R v Scriven
[2023] VSC 652
•9 November 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2018 0004
| THE KING | Crown |
| v | |
| WILLIAM JAMES SCRIVEN | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Beale J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 6 February 2023 and 17 August 2023 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 9 November 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Scriven |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 652 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – Two counts of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence – Theft – Late guilty plea – Accused and co-accused entered premises dressed as police officers in order to steal drugs and/or money from occupants – Hammers used to assault occupants – Victims suffered life threatening injuries – Prognosis regarding victims’ quality of life is poor – Accused on a community corrections order and recently released from custody at time of offending – Domestic abuse during formative years – Illicit drug use – Serious violent offender – Extensive prior convictions – Limited subsequent offending – Guarded prospects of rehabilitation – Total effective sentence of 12 years and 9 months’ imprisonment - Non parole period of 10 years – Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571 – DPP v Thomas [2019] VSC 608 – R v Ong & Rider [2023] VSC 466 – Sentencing Act 1991, ss 6AAA, 6B(2), 6E, 10(1).
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr M Fisher with Mr D Hannan | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For William Scriven | Ms F Livingstone Clark | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDING
Around 5am on 25 July 2016, you, William Scriven, and your co-offender, Daniel Thomas, entered a house at 21 Mitchell Road, Lilydale. You entered via the front door which was unlocked. The two of you were dressed as policemen and your intent was to steal drugs and/or money.
There were two people in the house at the time, Scott Sykes, who was asleep in his bedroom, and Neil Cairns, who was sitting on a chair in the kitchen, dozing. One of you shouted at Cairns, ‘This is a police raid. Get on the floor, face down. Where are your drugs?’. Believing you were police, Cairns complied and directed you to a toolbox in the laundry where he kept some drugs. The two of you were not satisfied. As Cairns lay on the floor, he was stomped on and when he tried to get to his feet he was struck to the head with a hammer. The two of you held him against a wall, screaming ‘Where’s your gear, where’s your money?’. When he said he did not have any more, he was struck again and again with hammers to his head, hands, arms and body, causing him to lose consciousness.
Hearing the commotion, Sykes got out of bed and moved towards the kitchen. Thomas said, ‘I’ll kill you’ or ‘You’re fuckin dead’. There was a struggle, and Sykes was struck from behind and fell to the ground, possibly losing consciousness. Whilst on the floor, he was given a severe beating. His pants were also pulled down, exposing his buttocks, possibly to see if he had any concealed drugs.
When Cairns came to, he was in the hallway, against a wall. Thomas said to him ‘We’ve killed your mate, now tell us where the drugs are.’ Cairns was struck again to the head with a hammer. He screamed for help.
One of you said ‘Let’s go, the cops are coming’ and the two of you fled, taking drugs that belonged to Cairns, namely cannabis and methylamphetamine.
I pause to note that it will be apparent from this summary that it is not always clear which of you struck which blow, or said certain things. It matters not. The two of you were acting in concert and were responsible for each other’s actions.
The police arrived at 21 Mitchell Rd at approximately 5:31am on 25 July 2016, about 10 minutes after neighbours had called 000. They saw Cairns lying on the floor in the hallway and Sykes lying on the floor in the kitchen. Both men were covered in blood. There were pools of blood on the floor and blood sprayed on the walls and even on the ceiling. The police initially thought both men were dead.
Both victims were taken by paramedics to the Alfred Hospital with life-threatening injuries.
Cairns’ injuries included: a fracture to the back of his skull; multiple lacerations to his head, lips and scalp; the collection of blood in the soft tissue around his right eye; multiple nose fractures; lung tissue collapse; multiple rib fractures; multiple spinal fractures; a deep cut to his right leg; and bruising to both legs.
Sykes’ injuries included: a complex open skull fracture to the side and back of his head which resulted in air entering his brain; contrecoup bruising to the brain; two stab wounds to his scalp; two stab wounds to the face; and low blood oxygen levels.
At the Alfred Hospital, doctors operated on, amongst other things, Cairns’ head, and part of Sykes’ skull had to be removed to relieve pressure and swelling on his brain and to clean the contaminated wound. Both men remained in hospital for about a week.
I pause again to note that this brutal offending occurred within a few weeks of you being released from custody, having been in custody for over a year. On 6 July 2016, at the La Trobe County Court, for an unlawful assault, threatening the safety of a person in gaol and other offences, you were sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 379 days’ imprisonment, all of which was declared to have been served whilst on remand. You were also placed on a community corrections order for three years. The fact that your offending occurred so soon after being released from a lengthy period in custody and whilst you were on a community corrections order is a circumstance of considerable aggravation.
Returning to the fate of Cairns and Sykes, the prognosis for both men’s quality of life is poor. A medical report on Cairns dated 11 January 2023, and written by a Dr Carless, a GP, who has been caring for Cairns since his discharge from hospital, says he suffers from severe emotional distress on a daily basis. The report speaks of Cairns’ recurring headaches, post-traumatic stress and depression. It says he is at high risk of recurring suicidal ideation and will almost certainly never be able to sustain employment again. A medical report on Sykes dated 4 January 2023, and written by GP Dr Ngo, says Sykes also suffers from chronic headaches, PTSD and anxiety and that gainful employment in the future would be ‘difficult, even impossible lifelong’.
Victim Impact Statements
Both Cairns and Sykes made victim impact statements.
Cairns speaks of ongoing pain and aches in his lower back and shoulders and memory issues. He also says ‘I’m now severely depressed, anxious and have become reclusive. I struggle with leaving my house, at times, and crowds of people. I’m worried about who might be amongst the crowds and what they might do to me. I really don’t want to go anywhere or do anything. My sleep is all over the place.’ He also reports flashbacks of media pictures of blood streaks up the walls of his house.
Sykes speaks about recurring headaches and how life has been completely changed. He also says that ‘sometimes the thought of going out and talking to people will make my heart race and I feel sick. I have anxiety all the time. I don’t sleep at night anymore.’
Clearly, the extreme violence perpetrated by you and Thomas has had a profound effect on Cairns and Sykes — a profound and enduring effect.
Objective seriousness of offending
So you are to be sentenced today for four charges arising from this frightful incident. Charge 1 is aggravated burglary, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. Charge 1 is put on the basis that you entered the house intending to steal. The circumstance of aggravation that is alleged is that there were people present in the house and you knew that or were reckless as to that fact. Charge 2 (which relates to Cairns) and Charge 3 (which relates to Sykes) are both charges of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. For both Charges 2 and 3, the circumstance of aggravation alleged is that you continued to cause injury to the victim after he was incapacitated. Charge 4 is a charge of theft, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Pursuant to High Court authority,[1] it is my duty to assess the objective seriousness of your offending, charge by charge. Charges 1, 2 and 3 are obviously all serious offences having regard to the maximum penalties, but there is a spectrum of seriousness for each offence which must be considered.
[1]R v Kilik [2016] 259 CLR 256, 266 [19].
I consider Charge 1 to be a low-range example of the offence of aggravated burglary because, although it was a burglary of someone’s home at night, committed in company, the charge alleges that your intention was to steal, not to assault. And the alleged circumstance of aggravation is the presence of people in the home, not being armed with a weapon. The state of the evidence is such that it does not permit a finding as to when exactly you and Thomas armed yourselves with weapons.
Your counsel conceded that Charges 2 and 3 were ‘quite serious examples’ of those kinds of offences. That concession was borrowed from Coghlan J’s description of the offending when sentencing Thomas.[2] I would substitute the word ‘very’ for ‘quite’. This was extreme violence carried out in company in someone’s home and it has had a profound and enduring impact on the victims. I accept the prosecution submission that these were grave examples of the offence in question.
[2]DPP v Thomas [2019] VSC 608, [73].
I consider Charge 4 a low-range example of the offence of theft, given the nature and value of the items stolen.
To sum up, Charges 2 and 3 were in my view the most serious offences, even though aggravated burglary carries a higher maximum penalty. In relation to Charges 2 and 3, just punishment, denunciation, specific and general deterrence and protection of the community must loom large in sentencing you.
PROCEDURAL HISTORIES
It is convenient at this stage to set out the procedural histories of your case and that of your co-offender Thomas, who was the first to be arrested.
I note that Cairns identified you and Thomas as being the two offenders and CCTV, DNA and fingerprint evidence supported his identification evidence.
Thomas was arrested, charged and remanded on 3 August 2016. The charges included two counts of attempted murder. He had two additional charges in respect of the day of his arrest because, on that day, he threatened to kill one of the arresting police officers and also resisted an emergency worker on duty.
You, Scriven, were arrested, charged and remanded on 28 October 2016. Your charges included two counts of attempted murder.
On 10 January 2018, after a joint contested committal hearing, a Magistrate committed you both to stand trial on charges which included the counts of attempted murder. A joint trial was listed for 22 October 2018, but Thomas’ case settled before then.
On 12 September 2018, Thomas was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the same four charges for which I must sentence you today, plus the two additional charges arising from the day of his arrest.
Your trial, which, as mentioned, was listed to commence on 22 October 2018, was adjourned because there was no judge available to try it.
Your trial commenced on 29 May 2019. It ran for several days during which the two victims and other witnesses were called. The jury was discharged on 6 June 2019 because you withdrew your instructions from your legal team. Your case was adjourned to allow you to obtain new legal representation.
Between June 2019 and September 2022, a number of trial dates were vacated because of COVID-19, or because you were seeking additional information (which was subject to claims of Public Interest Immunity), or because you changed legal teams. Chopping and changing your legal teams was a regular occurrence during that period.
Meanwhile, on 3 September 2019, Thomas was sentenced by Coghlan JA as follows:
Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Orders 1. Aggravated burglary 25 years 2 years 6 months cumulative 2. Causing serious injury intentionally in circumstances of gross violence 20 years 8 years Base sentence 3. Causing serious injury intentionally in circumstances of gross violence 20 years 8 years 6 years concurrent 4. Theft 10 years 3 months – 5. Resisting an emergency worker on duty 5 years 2 years 6 months cumulative 6. Making a threat to kill 10 years 2 years 6 months cumulative Total Effective Sentence: 11 years and 6 months’ imprisonment Non-Parole Period: 9 years’ imprisonment Pre-Sentence Detention Declared: 1,126 days Section 6AAA statement: 15 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years. Ancillary orders: Sentenced as a serious offender in respect of charges 2 and 3.
In sentencing Thomas, Coghlan JA took into account that he had had a very traumatic upbringing.[3] His parents divorced when he was about three years of age and, growing up, he was repeatedly subjected to physical and sexual abuse. He began using illicit drugs from the age of 13 and was substance affected at the time of the offending. Like you, Thomas tendered a number of drug screen certificates suggesting he was abstaining from illicit drugs in custody. Coghlan JA found that Thomas had cognitive deficits (an intellectual disability and an acquired brain injury) and accepted that principle 5 of Verdins was engaged. In other words, he found that by reason of Thomas’ cognitive defects, he would find prison harder than a normal prisoner but, because of the premeditated nature of Thomas’ offending, Coghlan JA rejected the submission that Thomas was entitled to the benefit of principles 1, 3 and 4 of Verdins. Thomas had prior convictions for assault, including a prior for intentionally causing serious injury for which, in 2010, he had received a total effective sentence of 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months. By reason of his priors, Thomas fell to be sentenced as a serious violent offender on both Charges 2 and 3, whereas you, Scriven, fall to be sentenced as a serious violent offender in relation to Charge 3 only. Coghlan JA took into account in Thomas’ favour the delay in him being sentenced and also found that there was some evidence of remorse.[4] Coghlan JA found that Thomas’ prospects of rehabilitation were ‘not very good’[5] and ‘fairly bleak’[6] but not ‘hopeless’.[7] Focusing on Charges 2 and 3, Coghlan JA remarked that ‘the sentencing process is dominated by the seriousness of that offending and the serious injuries inflicted on your victims’.[8] The same goes for you, Scriven.
[3]DPP v Thomas [2019] VSC 608, [32].
[4]DPP v Thomas [2019] VSC 608, [72].
[5]DPP v Thomas [2019] VSC 608, [63].
[6]DPP v Thomas [2019] VSC 608, [68].
[7]Ibid.
[8]DPP v Thomas [2019] VSC 608, [73].
As regards considerations of parity, I note that Thomas was not on a community corrections order when he committed the subject offences and he pleaded guilty much earlier than you.
Thomas appealed against the sentences imposed by Coghlan JA, but that appeal was unanimously dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[9] Amongst other things, the Court of Appeal said this:
The … offending involved severe and devastating assaults upon both victims, involving the use of hammers. The physical injuries were extensive. Both victims have suffered serious physical and psychological damage. Each of them faces a bleak future …[10]
[9]Thomas v R [2021] VSCA 97.
[10]Thomas v R [2021] VSCA 97, [42].
On 27 April 2021, the prosecution filed a Notice of Additional evidence in respect of your pending trial. It contained two statements by your sister, Bianca Scriven, dated 3 March 2021 and 31 March 2021. She admitted that in 2018, she had, at your request, made a false statement to police in support of an alibi for you. Further, she alleged that you had contacted her in September 2020 with a view to making the victims and witnesses in your case give evidence that supported your story. She alleged that there were people whom you wanted threatened or coerced to have them change their evidence to suit your story. She provided police with a typed document which she alleged were instructions given by you to her.
In the wake of this information, police executed a search warrant on your prison cell and seized your electronic devices.
On 6 May 2021, the prosecution filed a Notice of Incriminating Conduct by you, referencing the conduct alleged by your sister, Bianca.
I make no finding as to whether Bianca Scriven’s evidence is accurate, but it forms part of the context against which I assess your claims to be truly remorseful, a matter which I will turn to in due course.
On 1 June 2022, you asserted that some 174 files contained on the seized devices were legally privileged material.
On 18 August 2022, Justice Taylor upheld your claim of client legal privilege in respect of the majority of documents, but not all of them.
Your trial was listed to commence on 6 October 2022, but your matter settled in September 2022.
I note that you had made no offer to plead guilty to anything until 31 August 2022. You formally entered your plea of guilty on 9 September 2022, more than six years after the offending and nearly six years after you were charged. I reject your counsel’s submission that yours was not a late plea. You must have realised from at least 2018 that the acceptance of Thomas’ plea offer by the prosecution meant the prosecution was likely to accept a similar plea offer from you.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER
I turn now to your personal circumstances.
Your date of birth is 23 March 1979, meaning you were aged 37 at the time of your offending and are 44 now.
You grew up in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne with your parents and younger sister, Bianca. Your father was a night club bouncer who was violent towards your mother and you and your sister. Your mother says you were thrown out of home by your father when you were 16. Your counsel told me you ran away from home.
Your use of illicit drugs (cannabis, amphetamine and LSD) commenced around that time. A couple of years later you commenced using heroin and, according to your counsel, you were dependent on heroin until your current incarceration.
Your parents separated when you were 17. You remain close to your mother, whose health is not good, and intend to live with her when you are eventually released from custody.
You left school in Year 11 and thereafter worked as a factory hand or labourer. You plan to pursue studies in economics to enhance your employment prospects.
You have been in a relationship with Laura Kirkpatrick for about seven years.
References
Several references were tendered on your behalf. They were from your mother Jeanette Clancy, your partner Laura Kirkpatrick, Sister Mary O’Shannassy OAM (Senior Catholic Prison Chaplain), Amy Redman (a drug and alcohol clinician), and Dr Anthony Padula (a psychologist working for Corrections Victoria). There was also a brief report from a family therapist, Mark Glowrey, who works with your mother.
Your mother’s reference speaks of the extreme violence that she and you (and your sister) suffered at the hands of your father. She says that when you were 16, and began standing up to your father, he threw you out of the home, after which you ‘fell in with a bad crowd and turned to drugs’. Your mother describes your life as ‘one of drug use, transience, disfunction and criminality’ but says that, with the help of specialists, you have changed for the better during the past six years in custody, including becoming ‘involved’ in the Christian faith. She says you now regret your former actions ‘dearly’. She believes you have definitely grown out of what she calls your ‘past reckless behaviour’ and that you are ready to become a responsible member of society.
I note that Mark Glowrey, the Clinical Family therapist, who has worked with your mother over the past two years, spoke in his reference of the support that your mother now believes she can give you upon your release, including helping you to access therapeutic supports.
Your partner of some six or seven years, Laura Kirkpatrick, stressed your remorse and embarrassment about, firstly, your offending that night and, secondly, ‘how [you have] handled [yourself] regarding the resolution of this matter’. Like your mother, your partner emphasised your personal growth whilst in custody. She said that you sought professional help which has proved invaluable. Ms Kirkpatrick, who has serious health issues and limited life expectancy, said she would not be wasting her time on you if you had not reformed.
Sister Mary O’Shannassy OAM, senior prison chaplain, who has been meeting with you on a weekly basis for several years, says you have expressed ‘deep remorse’ over your offending and she considers you to have been sincere in your meetings with her. She thinks you have ‘matured greatly’ during your time in custody, assisted by professionals.
Amy Redman, a Senior Drug and Alcohol Clinician with Caraniche Pty Ltd, which operates at Melbourne Assessment Prison, states[11] that between 17 August 2015 and 30 June 2016 you completed 48 sessions whilst in custody. I note this period of counselling immediately preceded the subject offending: it highlights the fact that commitment to D&A counselling in prison does not necessarily mean abstinence or even restraint once back in the community. When you returned to Melbourne Assessment Prison after the subject offending, you completed another 21 D&A sessions, commencing in November 2016 and ending in February 2017 when you were transferred to another prison.
[11]Her reference is dated 28 February 2017.
Dr Anthony Padula, a Senior Clinician with the Complex Interventions Forensic Intervention Service (formerly the Major Offenders Unit) documents that you completed 56 sessions with a Dr Doroc between 10 February 2021 and 30 May 2022 and 11 sessions with Dr Padula between 8 June 2022 and 13 October 2022. I am advised that Dr Doroc and Dr Padula are both psychologists.[12]
[12]This advice was provided by your legal team. Dr Padula’s report was silent on this point.
Urine Screens
Your counsel tendered 14 urine analysis certificates for the period between March 2017 and January 2023. They were all negative for illicit drugs.
Certificates
You have undertaken a number of educational courses in custody. Records of courses in which you participated before and after the subject offending were tendered on your behalf.
Your Letters
Without objection, your counsel tendered three letters written by you. One dated 5 February 2023 was addressed to me. In that letter you admit that you had tried to lie your way out of responsibility for your offence. You acknowledge that your handling of this matter may give the impression that you ‘have little in the way of contrition’ but you say you are ‘deeply ashamed’ of your actions on the night in question and sorry for the pain you caused the victims and their loved ones. You say you are committed to change and a drug-free lifestyle. You express your gratitude for the support of your mother and partner, the clinicians, and Sister Mary who you say has helped you reconnect with your faith.
The other two letters are addressed to Cairns and Sykes and are dated 4 January 2023 and 6 January 2023 respectively. They are very similar letters. You express your remorse for your offending and for dragging out the case. You say you are now sober and that you are a very different person to the one who committed the subject offences, and have reconnected with your faith. You wish your victims the best of luck for the future.
Criminal history
Your prior convictions are extensive. They commenced in 1996 when at the age of 17 you were put on a community based order (which you breached) for burglary, theft and other offences. In 1997, your first conviction for an assault (causing injury intentionally or recklessly) was recorded. You have multiple convictions for assaults between 1997 and 2016. In Victoria, your prior convictions include causing serious injury recklessly (x2), causing injury intentionally or recklessly (x2), robbery (x2), assault with a weapon, assaulting police (x3) and unlawful assault (x4). In Queensland your prior convictions include assault occasioning bodily harm, seriously assaulting a police officer (x2) and assaulting or obstructing a police officer (x4). Between 1997 and 2016, you also have 10 prior convictions for burglary and 3 for attempted burglary and many prior convictions for other dishonesty offences. During that time period, you have undergone multiple sentences of imprisonment, the longest being an aggregate sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.
Since your arrest in October 2016, you have also been sentenced for a number of offences.[13] Most significantly, on 25 June 2021, you were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months for intentionally causing injury to another prisoner on 19 October 2019.
[13]On the 16 April 2018, you were found guilty of assaulting an emergency worker on duty but the charge was dismissed. On 31 May 2018, you were resentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment in respect of offences for which you had been placed on a CCO on 6 July 2016. On 19 March 2019, you were sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment for possession of a drug of dependence et al. On 25 June 2021, you were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months for intentionally causing injury to another prisoner on 19 October 2019.
Prospects of rehabilitation
Given your extensive criminal antecedents (including many for dishonesty), the seriousness of your offending and the lateness of your plea, I regret to say that I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are truly remorseful. I appreciate that there are testimonials that say you are, and you claim to be remorseful in your three letters, but I am far from persuaded. Indeed, as mentioned above, you acknowledge in your letter to me that the way you have dragged out your case gives reason to doubt your contrition.
The prosecutor submitted your prospects of rehabilitation were poor, bleak. Your counsel submitted they were ‘guarded’. I am certainly guarded about your prospects of rehabilitation given the seriousness of the current offending, and your criminal antecedents. The best I can say is that your prospects of rehabilitation are not hopeless.
SUMMARY OF AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS
At this point, I will summarise what I consider to be the aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to your case.
The aggravating factors are these:
·Your offending was committed less than three weeks after getting out of prison where you had spent over a year (379 days);
·Your offending was committed whilst you were on a community corrections order, recently imposed;
·Your offending was premeditated, even to the extent of you dressing up as a police officer;
·It was offending committed in company with another;
·The violence you inflicted involved the use of weapons;
·Your victims were violently assaulted in their home;
·The injuries inflicted were severe. The prognosis for both your victims is poor;
·In relation to Charge 3, you fall to be sentenced as a serious violent offender.
The mitigating factors are these:
·Applying the principles enunciated by the High Court in Bugmy,[14] your criminal antecedents and offending have to be viewed in the context of the domestic violence that marred your formative years. But I note that the weight to be given to those principles has to be moderated because of the premeditated nature of your offending;[15]
·Although you fall to be sentenced for multiple offences on the night in question, it was really one incident, justifying more concurrency than might otherwise be the case;
·Your plea of guilty has utilitarian value. It has spared the victims and witnesses a further trial and saved the community the expense of a further trial;
·Your plea of guilty was entered at a time of court backlogs due to COVID-19 and so has greater utilitarian value,[16] although I note that Supreme Court backlogs at the time you entered your plea were not major;
·A substantial period of your time spent on remand involved harsher prison conditions than normal because of COVID-19 measures;
·Some of the delay in the finalisation of your proceeding was due to COVID-19 and was not attributable to you dragging things out;
·You spent time on remand between 31 December 2012 and 4 March 2014 for an alleged murder of which you were subsequently acquitted.[17]
[14]Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571.
[15]In R v Ong & Rider [2023] VSC 466 at [68]–[69], I said this about the application of Bugmy principles to premeditated offending:
The prosecution argued that Bugmy principles are limited to impulsive offending, not premeditated offending such as yours. The prosecution highlighted this sentence in [44] of Bugmy:
An offender’s childhood exposure to extreme violence and alcohol abuse may explain the offender’s recourse to violence when frustrated such that the offender’s moral culpability for the inability to control that impulse may be substantially reduced.
The prosecution’s submission seems to me to involve too narrow a reading of Bugmy principles. For one thing, it pays insufficient regard to the earlier statement that such a background ‘may compromise the person’s capacity to mature and learn from experience.’ Significant deprivation in one’s formative years may detrimentally affect both considered and unconsidered choices later in life.
[16]Worboyes v R [2021] 96 MVR 344, 356–357 [39].
[17]During some of that period, you were undergoing sentence for other matters.
SENTENCES
I now turn to the sentences I will impose on you in respect of each charge.
On Charge 1, I sentence you to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. I order that 8 months of that sentence be cumulative on the base sentence and on all other sentences.
On Charge 2, I sentence you to 9 years’ imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
On Charge 3, I sentence you to 9 years’ imprisonment. I order that 6 years of that sentence be concurrent with the base sentence. The balance of 3 years is cumulative on the base sentence and all other sentences. I declare that I have sentenced you on Charge 3 as a serious violent offender.
On Charge 4, I sentence you to 6 months’ imprisonment. I order that 1 month of that sentence be cumulative on the base sentence and all other sentences.
The total effective sentence is 12 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
I declare a non-parole period of 10 years.
But for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years.
I declare that you have served 1,631 days by way of presentence detention, not including today.
Although they form no part of my declaration of PSD, I note that in arriving at my sentences, I have had regard to:
(a) the fact that some of the time you have spent in custody has been spent undergoing other sentences; and
(b) the fact that you spent a considerable time in custody for an alleged murder of which you were acquitted.
Finally, I make the Disposal and Forfeiture Orders sought by the prosecution. They were not opposed by you.
0
0
0