R v Meehan, Taris

[2008] NSWDC 334

CITATION:	R v Meehan, Taris [2008] NSWDC 334
HEARING DATE(S):	13/11/2008
JUDGMENT DATE:	5 December 2008
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Pursuant to S.166 of Crimes Procedure Act Knowingly contravene prohibition or restriction specified in an ADVO: Convicted. Sentence to a fixed term of 18 months imprisonment to date from the 9th September 2007 and expiring on the 8th March 2009. Aggravated Break and Enter: (Committed for sentence) Convicted. Sentence to a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months to date from the 9th December 2008 and expiring on the 8th June 2012. Balance of term of 1 year and 9 months expiring on the 8th March 2014. I find special circumstances. S166 Matters- Maliciously wound a person and Maliciously destroy/damage property: (Back-up charges) S.166 matters dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - aggravated B & E and commit malicious wounding - standard non parole period offence - s.166 matter - contravene apprehended domestic violence order - Form 1 matter malicious damage to motor vehicle - ex boyfriend - breaks and enters ex girlfriend's home - occupants asleep - armed with two iron bars and two knives - breaks window with bar and enters - assaults ex girlfriends son - strikes and stabs new boyfriend - five discreet injury sites - worst case of contravene apprehended domestic violence order - occasions substantial malicious damage to new boyfriends car - 29 year old single male - mental health issues - otherwise reasonable subjective circumstances - early guilty plea - full cooperation with police - standard non parole period not imposed - special circumstances found
LEGISLATION CITED:	Criminal Procedure Act
CASES CITED:	R v Gladue (1999) 1SCR 688 [80] R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329 R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
PARTIES:	Regina Taris Meehan
FILE NUMBER(S):	2008/11/1202
COUNSEL:	Defence: J. Nader
SOLICITORS:	Crown: Mr Greg Coles

JUDGMENT

1. Gregory Glass is a forty-year-old father of an eleven-year-old daughter. In September of 2007 he was in what he believed were the early days of a new relationship with Angela Sponza. Both shared an interest in physical fitness. Glass had been running triathlons for fourteen years. He knew Ms Sponza had been receiving harassing calls on both her house land- line and mobile phones from an ex-boyfriend, Taris. There was an AVO in existence requiring Taris Meehan not to harass Ms Sponza, not to go within 100 yards of her premises and not to assault, molest or otherwise interfere with Ms Sponza or any other person with whom she had a domestic relationship.

2. On 8 September, Glass and his daughter were sleeping over at Ms Sponza’s. Also in the house that night and following morning were one of her two daughters, her son and his friend Daniel and of course Ms Sponza herself. At 7am on 9 September in circumstances that I will come to in more detail shortly, Taris Meehan broke and entered into the dwelling of Ms Sponza knowing she and Glass were present, armed with two metal pipes and two kitchen knives, created mayhem for something like thirty or forty minutes, targeting in particular Glass, maliciously wounding him with one of the knives then left the premises but targeted Greg Glass’s Mazda sedan, smashing every window and panel of that vehicle repeatedly striking that vehicle with a rock.

3. Today Taris Meehan is to be held accountable for his criminal conduct on the morning of 9 September. An unusual feature of this case is that he told Dr Olav Nielsen that one of the reasons he had committed these offences was in order to be taken into custody for treatment. Indeed he had also told police the same. While I doubt it was the major driving factor of his criminal conduct, it does point to a highly disturbed man at the time of his offending conduct.

4. As sentencing Judge it falls to me to resolve a number of competing tensions as I strive to determine the appropriate sentences for these offences before this court committed by this offender harming this victim in this community, that is the community he was at Newcastle in the circumstances in which he did it. (See R v Gladue (1999) 1SCR 688 [80]).

5. My initial task requires an assessment of the objective criminality of the offence before the Court. I will also need to have regard to matters personal to the offender, which are called subjective matters. The starting point for such assessments requires me to make findings of fact from the evidence before the Court and ultimately from them the objective criminality can be assessed. Some of those facts have already been set out in my introductory remarks.

6. Before any sentence can be made there are likely to be technical questions relating to deterrence, discounts, whether special circumstances are to be found, Form 1 matters, any backup charges brought from the Local Court to be finalised in this Court and finally of course the ultimate term of imprisonment or other penalty to be imposed. What weight needs to be given to these matters against the imperative that all sentencing should have as its primary focus the protection of the community will also need to be determined, See (R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329, R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597, R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740).

Facts

7. About 7am on 9 September, Ms Sponza’s boy and Danny were asleep in the master bedroom in a king size bed. Both I think were either very early teenagers or just about entering into their teenage years. Daniel gives this account:

“I was woken by loud banging noises at the bedroom window. I heard Angela screaming. The bedroom window was closed and locked and there were window coverings across the window. (I think the coverings were blinds made of a thin light coloured fabric). I put my head up and looked towards the window. The blind fabric was so thin that I could see through it. I saw Angela’s ex-boyfriend who I only know as Taris trying to smash the window with what appeared to be a crowbar. He hit the window about four times before it smashed. Once he had smashed through the glass, Taris used the crowbar to run around the edge of the hole to knock out more glass and make the hole bigger. I was so frightened by what I saw I fell of the edge of the bed and onto the floor. I became wedged between the bed and chest of drawers. I stayed on the floor as I was scared of what Taris might do to me. I was face down with my head cradled in my arms, I was then struck twice on the left side of my body near my ribs. I felt as if I had been kicked. It caused me a lot of pain and I was winded for a minute or two. While on the floor I heard the boy’s bedroom door open. I heard Angela scream and then I heard run off through the house as Taris chased her. I heard Angela scream frantically at Taris “Get out. Get out”. She then yelled “Greg please come and help”.

8. I pick up the story now from Gregory Glass’s statement:

“I got up from the lounge room and turned left around into the hallway. I saw a man coming towards me swinging an iron bar he had in his right hand. He was also carrying an iron bar in his left. As he got closer to me I realised it was Angela’s ex-boyfriend Taris. He swung the iron bar and the first blow hit me to the right side of my head above the right eyebrow. After the first blow I reached out, took hold of Taris’s right wrist. He then struck me to the back of the head with the other bar he was carrying. I recall seeing Angela tackling Taris around his legs. Taris and I started falling to the floor. As we were falling I felt a blow to the inside of the left knee with the bar. Taris and I hit the floor. I was disoriented for a few seconds from the blows to the head. As Taris and I were getting down from the floor I saw him produce a knife from somewhere on the right side of his body. I yelled “He’s got a knife”. That was to let everyone know because kids were in the house. Taris and I who were both standing up probably about arm’s distance apart. Taris lunged at me with the knife in an attempt to stab me. He tried to stab me with an overhand motion. I lifted my left arm instinctively and at the same time tried to grab his hand holding the knife with my right. The knife stabbed me on the point of the left elbow cutting me. Taris was then slashing at my left stomach and chest area with the knife. I had him held at arms length but the knife still hit my stomach and I could feel the blood running. Somehow I dislodged the knife from his hand and it fell to the floor. I then fell to the floor. Taris then left and I heard his footsteps on the broken glass at the front of the house. I could feel blood running down the left side of my head. I got up, saw blood everywhere on my clothes and could feel it running down my side and head. I made my way to the back of the house to get away from the view of the kids. When I got out of there I went into a state of shock. I don't know how badly I was injured. I felt cold”.

9. I come back to Daniel’s statement:

“I looked out of the bedroom door and saw Taris run back into Sonny’s room. He climbed back out through the smashed window. I did not see if he was still carrying the knife. Angela came to the room and told us to lock ourselves in the bathroom, which we did. While in the bathroom I heard Angela call police. As she was on the phone I could hear smashing sounds out the front of the house. Angela yelled out to Taris “Can you please leave?”. She said this several times. I’m not sure if she was still on the phone at that stage. A few minutes later I heard Angela yell out “Help” repeatedly. A few minutes later Angela came to the bathroom door and told us we could unlock the door as police had arrived. Angela told us to go and wait in the girl’s bedroom, which we did. While we were walking down the hallway to the girl’s bedroom I looked through Sonny’s bedroom window and saw Greg standing outside near the ambulance with a bandage around his head. I also saw that Greg’s car, a blue Mazda 3 had been smashed up. There were dents all over the car and most of the windows were smashed”.

10. I now review the offender’s version of his dealing with the motor vehicle:

“I then ran back into the bedroom, jumped out of the window onto the porch, ran back out to the front. I jumped over the fence and ran back out the front on the street. I then had lost one shoe. I took the other shoe off and I noticed blood all over me. I gave myself a quick check to see what was wrong with me. I noticed that I had a whole lot of cuts on my hands. I then started to bandage my hands. I took my jumper off and started bandaging my hands. I then grabbed a rock that was in the gutter and started smashing his car up. At that time I smashed the window, opened the door to his car, took a five-kilo bag of dog food out, threw it over the fence, opened the passenger side door up and then noticed his wallet there. I then ID him from his driver’s licence that was in his wallet. But I had been previously introduced to him but I did not know his name or exactly who he was previously and then I ID him. I went back down the side of the house and he [Greg Glass] was in the foetal position on a rocker bench with a blanket wrapped around him. I then asked him if he was alright, how he was, he looked up at me and he grunted and then I asked him how was the massage that he got a few weeks ago while he was having sex with Angela whilst I was minding Angela’s children”.

11. Finally on that score I come back to Greg Glass’s statement:

“When Taris climbed onto the railing, Angela said to him “Please leave”. He said “Don’t worry, I am not going to do anymore, I’ve done what I came to do”. He then said “I bet you wished you didn’t know her now [to Greg Glass]”. I feared for my safety so I got up and went into the office of the house”.

12. On 21 February 2008, Meehan wrote an account to Ms Sponza. It is clear from this account he had been watching her premises from about 8.30am on 8 September until some time after 11.30pm when he returned home. He took four sleeping pills but woke at 5.45am. He drove past the house early, returned to his home, kissed his sister goodbye, grabbed two knives and two pieces of car jack. He continues:

“When I jumped through the window I seen Daniel roll over off the bed. I was unsure who it was but I knew his bike was beside your car and Sonny was with him the day before. I thought it was Greg. I stomped on Daniel and pulled his hair. Sonny was screaming out to Daniel. Before I swung the pole I realised who it was. I then heard you and Greg move off the couch or you run from the kitchen moving the loose floorboard in the lounge/kitchen entrance. I saw your face. I jumped over Sonny saying as I seen Greg “You’re first”. I then confronted him. I wanted to stab him so I waited for him to come close to me. He did. After pulling the knife out I was scared and unable to hurt you or anyone else. I was so frightened that I ran back out the window. I smashed Greg’s car then went back, not assist in his injury but to do more harm. You made me think twice when you came out the back door. I remember your face as you stared at me through the laundry window. I thought to myself I’m never going to see you again but I love you so much. I then ran out to the police”.

13. Meehan had disconnected the handle of an hydraulic car jack at his home. The handle had split into two metal pipes, not heavy like a crowbar or an iron bar but nonetheless capable of injuring. The two knives were kitchen knives, each identical to the other, having a cutting blade of about twenty centimetres in length. They had been secreted in his underwear, one on each hip. Only one was used. The other was deliberately dropped by him at the scene.

14. Gregory Glass was taken to hospital and on arrival at the Emergency Department a doctor’s examination showed that he was alert and orientated. His observations were stable. He was tender about the knee with some swellings and abrasions there but had a full range of movement. He had what the doctors described as two superficial lacerations to the left side of his torso, one measuring seven centimetres and the other measuring approximately four centimetres. There was a further three centimetre laceration on the left side of his back, again superficial. There was a slightly deeper laceration to the medial margin of his left elbow, which did not appear to involve the joint, which measured approximately four centimetres. He had abrasions on both his hands. There was a deeper laceration to the left occiput. This only involved again the superficial layers and there was no fracture. The left occiput is the left side of his head. There were two times three centimetre swellings above the right eyebrow, each very tender. There was a minor right frontal sinus fracture but there was no evidence of intracranial bleeding. The injuries were serious but it would be debatable as to whether in their totality they amount to grievous bodily harm.

15. When asked what his intention was in the interview in regard to stabbing Greg Glass with the knife, Meehan answered “To give him some memories in his life. He’d given me one a couple of months previous. I was giving him one back. My intention wasn’t to kill him. Why kill him when he can suffer for the rest of his life?”. (See also questions 320 and 321 in the interview).

16. Doing the best I can when Meehan makes reference to a memory he had been given by Glass, I understand that to be a reference to an occasion when he claims Greg Glass came to the house for a massage. Ms Sponza does remedial massages. While the massage was ongoing, Meehan continued with domestic duties cooking for the children. It is Meehan’s case that during this encounter between Glass and Sponza there was sexual intercourse. (See questions 198 and questions 268 and one that I have earlier referred to) in the course of reciting the facts.

17. The worrying aspect of all this is that question 185 in his record of interview with police, Meehan claims to be unsure whether the man that he had seen accompanying Ms Sponza on 6 or 7 September was the same person or a new person to the person who had received the massage.

18. Meehan had seen Ms Sponza with a man on 6 or 7 September. That man was most likely Greg Glass. It is Meehan’s case the male is said to have remarked to Ms Sponza “I am bigger than him [apparently referring to Meehan] do you want me to rough him up?” but the offender does not put this incident as one motivating his offending conduct nor is there any other evidence to support the account that he gives of that conversation.

19. When asked by Dr Neilsen why he attacked Mr Glass, Mr Meehan replied that although he had only met Mr Glass on one occasion he felt “he had no right to be in the house”.

20. On the occasion of the interview the accused denied any intent to hurt Ms Sponza or the children. That of course is contrary to the written comments made by him on 21 February and is a matter that will need to be resolved. It can be seen that there are three or four possible explanations for the offender attacking Mr Glass but even if all of the factors were taken together, they could not possibly justify an attack of this ferocity.

21. While it would seem the separation of Meehan and Ms Sponza was not necessarily unwelcomed by Ms Sponza, it was Meehan who had initiated the separation. She had every right thereafter to move on with her life. She had every right to form any new attachment. There was nothing in the acts of Ms Sponza or Greg Glass that constituted any provocation for an attack of this order. Proof of provocative conduct falls to the defence. It has not been established in this case. In fairness it should be said counsel representing Meehan has not sought argue mitigation on such a ground. I have only dealt with it because of issues raised by the offender in his interview and elsewhere.

22. From the facts as he finds them to be, the sentencing Judge is required to assess the objective criminality of the offence as an essential step in assessing its seriousness. That is done by comparing objectively the criminality exhibited in this case with the criminality of offences of similar kind. It is in this way that the objective seriousness of the criminality of this offence can be evaluated. Not surprisingly the objective criminality has a very important impact on the overall sentencing outcome.

23. The law has long put store on the sanctity of a person’s home. For example, police or Government authorities must in the normal course of events seek a court’s permission to enter even the most humble person’s abode. When such an order is sought the court must be satisfied that the purpose of entry is a lawful one. In this case, the purpose for seeking entry was a seriously illegal purpose. Entry was gained for the purpose of maliciously wounding Greg Glass. Meehan had written that his secret purpose was to kill everyone and then himself. That contradicts what he told police on the day of the offence namely that he was targeting Mr Glass. He did not want to kill him but wanted his memory to linger upon the attack and injury. It also contradicts what he told Dr Neilsen which was that he had told the truth to the police when interviewed. While I recognise his further confession to Ms Sponza constitutes a deliberate admission against interests, I am not prepared to accept it as accurately stating what was in his mind as he entered the Sponza premises.

24. Drawing inferences is very risky. The line between a well drawn inference and speculation can be a narrow one. For my part though, I am satisfied his first act was to attack the young boy in the first room he entered, that was the master bedroom. He thought as he began that attack that the person was or at least could have been Ms Sponza’s lover. Yet his first reaction was to kick the hapless figure and pull his hair. His first reaction was not to pull either of the knives from his possession and attack with them or it. My finding is that he was furiously angry but not murderously so.

25. Meehan has always been conscious of the great moral wrong he was engaged in as he entered these premises. He was surrendering to anger arising from his depression, frustration and sense of impotence with his situation and perhaps even blaming himself for having created it. He may well have contemplated serial murder/suicide but that was not what drove his acts that morning. As he sat in his gaol cell no doubt reflecting on every minute detail of thoughts and actions some of which may well have contemplated serial murder/suicide that he entertained on the day or days leading up top the incident. Those contemplations had whilst he was in custody assumed an importance no doubt driven by feelings of guilt that resulted in an over statement of his intent on 21 February 2008.

26. The criminality I am dealing with then involves the damaging of property for the purposes of unlawful entry, for a further purpose of unlawful assault on another with an offensive weapon intending to use it to cause a wound or wounds.

27. The offending conduct was driven by desire to cause a lasting hurt to an innocent person because of the hurt and sense of humiliation being experienced by him, Meehan. His entry caused, and I find was designed to cause alarm among all other members of the household. The rationale behind him wanting to cause this alarm particularly among the children, I fail to fathom unless it was a means of vicariously causing stress and anguish to Ms Sponza. Of course any injury to her present lover would also have caused stress and anguish to her. That he succeeded in causing alarm and fear and possible longer lasting psychological injury to the children and Ms Sponza cannot be doubted. His intent and success in causing this alarm, fear and distress adds to his criminality.

28. His coming armed and his use of weapons, two metal pipes and two knives aggravates the criminality of course. He only used two against Glass, one the metal pipe to strike his head and the knife to cause at least one and probably more of the injuries. Another was discarded in the house. My view is that it was discarded there for all to see and forever to remember. He had the means of doing great physical harm.

29. The evidence discloses that Meehan was paying close attention to Ms Sponza for at least two days prior to the break in. No doubt his frustration, resentment, brooding, anger and sense of impotence were percolating through his psyche. He had chosen to leave but could not do so. At some point before his entry he had taken sleeping pills some time after 11.30pm on 8 September. I cannot be satisfied in those circumstances he had already decided to break and enter the premises at the time or by the time he had taken the sleeping pills.

30. Unable to sleep he had woken early on 9 September. He had visited the Sponza premises, seen the blue Mazda and determined Ms Sponza’s lover had stayed the night. At a point in time shortly between this discovery and his return home, he had determined to enter the house and attack the lover.

31. This offence is not a spontaneous offence. It may be an impulsive decision was made but he returned home to arm himself. While the planning was by no means sophisticated, painstaking or thoughtful, there was at some level planning whereby he was able to take time to organise himself and better prepare himself to the extent that that was done prior to the offending conduct his criminality is aggravated.

32. The offence of breaking and entering Ms Sponza’s residence was done in contravention of a court order prohibiting him from so entering the premises, harassing them or assaulting anyone she had a domestic relationship with. There is a s 166 Criminal Procedure Act matter relating to that. I have been asked to deal with the s 166 matters and I intend to do so by dealing with that matter initially and to then accumulate the subsequent sentence onto it.

33. The parties submitted the break enter and malicious wound offence fell within the mid-range of objective seriousness. I am interested in whether it does fall within the mid-range of objective seriousness because there is a standard non-parole period for this offence of seven years. There is nothing in my analysis of the objective criminality that suggests I should find otherwise. That is to say my assessment is that it does fall within the mid-range of seriousness.

34. I now turn to assess the gravity of the contravene apprehended domestic violence order that I am dealing with pursuant to s 166. I intend as I say to set a separate sentence for that and I want it understood why I am doing so. The contravention was knowingly, indeed defiantly, done. It was done for the purpose of committing a serious crime of personal violence against a person who was in a domestic relationship with Ms Sponza. The breach was not an isolated incident. There had been forty text messages sent in contravention to the order. I am satisfied the tone of some if not all of those messages was, to use an euphemism, unpleasant so far as the recipient was concerned. I am satisfied on numerous occasions since his return from Queensland he had been within 100 metres of Ms Sponza’s residence. I am satisfied he was interested in her movements and the movements of others who may have had some connection with her. The breach was culminated in malicious damage to her property, a personal attack upon two occupants of Ms Sponza’s residence thereby creating a high sense of mayhem, fear, alarm and distress among at least six persons. I am satisfied this conduct constitutes a worse case of contravention of domestic violence and I intend to give a fixed term of the maximum sentence for it.

35. In respect of the Form 1 offence which is the malicious damage to the motor vehicle, it is sufficient to say the offence was driven by malice at least towards Greg Glass, as I say it may also have been malice towards Ms Sponza hoping to cause her grief by the grief occasioned to Glass as a result of damage to an item that he clearly would have cherished. The damage done was thorough in the sense that every panel and every window was attacked. I think almost all but one of the windows was broken and each panel was damaged. The offending conduct will be taken into account when I set the sentence for the major offence that I am dealing with.

36. I have received substantial material taking the form of a victim impact statement or the supporting of a victim impact statement. None of that material has been sworn although Mr Glass did read the statement in court. It has not been subject to cross-examination. To the extent that opinions were expressed in the statement I recognise they are not the opinions of a qualified expert. But the victim impact statement coming as it does from the primary victim, if I accept it as reliable provides unsworn evidence as to the facts of the offence and their effect upon him.

37. The function of statements such as this one is, firstly to give to victims an opportunity of being heard in the sentencing proceedings by publicly identifying the impact of the trauma visited upon them by the actions of an offender. Secondly, they enable, hopefully, the sentencing proceedings to assist victims as they move towards some closure of grief, resentment and brooding arising from the serious criminal conduct of an offender. Thirdly, they hopefully contribute to an offender at least hearing at first hand and perhaps gaining some insight into the impact his offending conduct has had upon his victim. And finally of course they remain as a constant reminder to the Court of the impact crime can have upon the ordinary men and women who are its victims.

38. I have sought to give some flavour of the material that has been exhibited before me in these remarks. I do not record them entirely. So far as the material provided by Greg Glass, it is a closely typed four page analysis of the impact Meehan’s home invasion and attack has had upon him. I have tried to catalogue it as it were into four sections. His enjoyment of life and how this offence has affected that; his career loss; how the offence has impacted upon his relationship; and the legacy of post traumatic stress that it has left him. So far as enjoyment of life, he says this:

“This [offending] has affected my being able to concentrate on the simplest of tasks and therefore my work performance. My work has been greatly compromised. I used to be a sales rep and was accustomed to getting Rep of the Year Awards. Now since the assault on me, I received a warning, a notification of unacceptable work performance…I used to be a highly functioning organised person and time management was my strength. I used to be up to date on everything and now I struggle each day to keep functioning normally. I always paid bills on time and was never in debt…My deterioration in work performance resulted in financial difficulties. Not only was I not performing my duties to an acceptable level but I would get headaches and would have to leave and go home and take medication and lie down. I have had to leave my job and get work elsewhere because it was too much pressure and my standards dropped so dramatically. I didn’t want to see that happen or let my employer down. I have had to get something less demanding even if it is a step backwards. My accumulating financial problems resulted in my daughter and I being homeless and having to relocate to less suitable circumstances”.

39. As to Mr Glass’s career loss he says:

“The assault on me has also had a huge impact on my future career in the police force. If it wasn’t for the assault I would have been in the Northern Territory working by now. Because of the trauma and stress I was under I didn’t pass my third and final psychological test, which I had passed the last two times. I had always planned a career change when I turned forty. Going into the police force was a dream of mine as I wanted to use my physical ability to help others. I wanted to end up in search and rescue. Moving to the NT to study as a mature age student has many financial incentives and was my chance to own my own home and start a new life with my daughter”.

40. Relationships:

“The assault on me by Taris Meehan changed all the relationships in my life, especially with my daughter and ended my relationship with Angie, the offender’s Taris Meehan’s ex-girlfriend which I guess was his aim. My daughter who was sleeping in the same room as me that night witnessed some of it, became distant and had a lot going on for her as a result. I became short and abrupt with her, which I had never been before and I think that scares her. My headiness makes me less patient with her and less tolerant of the simple things I used to tolerate. In the last couple of weeks my daughter has only just now started kissing or hugging or showing any affection towards me again. Her concentration was affected and therefore her schooling deteriorated. It is also a hard time for her going into high school and through her change of life making the impact and problems so much harder. She looked up to Angie and trusted her so the assault and relationship break up shattered her as well. My daughter and I have had to go to counselling. Following the assault, Angie became withdrawn, distant and cold. Because of what I was going through, I was on the edge and over reacting to things, which didn’t help the situation. When we broke up I felt betrayed and used…I have been socially withdrawn and my self esteem and confidence have taken a battering. When it comes to sport, work and future relationships, I have always taken pride in what I do professionally and personally and have never [previously] slipped in my standards”.

41. Post traumatic stress:

“I thought I was going to die that day. I didn’t know what was going on. Half asleep I got two blows to my head and then got stabbed. The people at John Hunter Hospital told me one more blow and I would have been dead. How do you deal with that?…I was a very private person and in a split second Taris Meehan caused such an invasion of privacy and has made me feel violated. I hate the thought that he went through all my things in the car. He also damaged my car causing financial loss. I used to be very independent and now I have found it very difficult to open up and trust all the people who have had to come into my life because of this assault both professionally and privately…I am fearful of any future injuries or violence. Any violence or anything remotely similar on the news or in the newspapers scares me and brings it all back making it even harder to settle or sleep. Things like the blood embedded in my licence are a constant reminder…I have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder. Now anything similar to violence triggers responses in me. For example when I was running and there were kids mucking around throwing thing to each other, I had to change my path and divert to get out of harms way…The hardest thing to ever get used to is living on the concoction of tablets when I never used to even take a headache tablet. The head injury has also affected my sinuses which in turn affects my physical activity and sleep”.

42. Finally enjoyment of life:

“I used to be very fit and run triathlons. I have run triathlons for twenty years and have been involved as an official in sporting events including Commonwealth Games. Training and physical fitness have always been a big part of my life. A big part of my identity and well being. Because of the attack and head injury my training ability has been severely affected. I used to train two hours a day before and after work. I would ride or run before work and ride or swim after. I have attempted to start training many times and failed and have had to try many different medications. Now I’m forcing myself to train despite the pain just to try and get back to feeling normal…I have found swimming impossible because after 200 metres I get heady and have to stop due to headaches and fuzziness. I am scared to cycle on the road alone because I don't trust myself on my own in case I get heady or black out and have an accident. It seems whenever I put my head down I get heady. It is something I miss greatly which gave me joy. In June of 2008 long weekend I attempted my first social run but when everyone was socialising afterwards I had to go to bed because of the pain in my head. It has also had a large impact on my social life because I can now no longer associate with people that I normally would through triathlons and sport”.

43. There are also two expert reports annexed to Mr Glass’s victim impact statement. They confirm the diagnosis of post traumatic stress. For my purposes it is sufficient if I refer to the report of Emma Lee, psychologist:

“On presenting, Mr Glass described himself as experiencing “A wave of overwhelming stresses” relating to the assault itself and the effects of this in a wide range of aspects of his life. Mr Glass experiences a range of symptoms indicative of post traumatic stress disorder including nightmare, flashbacks, hyperarousal, anxiety and reduced self esteem. Mr Glass reports ongoing jaw pain and headaches that limit his capacity to work and also train for triathlons, a key part of his life prior to the assault. In addition Mr Glass is also experiencing significant work and financial stress, loss of career opportunities and the breakdown of his relationship with his partner.

During his second visit on 6 June 2008, the Depression, Anxiety Stress Scale and the Impact of Events Scale Revised were administered to him. The DASS indicated that Mr Glass fell into the extremely severe range for depression, anxiety and stress. The IES-R indicated that in areas reflective of post traumatic stress disorder (avoidance, hyperarousal and intrusive thoughts) his negative response to the assault is also extremely severe”.

44. I will take the luncheon adjournment now and resume at two o’clock when I will come to deal with the subjective features relating to this offender.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

45. I am required, as I said earlier, to have regard to the subjective matters. Not only am I sentencing for the criminal offences that have been committed but I am also sentencing this offender for them. Matters personal to the offender may give some insight into or explanation as to why a more, or a less severe sentence is required.

46. Taris Meehan is a single man born in July of 1979. He is now aged twenty-nine. He has three siblings, a brother and two sisters. His parents are both still supportive of him. He had formed his first de facto relationship with Ms Sponza. He was attached to her children to a point of having a vasectomy so that he could have no other children. Apart from this relationship he had previously been in no other live-in relationship; but had had an association for some time with another woman in the Jehovah’s Witness congregation. This was the first time he had lived away from home but for a twelve month period in Tasmania where he attended a maritime college. He is a Kamilaroy man who was picked upon at school, and it seems during his apprenticeship, for his Aboriginal heritage. His mother had been fostered out to a Jehovah’s Witness family and he continues in that faith. He continues to read the Bible and Watchtower whilst in prison.

47. His only prior relationship was with a member of that congregation but that relationship was ended suddenly by her. Of significance so far as this matter is concerned, is his inability on that occasion to cope with her dismissal of him. There was a drive in a manner dangerous matter, where the view has been taken by those concerned with his treatment that he was seeking to commit suicide. There was also, at the same time, a contravention of an apprehended domestic violence order.

48. He attended primary school as best I can tell in the North Coast areas and high school to Year 10 at Carrington. He was a good student. As I said, he also attended a maritime college in Tasmania and worked for a short period as a commercial fisherman. He used those skills when he was employed, presumably part-time, as a fish handler in one of the local restaurants. Those who then employed him have written references in support of him.

49. He left commercial fishing to become an apprentice painter at the Maitland Hospital and is now qualified as a painter and decorator. He was completing Year 12 equivalent with a view to studying social sciences at University. After he qualified as a painter he became self-employed. He met Ms Sponza in the course of painting at her house.

50. There are no apparent physical health problems. At the time of his arrest he was described as having a passion for exercise. A day or two before the offence for example he was at the Sports Aquatic Centre for two hours. He did complain during the course of the interview of a magnesium deficiency. But the significance of that is not otherwise explained and I suspect it is more to do with peak fitness issues than with general health.

51. There are mental health issues. There is some family history of mental health issues. Meehan’s brother has a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The offender’s father observed to Dr Neilsen, a well-known forensic psychiatrist retained by the Aboriginal Legal Service that “Taris has always had some kind of problem but we don't know the diagnosis”. Meehan has in the past sought psychiatric assistance. In Queensland, just prior to this criminal conduct, he had seen a psychiatrist and the day before the offence he had seen a Newcastle psychiatrist. In July of 2007 he had been admitted overnight to the James Fletcher Hospital in circumstances, which I will come to later.

52. In the course of his interview, Meehan is asked for a second or third time by police what was his intention that he formed at his mother’s house (questions and answers 281-286).

“Q. You decided to go around there, what did you decide to do when you were at your mother’s house by going around there?

A. What did I decide to do?

Q. Yeah. What was your intentions that you formed at your mother’s house?
A. Oh to be taken to gaol like to assault …to be taken away to help me deal with my problem that I’ve had for the last four months to get some kind of release from what had happened to me…like I’d been through psychologists and tried all different options until this option.

53. I have already discussed in some detail what motivated the offender’s conduct but the human mind is capable of holding more than one aim at a time. It is probable this offender saw as a “benefit” flowing to him from his violent criminal conduct that he may receive some therapeutic treatment in custody.

54. My view is that was a rationalisation by him making it easier to give in to his desire to express, criminally, the feelings I earlier referred to. But the answers to questions 281 to 286, and similar questions asked of him by Dr Neilsen, do show a breakdown in lines of logical, calm and rational thinking. He had attempted suicide whilst in Queensland. There may have been a past history of suicide attempt by the dangerous driving and the July 2007 admission to James Fletcher describes him as having a recent history of depression and suicidal thoughts.

55. Dr Neilsen described him on examination as: Emotional range blunt. Speech stilted and monotonous. Gave literal answers to questions put to him. Responses had odd quality suggesting the presence of underlying psychosis.

56. Dr Neilsen noted racing thoughts and over valued ideas in the period before arrest that may have been consistent with the hypermanic phase of bipolar disorder. He diagnosed a depressive illness and possible underlying psychotic illness. Dr Neilsen thought it very likely Meehan’s depressive state contributed to his offending conduct. That is, of course, a significant finding in terms of his offending conduct. It is one that I agree with. Dr Neilsen recommended intensive treatment for the depression and consideration being given to a mood stabiliser and low dose of anti-psychotic medication.

57. While there was a past history of cannabis use, Meehan denied any current drug or alcohol use at the time of his offending.

58. Meehan presents as a man in his late twenties with a strong work ethic who was seeking to enhance his education and seeking to advance himself by moving into the profession of social sciences. He had travelled fairly widely through Central Asia and Europe. There are only two matters on his criminal record both arising from the prior relationship in February of 1999 and both of which I have mentioned, drive manner dangerous and contravene apprehended violence order. For the first he was given fifty hours of community service and for the second he was placed on a s 9 bond to be of good behaviour for two years. His prior criminal history is minor. He is entitled to some mitigation on that account.

59. Given the level of mental illness issues, his rehabilitation is somewhat clouded. But factors that are positive for him are his strong family support, that he has a trade; he has a good prior work ethic and history, that he has good health, that is good physical health, that there does not seem to be any negative conduct whilst in custody. On the other hand, what does raise the clouds are his mental health situation and the absence of any well thought out future or post-release plan, other than he would probably kill himself either when he gets the courage or upon his release. There is also an absence of insight into his offending conduct.

60. The plea was entered early before the Magistrate. He is entitled to the full discount of his plea.

61. The offender has been open and frank with police. Contrary to the terms of his apprehended violence order he has now written two times to Ms Sponza, exposing what he says is a full account of his thoughts and actions as he invaded her home. He in surely understand this account can only be distressing for her and she gains nothing by receiving it.

62. He concluded one letter “May God see our past and forgive us” and the other “May you live a life in peace knowing I am gone”. On the one hand as I say, his letter must be sent knowing it would be painful for her to receive. On the other, he expresses thoughts that would suggest that he wished her well. He acknowledges his offending and accepts he deserved punishment. Yet I doubt that he has focussed beyond his own mail to see the damage he has really done to Greg Glass and feel sorry for that.

63. The maximum penalty for the specially aggravated break and enter and committing the malicious wound is one of twenty-five years with a standard non-parole period of seven years.

64. I accept Dr Neilsen’s opinion that the offender’s depressive state contributed to his criminal behaviour. That factor together with his plea of guilty and his minor criminal record take the offence even though it falls within a mid-range of seriousness, outside one requiring the standard non-parole period of seven years. Of course, even though it does not apply, it still must be borne in mind when I come to sentence.

65. Meehan has been in custody since his arrest. His sentences will be back dated to 9 September 2007 when he first went into custody. All his offending has occurred at the same time. In respect of the contravene apprehended domestic violence order which is the s 166 matter, I have indicated that I intend to set a sentence for that. I have also indicated that in those circumstances I would not be aggravating the break and enter offence. What I will be doing though is to accumulate the sentence for the break and enter and commit malicious wound onto the contravene apprehended domestic violence sentence. So unusually, I will be dealing with one of the s 166 matters from the Local Court before I impose the major sentence. I have looked at the relevant section and as best I can tell I am entitled to take that approach.

66. I have borne in mind totality when setting the sentence for both offences. Because I am setting sentence for the first offence I am bound by the rules of the Local Court and the maximum penalty for that offence is one of two years. I intend to impose the maximum sentence because I regard it as a worst case, but I am going to discount the sentences by twenty-five percent. Twenty-five percent off the two years makes a sentence of eighteen months.

67. What I formally need to do is to convict you pursuant to the powers granted to me by s 166 of the offence that you knowingly contravened a prohibition/restriction order (domestic) between 6.50am and 6.55am on 9 September 2007 at Birmingham Gardens and did knowingly contravene a restriction specified in that order. For that offence you are sentenced to a fixed term of eighteen months to commence on 9 September 2007 and to expire on 8 March 2010.

68. Mr Meehan I also convict you of the offence that you pleaded guilty to before the Magistrate that you, on 9 September 2007 at Birmingham Gardens broke and entered the dwelling house of Angela Sponza situated in Morris Street and in that dwelling house committed a serious indictable offence namely the malicious wounding whilst armed with an offensive weapon in circumstances of aggravation, that wounding being of course the wounding of Gregory Glass. For that offence I would, but for your plea of guilty, have set an overall sentence of seven years. I have discounted that sentence by twenty-five percent which on my calculation makes an overall sentence of five years and three months. I set a non-parole period of three years and six months to date from 9 December 2008 and to expire on 8 June 2012. I set a balance of term to expire on 8 March 2014. If those sentences are, as I anticipate they would be, it constitutes an overall sentence of six and a half years and a minimum term on my calculation I think is four years nine months.

69. It would be obvious that in respect of the last sentence I have found special circumstances and I should indicate why I have done that. Firstly it is your first time in custody; secondly there are mental health issues and there is a need to establish a regime of community based mental health compliance and monitoring and I commend that to the Probation and Parole authority; and finally I have said because this sentence is cumulative upon the fixed term by fifteen months.

70. I should indicate to you that your release is not a matter for me, it is a matter for the Parole Board. Your earliest release date as I have said is June of 2012. You would need to satisfy the Parole Board that you are a safe candidate to be released and that means you need to address particularly your mental health issues.

71. In respect of the charge of maliciously wounding Gregory Glass at the same time and place and in respect of the malicious damage at the same time and place, those matters are dismissed. The first because it is a backup charge and the second because, and I formally indicate, I have taken that matter into account when sentencing you for the break and enter and commit the malicious wound.