R v Proom

Case [2003] SASC 88

R v PROOM

[2003] SASC 88

Court of Criminal Appeal:  Doyle CJ, Duggan and Gray JJ

  1. DOYLE CJ:  This is an appeal by leave against a sentence imposed by the District Court.  The appellant pleaded guilty in that Court to a large number of offences.  The Judge imposed a single sentence of imprisonment for 10 years, and fixed a non-parole period of five years.

  2. Mr Braithwaite, counsel for the appellant, submits that the sentence is excessive in the circumstances.  He also challenges the following statement by the Judge in his sentencing remarks:

    “The fact that you are addicted to heroin may well be 90 per cent of the explanation for what you have done.  Unfortunately, it is the reason why a lot of people get themselves into this sort of trouble and the courts have consistently said that it cannot be regarded as an excuse.  It is not necessary to be accurate about the statistics, but commonsense tells you that an extremely high proportion of the sort of crime of which you stand convicted, is committed by people in a similar situation to yourself.  It is a huge problem to the community.”

  3. Mr Braithwaite submits that in this case the appellant’s addiction to heroin is a mitigating circumstance, and that the Judge wrongly failed to have regard to that.  Mr Braithwaite further submits that addiction is generally a mitigating circumstance, and that this Court and other Courts have erred in failing to recognise that.

  4. The submissions on the last point were put in support of an application for leave to appeal on an additional ground as follows:

    “The learned sentencing Judge erred in failing to treat the appellant’s heroin addiction, in the circumstances of this case, as a compelling mitigating factor”.

    The application for leave to appeal on this additional ground was treated as the argument of the appeal, if leave were to be granted.

    The offences

  5. The offences were committed between December 2001 and June 2002.  They were part of a course of conduct directed at obtaining property which could be sold to raise money, or obtaining cash, the proceeds of the offending being used by the appellant to buy heroin, to which she was and is addicted.

  6. The number of offences is so substantial that the precise details are unimportant.  I will draw on the Judge’s summary.

  7. One group of offences involved unlawful entry on premises, and the taking of property.  In this group are two counts of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence (maximum penalty, imprisonment for life); three counts of serious criminal trespass in non-residential premises (maximum penalty, 10 years imprisonment); 25 counts of serious criminal trespass in a place of residence (maximum penalty, 15 years imprisonment); 40 counts of larceny (maximum penalty, imprisonment for five years).  In each case the maximum penalty applies to each count.

  8. Another group of offences involved the use of stolen bank cards and credit cards to obtain money from banks.  This group includes 13 counts of obtaining…

Continue reading R v Proom

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Proom [2003] SASC 88
Case
[2003] SASC 88
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Proom, Melissa Mandy Proom, the appellant, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, which was a 10-year imprisonment term with a non-parole period of five years. The sentence was backdated to commence on 2 July 2002. Ms Proom pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including aggravated serious criminal trespass, serious criminal trespass, larceny, and obtaining by false pretences. The sentencing judge treated all offences as part of one course of criminal conduct and exercised his powers under section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) to impose a single sentence for all offences that attracted a penalty of imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the District Court had imposed an excessive sentence on Ms Proom, considering her age, the nature of her offences, and the impact of her drug addiction on her criminal conduct. The court also needed to determine the appropriate sentence in light of Ms Proom's rehabilitation prospects and the need for general deterrence.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was indeed excessive. It was noted that Ms Proom's offending was driven by her drug addiction, and while her criminal conduct was serious, the sentence of 15 years (reduced to 10 years due to pleas of guilty and cooperation) was considered crushing for a 19-year-old facing the adult justice system for the first time. The court recognised the importance of rehabilitation and the need for general deterrence but also emphasised that the rehabilitation of Ms Proom was not the only matter to be considered. The court concluded that an eight-year imprisonment sentence with a non-parole period of four years was appropriate. This sentence was exceptionally low for the offences committed, but it was deemed justified in the public interest. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was set aside and substituted with the new sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I would reduce the sentence to one of imprisonment for eight years, and would fix in relation to that head sentence a non-parole period of four years. This is an exceptionally low sentence for these offences. To my mind a lesser sentence cannot be justified in the public interest. The rehabilitation of Ms Proom is not the only matter to be considered.Conclusion I would grant leave to appeal on the additional ground, allow the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed by the District Court and substitute a sentence of imprisonment for eight years, and in relation to that sentence of imprisonment fix a non-parole period of four years. DUGGAN J: I agree with the orders proposed by the Chief Justice and his reasons for decision. In particular, I agree with his observations on the approach to be taken by the courts in sentencing offenders in cases in which the crimes are related to drug addiction.Gray J This is an appeal against sentence. Introduction Melissa Mandy Proom, the appellant, pleaded guilty to criminal trespass and dishonesty offences. A sentence of 10 years imprisonment was imposed. A non parole period of five years was fixed. The sentence and the non parole period were back dated to commence on 2 July 2002. Ms Proom pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, 25 counts of serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, three counts of (non residential) serious criminal trespass non residential, 40 counts of larceny, 13 counts of obtaining by false pretences, three counts of attempted false pretences, 11 counts of providing false information or documentation to a second hand dealer, one count of unlawful possession and one count of giving a false name and address. The sentencing judge treated all offences as part of the one course of criminal conduct. He exercised his powers pursuant to section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) and imposed the one sentence with respect to all offences which attracted a penalty of imprisonment. The Appellant’s Antecedents Ms Proom was born in Adelaide and raised in an apparently caring family, although the deterioration of her parents’ relationship was an area of concern in her adolescence. She became unsettled in her early teenage years. When aged fourteen she lost interest in her studies. She was expelled from school. Thereafter she moved away from home, fended for herself and fell in with bad company. She became addicted to heroin. Her addiction has remained. As a teenager she formed a relationship and has a child now almost two years of age. As a fourteen year old Ms Proom was inexperienced, immature and vulnerable. She was not in a position to make informed judgments about drug experimentation. She committed many dishonesty offences as a young offender. Her offending was driven by her drug addiction. The information before the sentencing judge disclosed that Ms Proom had made determined but unsuccessful efforts to free herself from her addiction.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Pre-sentence and psychological reports outlined Ms Proom’s history of drug addiction. The authors were guardedly optimistic about her future. Mr Balfour, an experienced forensic psychologist, outlined a recommended program of rehabilitative treatment. Although acknowledging that Ms Proom could be expected to lapse from time to time he considered that her prospects for rehabilitation were fair. He reported:“My recommendations regarding Ms Proom’s rehabilitation are that she participate in a supervised, structured rehabilitation programme consisting of:-Referral to the Drug and Alcohol Services Council for ongoing assessment to determine which pharmacotherapy approach is best for her; to have counselling; and to learn relapse prevention strategies.-Assertive case management consisting of twice weekly supervision and regular urine screens (i.e., 2 to 3 times a week) for the first six months.-Open access to a country based drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation programme (e.g. Woolshed, Karabran, etc). If she experiences a relapse of her heroin addiction, then she can be immediately transferred to the programme for a respite admission (e.g., for three to four weeks). This would prevent her become addicted to heroin or offending and allow time to do some troubleshooting.-Referral to the range of social support programmes offered by FAYS for young sole parents.-Referral to a clinical psychologist who can use cognitive-behavioural therapy to foster her developing maturity, and improve her repertoire of coping and problem solving skills.-Referral to an employment casemanager who can assess her training and employment needs and assist her work towards becoming a hairdresser.-She should be forbidden to have any contact with individuals who are associated with the drug using culture. Strict monitoring should be maintained on where and with whom she resides.-I believe that it would be useful for her to reside in a supported accommodation programme to begin with, then with her mother, and then independent housing trust accommodation depending on her rate of progress.”Consideration of the Issues As earlier observed Ms Proom’s offending occurred over a four month period commencing in December 2001, a matter of days before her nineteenth birthday. Her conduct was driven by the insatiable needs of her heroin addiction. The sentencing judge was correct to exercise his powers pursuant to section 18A of the Sentencing Act. Ms Proom engaged in one course of criminal conduct. It would have been inappropriate to attempt to separate the offences and consider separate penalties for each offence[1]. He was correct to emphasise the community concern associated with offences of this type. General deterrence was an important matter. A Crushing Sentence[1] R v Symonds [1999] SASC 217, R v Elliott (2001) 121 A Crim R 254; R v Jason [2002] SASC 201; R v Caplikas [2002] SASC 258 The sentence imposed on Ms Proom was crushing. As a nineteen year old she confronted the adult justice system for the first time. Had there been no reduction for her pleas of guilty and cooperation she would have been imprisoned for 15 years for offences involving no violence or threats of violence. Tested in this way although Ms Proom’s criminal conduct was serious, a sentence of 15 years imposed on Ms Proom, a 19 year old, is crushing. The sentence remained crushing despite the reduction of one third on account of her pleas and cooperation.Can Drug Addiction Be Mitigatory