R v Ravenhorst
[2015] VSC 308
•5 June 2015
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
SCR 2014 0150
| THE QUEEN | |
| v | |
| KARL PETER RAVENHORST | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | T. FORREST, J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATES OF HEARING: | 18 May 2015, 1 June 2015 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 5 June 2015 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Ravenhorst |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VSC 308 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally cause serious injury in circumstances of gross violence – Joint criminal enterprise – Use of an offensive weapon – continued to cause serious injury after victim incapacitated – Methamphetamine use and addiction – Undertaking to give evidence in the trial of co-accused - Plea of guilty – Remorse inferred - Utilitarian discount – Convicted and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment with a minimum period before parole eligibility of 3 years and 3 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr A Grant | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused (at plea) For the Accused (at sentence) | Mr P Casey Mr R Martini | Rainer Martini & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Karl Ravenhorst, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of causing serious injury intentionally in circumstances of gross violence. On Tuesday 4 February 2014 you were party to an agreement with Ms Sharee Hastings to lure Barrie Robinson to a relatively isolated location on the Macclesfield Road at Yellingbo. I accept that you and Ms Hastings lured him to that location so that you could violently assault Mr Robinson with your baseball bat. It is unnecessary to spell out the background acrimony felt by Ms Hastings towards Mr Robinson. It suffices to say that she was the 37-year-old mother of your former de facto partner, Kaitlin. Kaitlin and you were separated in February 2014, but Kaitlin was pregnant to you.
At about 1 pm on 4 February 2014 Kaitlin Hastings telephoned you and asked you if you wished to attend an ultrasound appointment arranged for later that afternoon. Sharee and Kaitlin Hastings picked you up at about 2.00pm and you attended the appointment shortly afterwards. During a conversation in the car, Sharee Hastings informed you of her acrimonious relationship with Barrie Robinson. The terms of that conversation seem to be disputed and it is unnecessary for me to make any specific findings as to them. What is clear is that you and at least Sharee Hastings agreed that some time on that afternoon that Barrie Robinson would be lured to an isolated location and beaten. And that is what happened.
At around 5.35pm, Sharee Hastings telephoned Mr Robinson and falsely claimed that the blue Ford sedan that she was driving had broken down on the Macclesfield Road. The car was driven to that location and the bonnet was opened. You, with your co-accused, Mr Francois, hid in the adjacent bush for a considerable period. So too did Sharee and Kaitlin Hastings, but at a different place to you. You had brought with you your black baseball bat.
Barrie Robinson arrived at about 6.00pm. He approached the apparently stricken vehicle. He saw you and Mr Francois and ran away from you and across the roadway. You ran after him. He fell to the ground. You struck him to the head with the baseball bat a number of times. A couple of cars became stationary on the roadway. You looked back and saw them. Mr Robinson tried to escape, but you caught him, dragged him back across the road and threw him into a large ditch. You were then 28; Mr Robinson was then 51.
One of the motorists describes you as then striking Mr Robinson with a black object, presumably the baseball bat. That motorist left the scene and dialled 000. Another motorist observed you striking something in the ditch several times with a black object. Mr Robinson attempted to crawl away. You dragged him back to the ditch and continued to strike him. It is impossible to say with precision how many times you struck Mr Robinson with the baseball bat. I am satisfied that the major focus of your attack was his head and that you struck him with that baseball bat on numerous occasions.
By this stage, a number of vehicles had stopped at the scene. You screamed something at them. Sharee Hastings then closed the bonnet of her car and started it up. Kaitlin Hastings entered the front passenger side and you and Francois entered the rear. Sharee Hastings drove off.
Mr Robinson was conveyed to the Alfred Hospital. His injuries were life threatening.
Sharee Hastings drove you to your home and you discarded the baseball bat, which has never been recovered. On 8 February 2014 you travelled to Queensland under a false name, although you returned to Melbourne some time before 19 March 2014. You were arrested on 23 April 2014 and have been in custody since that time.
Mr Robinson sustained depressed fractures of the left parietal and temporal bones of the skull. He suffered a fractured mastoid bone at the base of the skull. He suffered brain injuries including bruising, intra-axial contusions and subdural and extradural haematoma. Fragments of bone were embedded in his brain. Additionally, he suffered bruising and/or lacerations to his left lower hip, left eyebrow, right chest wall, right hip, left hip, right buttock, left and right hands and arms, legs and feet.
After Mr Robinson regained consciousness he suffered seizures and was placed in an induced coma. He developed pneumonia and was gravely ill for a time. He was hospitalised for several weeks before being transferred to a rehabilitation centre. Dr Seneviratne, a consultant neurophysiologist, examined Mr Robinson only a few days ago. He states that,
Mr Robinson suffered a severe head injury in the assault. He has ongoing significant neurological complications which include predominately expressive dysphasia (in lay terms, he can't adequately turn his thoughts into words), cognitive problems, memory problems and psychological sequelae including likely depression.
Mr Robinson is left with a limited work capacity. Dr Seneviratne doubted that further rehabilitation programs would improve Mr Robinson's symptoms and stated that he believed the impairment is now stable and permanent, although the psychological problems may improve with time.
I regard your objective criminality or moral culpability as very high. You intended to cause serious injury and you did so. I am unable to conclude that you intended the near catastrophic consequences that have befallen Mr Robinson; I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, however, that you did intend to cause Mr Robinson really serious injury. I consider that inference to be unavoidable given the ferocity of your attack, the concentration of it to Mr Robinson's head, and the nature of the weapon used.
In a helpful plea on your behalf, Mr Casey pointed to a number of factors that, he submitted, ought operate to mitigate the sentence that I must impose. Most significantly, you have pleaded guilty and have undertaken to give evidence for the prosecution at Ms Hastings’ trial.
These factors are significant. You offered to plead guilty to intentionally causing serious injury shortly before your trial was due to commence on 18 May 2015. By your plea, you have saved the community the expense and inconvenience that would have resulted from your participation in the proposed joint trial. By itself, the lateness of your plea offer does not suggest much in the way of remorse; however, I am prepared to infer it from the associated offer to give evidence for the prosecution.
Mr Grant, who prosecutes, accepts that the statement you have made to police together with the undertaking you have given to give evidence combine to constitute "considerable assistance" in the prosecution of Ms Hastings. This concession, in my view, is well made. The evidence contained in your statement is, I consider, of high probative value to the prosecution in the Hastings trial. The authorities are unanimous that assistance of this kind ought result in very significant discounts to an otherwise appropriate sentence and I shall apply such a discount. The reasons for the discount are obvious. I am in no doubt that the sentence you will serve will be more onerous because of the course you have taken. Further, as I have indicated, your cooperation bespeaks remorse and it informs your prospects for rehabilitation. I must not lose sight, however, of the powerful competing factors such as deterrence, denunciation and punishment. I shall return to these later in these reasons.
You are now 29 years old and the youngest of three brothers. Your parents, aged 55 and 54, run a small plant nursery in The Patch. Your parents' marriage was unsettled when you were a child and was characterised by drug and alcohol abuse. You left school in year 9. Your forensic psychologist Mr Joblin is of the view that you are intelligent and your underachievement scholastically was the product of an unsettled home life and your then lifestyle.
In 2008, when you were 22, you pleaded guilty in the County Court to Intentionally Causing Serious Injury and Aggravated Burglary (person present). I have read the summary of prosecution opening in that case. Your brother learned that his estranged wife was conducting a relationship with another man. You, with six others, attended at the other man's house. You were there as back-up for your brother in his desire to confront and assault this man. As events turned out, six of the seven offenders, including yourself, ran inside the house and punched and kicked the victim repeatedly. He sustained large lacerations to the scalp, bruises and abrasions. Eleven sutures were inserted. You were sentenced to an aggregate of six months' imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order. In September 2009 you were dealt with for a breach of that order and sentenced to an aggregate of two months' imprisonment also to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order.
Since that time you have led a relatively unsettled life, largely influenced, I am told, by your drug habit. You told your psychologist that various relationships that you had conducted were effectively terminated by your drug use, which initially consisted of use of ecstasy and marijuana. You have an eight-year-old daughter who you now regard as important in your life. Your drug use, it seems, has caused you to be unreliable as a parent. You had a solid work history until shortly before these offences were committed. Since leaving school you have worked in physical jobs, mostly in flooring. Up until about the age of 27 or so you were more or less continually employed, but I am told what was a relatively controlled amphetamine habit became an uncontrolled methamphetamine or ice habit and you lost your job at Delta Constructions. Not long after that you commenced a relationship with Kaitlin Hastings, also an ice user. I presume she is the mother of your second child, born while you were in custody.
I have read various references tendered on your behalf. Without exception your referees speak positively of your attributes while you are drug free. They speak of a sound worker, a sportsman and parent, and a generous member of an inner rural community. I accept that you have remained drug free for the last 13 months in the relatively controlled prison environment. Your psychologist Mr Joblin was encouraged by this, despite your heavy intravenous use of ice in the offending period. I quote from his report:
While a prisoner can test negative for drugs in custody, obviously the important test will come when at liberty.
I understand that you will have more family support and professional help available to you than many drug users re-entering society after a stint in custody. You would be well advised to take advantage of this support and help. You also have the example of your stepbrother, who has been drug free now for seven years. Given this, and your cooperation with authorities, I am prepared to accept that your prospects for rehabilitation are reasonably good. In truth they are directly linked to your capacity to remain drug free. The combination of these factors which operate in your favour is powerful, but, as I have said, there are powerful competing factors as well.
I have read a copy of the Victim Impact Statement of Sarah Robinson and listened to it being read aloud in court this afternoon. Your actions have caused profound injury to her father and the life of his daughter has been affected as a result. I am obliged to, and do, take her suffering into account.
I observed earlier in these reasons that I regard your objective criminality as high. This was a pre-planned, prolonged and brutal assault with a vicious weapon on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim. You may have been prevailed upon by Ms Hastings to carry out the assault upon Mr Robinson, but you knew what you were doing, you intended to do it, and as a consequence you have permanently, and very seriously, injured a man who was a total stranger. You have a highly relevant set of prior convictions. I consider that I must give the sentencing purpose of general deterrence real weight in this sentencing exercise. Your conduct also calls for punishment and denunciation. Given the relevant prior convictions that I have referred to I cannot totally ignore the aspect of specific deterrence. The prior conviction for Intentionally Causing Serious Injury means that you stand to be sentenced as a serious violent offender within the meaning of Part 2A of the Sentencing Act. I will not be imposing a sentence that is longer than proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and the sentence that I will shortly impose must have as its principle purpose the protection of the community.
Balancing these powerful competing factors as best I can, I sentence you as follows. Stand up please Mr Ravenhorst.
On the charge of Intentionally Causing Serious Injury I sentence you to five years’ imprisonment with a minimum of three years three months to be served before parole eligibility. I declare that you have served 409 days of presentence detention inclusive of today.
I further declare that I am satisfied pursuant to s 10(1) and s 10A(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act that a special reason exists for imposing a non-parole period of less than four years' imprisonment. That reason is your undertaking given to law enforcement authorities to give evidence at the trial of Sharee Hastings.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Act I further declare that but for your plea and undertaking I would have sentenced you to ten years' imprisonment with a minimum of seven years to be served before parole eligibility. Had you pleaded guilty but not given that undertaking I would have sentenced you to eight years, six months' imprisonment with a minimum of six years before parole eligibility.
3
0
0