabilitation.
Present situation
Ms Sladic recognises that she needs ongoing support to maintain the management of her addiction. She proposes to return to Queensland which has an advantage in that it will address a significant risk factor for re-offending, namely her peers who, in Canberra, are mostly offenders and substance abusers.
She also recognises that she needs to continue with counselling, though it must be said that she has, in the past, had a difficult relationship with those who have been involved with her counselling.
Ms Sladic has, however, insight into her problems and has, after a somewhat shaky start, managed to take more control of her situation. For example, she has been offered employment in some environments, such as night clubs, which would clearly pose a risk for her, and she has declined the offers.
She has now an offer to be a vocalist with a band, Majestic, described as a “new up-coming band”. Its music ranges from jazz and blues to soul and house music. It plays in venues such as the Star City Casino, the Opera House, Doltone House and the Grand Paradiso, rather than night clubs.. She is described by the manager of the band as having the character which they are seeking, especially a “confident, captivating stage performance” and a “flamboyant vocal ability and a [sic] absolute stage presence”.
Ms Sladic has now been in the community without offending for over eighteen months. It appears that she has not used drugs for that period, though urinalysis is not available for the whole period.
The author of the helpful Pre-Sentence Report does suggest that, until she has accommodation, counselling and other supports in place, she remains at a risk of re-offending. These, it seems to me, can be made available through her family and a supervision regime.
The offence
Aggravated robbery is one of the most serious offences. It is normally an offence that would require a substantial custodial sentence; indeed, Spigelman CJ said in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at 373; [118], that non-custodial sentences should be “few and far between”.
It needs also to be mentioned that the use of knives in the commission of the offence was a seriously aggravating feature. As pointed out in Ashdown v The Queen [2011] VSCA 408 at [20], the community abhors the use of knives in committing offences. Indeed, in Willow Bryant and Tracy Cussen, Homicide in Australia 2010-2011 and 2011-12, National Homicide Monitoring Program Report (Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra, 2015) AIC Monitoring Report No 23, it is reported that knives continue to be the most commonly used weapon in homicides, causing 42 per cent of all homicides.
It will have been a traumatic and likely terrifying event for the employees of the store, though I did not have a victim impact statement.
Nevertheless, the Federal Court, as appellate court of this court, has stated in R v Molina (1984) 2 FCR 508 at 510:
It must be remembered that the ultimate purpose of all punishment is the protection of society. It will often be in the best interest of society if emphasis is put on rehabilitation, particularly in cases where the offender can genuinely be said to be at the crossroads between a useless drug-ridden and probably criminal existence and a relatively normal life in society supported by a caring family.
While the offence was serious and while Ms Sladic’s participation exposed her to punishment for the offence as both she and Mr Twerd committed it, the Statement of Facts made clear her somewhat lesser participation in the offending behaviour.
Consideration
I take into account the plea of guilty entered by Ms Sladic. It was not made at the earliest time but, so far as I can tell, some time before a trial date was set. It saved the administration of justice resources, including time.
I have regard to the purpose of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. I have set out in these reasons the matter of which I am aware as set out in s 33 of that Act.
I take into account the very serious nature of the offence for which I must sentence Ms Sladic, the circumstances under which it was committed, the likely effect on the employees, the victim of the offence, and the use of knives in its commission.
I also take into account the subjective circumstances of Ms Sladic as I have set them out in these reasons. I commend her commitment to reform and rehabilitation along the path of which she has made significant strides. There is more to be done, but I feel reasonably confident that with a job, corrective services support and the continuing support of her family, the signs are optimistic, though I must be cautious about that.
Ms Sladic has been assessed as not suitable for a community service condition of a good behaviour order or for service of a term of imprisonment by periodic detention. This limits the options that I foreshadowed when meeting the deferred sentence order. I can override these assessments but do not consider that I should do so.
In my view, the seriousness of the offence does require a sentence of imprisonment but I consider that she has served sufficient of that period in full-time custody. In my view, a suspended sentence is appropriate.
Ms Sladic, please stand:
1. I confirm the conviction I have earlier entered for the offence of aggravated robbery committed on 13 November 2011 (CC2011/1063).
2. I sentence you to imprisonment for three years to commence on 11 January 2014 to take into account the 394 days of pre-sentence custody. Had you not pleaded guilty and offered to give evidence at any trial of Taras Twerd for this offence, I would have sentenced you to imprisonment for five years and six months. So far as is necessary for the purpose of s 137 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), I apportion one year and six months for the assistance you have offered to provide to the authorities.
3. I direct that the sentence be suspended today for two years.
4. I require you to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years with the following conditions:
(a) a probation condition that you be subject to the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising you;
(b) that you engage in counselling for drug use and mental health issues to be discussed and agreed between you and the person supervising you or, failing agreement as directed by the person supervising you; and
(c) that you submit yourself to urinalysis as and when reasonably required by the person supervising you.
[His Honour then spoke directly to Ms Sladic]
Ms Sladic, it has been over two years now that we have been in this situation. You have made significant progress and that is to your credit, and I have given you credit for that in what I have done. Nevertheless, there has been some backsliding and you now know that it is not all plain sailing, it is difficult. You need to remain committed and focused, clearly you have that capacity to do that.
If this new job works out I hope it will not put you into a milieu where you are at risk, but I have put some structures into place through the supervision, urinalysis and the obligation for counselling which you, with your insight, have indicated that you think you need. Hopefully these structures will assist you to re‑establish the pro‑social situation that you had before the car accident, and put you on the road to being a useful and valuable member of society and to be once again, as I am sure you have been in the past, an absolutely delight to your father, who, no doubt, would want to be as proud of you now as he has been in the past.
| I certify that the preceding fifty two [52] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Refshauge. Associate: Date: 2015 |
0
7
2