R v Oakley
[2002] VSC 232
•17 June 2002
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1507 of 2001
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| SACHA LEE OAKLEY |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 June 2002 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 17 June 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Sacha Lee Oakley | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 232 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Taking part in an illegal enterprise when it was contemplated that a loaded gun might be used – prisoner prepared to give evidence against co-accused charged with murder – many other mitigating considerations - Prison for 3 years – Non-parole period of one year.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr R Gibson with Mr D Hallowes | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr M R Croucher | Clarkson & Socio |
HIS HONOUR:
Sacha Oakley. You have pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter. Quang Minh Vo was killed at St Albans on 12 February 2001. Shortly after the death of the deceased from gunshot injuries, you were charged with his murder. David Attard and Dennis Yannopoulos were also charged with his murder. The trial of one or both on the murder charge is listed to start later today. The media will be aware of the contempt implications as to the publishing of a report of this sentence.
In February 2001, you were living with David Attard. Dennis Yannopoulos was a friend of David Attard. All three of you were heroin users. On 12 February 2001, the three of you wanted to buy heroin. You planned how to get the heroin. You went by car from the home of David Attard to a pawnbroker’s shop. You had with you some car wheels belonging to David Attard. The wheels were pawned. The three of you went by car from the pawnshop to the place where Dennis Yannopoulos lived. He went inside and came back with a metal box. He opened the box in the car. Inside the box was a handgun and bullets in a pouch. You went back to the home of David Attard. There, Dennis Yannopoulos checked the gun in your presence. Then, David Attard rang the deceased.
The deceased was a heroin dealer with whom David Attard had dealt before. The plan was to meet the deceased to score heroin. It was part of the plan that the heroin would not be paid for. David Attard was to hand over some money to the deceased. He was then to take the heroin. The gun was then to be produced to scare the deceased. The deceased would be obliged to hand back both the money and the heroin. Your thinking was that David Attard would not have to shoot the gun. But you knew there were bullets in the gun. David Attard had told you that he believed that the deceased would have a gun. You were thus on notice that the gun provided by Dennis Yannopoulos might have to be used by David Attard.
After the call was made, the three of you left for the place where David Attard was to meet the deceased. David Attard had the gun in a bag around his waist. The three of you set out in your car. You were the driver. You drove to the arranged meeting place in Douglas Parade, St Albans. David Attard had told you that the deceased did not want people around when a deal was to be done. To avert concern, you parked nearby. You waited with Dennis Yannopoulos. After waiting a while, you drove around the block. You passed by David Attard at the meeting place. You again parked nearby. Dennis Yannopoulos took over in the driver’s seat. You saw a motorcyclist on a motorcycle travelling north in Douglas Parade. You saw the rider of the motorcycle stop. You saw David Attard move towards the motorcycle. At that stage, Dennis Yannopoulos drove away from the position where David Attard could be seen by you. He drove around the block which is to the east of Douglas Parade. That route was one that would enable David Attard to be picked up as the car was being driven south along Douglas Parade.
While the car, with you and Dennis Yannopoulos in it, was on that route, the deceased was shot several times with the loaded gun. Thus you neither saw nor heard the shooting. You came very shortly after the shooting to the place where the deceased had been shot. The deceased was on the ground. David Attard was nearby. He was trying to push a motorcycle. You did not get out of the car. You watched as Dennis Yannopoulos got out of the car. He picked up the handgun that was lying on the ground. He got back into the car. David Attard also got into the car. Dennis Yannopoulos then drove you and David Attard away from the scene, and to David Attard’s home.
This is a serious instance of a serious crime. Your legal responsibility for what eventuated arises from it having been within your contemplation that an unlawful and dangerous act might be done in the course of your acting in the joint criminal enterprise. You agreed to take part in a plan where a loaded gun would be readily to hand, and where it might be produced and fired. There was, obviously, a high potential for serious injury and death. You indicated to the police that you did not envisage that David Attard would fire the gun. I accept that that was your state of mind. Although you should not have agreed to be part of the enterprise, I accept that your role in the enterprise was a very limited one, and that the others were more involved, more mature and more dominant than you.
I have read the victim impact statement of Anh Thi Kim Nguyen. She is the mother of the deceased’s three young daughters. Her relationship with the deceased had been troubled at times. But she and her daughters were substantially dependent upon him. The lives of all four have been greatly adversely affected by his death.
You are 22 years of age. You were born in September 1979. You are an only child. There have been problems with your family life. Those problems were linked substantially to your parents having separated when you were 15. That separation led to a period of considerable instability. During that period, you developed an addiction to illegal drugs and specifically to heroin. You have made attempts to overcome the addiction. Details of those attempts appear in documents lodged with the court.
The prospects of your rehabilitation appear to be very good. The indicators are generally one way. You have your youth in your favour. You have no prior convictions. You now have the support of your parents, and other relations. I have listened to the testimony of, and I have read letters from, a number of persons as to your good character. You have taken up with a young man who has a good background. Nevertheless, you still have hurdles to face before you can get on top of your addiction to heroin.
All the evidence, from how you first dealt with the police to your plea of guilty, points to your being genuinely remorseful. It seems that you do appreciate to a significant degree the adverse consequences for the widow and 3 daughters of the deceased.
Your plea of guilty facilitates the course of justice. I am not disposed to characterise it as being maximally or minimally meritorious, or close thereto. But it is clearly one of many indications of remorse.
You have co-operated with the police from the start. You forthrightly made admissions. You have provided means of gaining access to further information which might be used in a prosecution of David Attard and Dennis Yannopoulos. You have signed a statement prepared by the police. You have undertaken on oath before me to give evidence in accordance with that statement, if and when called upon to do so. I must and will allow for that in two ways. First, your co-operation means that you are directly facilitating the processes of the law. Secondly, I accept that your treatment in prison is likely to be the more onerous because of your being co-operative. There are differences between what you have said in that statement and what you said in the police interview. There is an obvious restating of the position as to the planning of the criminal enterprise. That is particularly obvious as to how and why the gun might be used. I accept that some allowance may appropriately be made for your statement being your present recollection. Despite the differences, I consider that your preparedness to provide the statement and to give the undertaking to give evidence is of very considerable significance. The sentence I impose will be substantially less than that I would have imposed if there had not been that preparedness.
You have served to today, 17 June 2002, 226 days by way of pre-sentence detention. I direct that that be entered in the court records. I impose a sentence of imprisonment of three years. I fix a non-parole period of one year.
0
0
0