R v Vodopic
[2001] VSC 118
•10 APRIL 2001
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | |
| CRIMINAL DIVISION | Not Restricted |
No. 1511 of 2000
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| JOSEPH VODOPIC, IVAN VODOPIC AND JESSICA REGAN |
---
JUDGE: | COLDREY, J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 APRIL 2001 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2001] VSC 118 | |
---
CATCHWORDS: Sentence – Principal offender – Kidnapping – Intentionally cause serious injury – Offences committed under influence of wife – Mistaken belief debt of $3,000,000 owed by victim – Pleas of guilty - Undertaking to give evidence for prosecution – Excellent prospects of rehabilitation - 5½ years' imprisonment for kidnapping; 1½ years' imprisonment for intentionally cause serious injury – Total effective sentence 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 years – Second offender – Common assault - Victim attacked at home of this offender - Unexpected fracas – Plea of guilty – Elderly offender no prior convictions – Excellent prospects of rehabilitation – Proceedings adjourned for 18 months upon undertaking to be of good behaviour.
Third offender - Making an unwarranted demand with menaces – Participation under influence of mother – Plea of guilty – No prior convictions - Excellent prospects of rehabilitation – Community Based Order for 18 months with 100 hours of unpaid community work.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | Mr. J. Rapke | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For 1st Offender | R. Punshon SC | Lewenberg & Lewenberg |
| For 2nd Offender | A. Lewenberg | Lewenberg & Lewenberg |
| For 3rd Offender | M. Turner | Stephen Andrianakis & Assoc. |
HIS HONOUR:
Joseph Vodopic, you have pleaded guilty to a charge that, at Mitcham, on 16 May 2000, you took away and detained Dean Kenneth Reilly with the intent to demand a ransom payment in the sum of $3m for his release; you have also pleaded guilty to a charge that at Glen Iris on the same date you intentionally caused serious injury to Dean Kenneth Reilly.
Ivan Vodopic, you have pleaded guilty to assaulting Dean Kenneth Reilly at Glen Iris on 16 May 2000; and Jessica Regan, you have pleaded guilty to making an unwarranted demand with menaces from Dean Kenneth Reilly at Glen Iris on the same date.
It is now my responsibility to sentence each of you.
In order to place these offences in context it is necessary to briefly summarise the quite extraordinary facts surrounding their commission. However, because a co-offender, Toni Vodopic, is still awaiting trial before this Court, I intend to limit my description of what occurred. Further, I should stress that the role in the commission of these offences attributed to Toni Vodopic is based solely on the statements of Dean Reilly and your own description of events.
Dean Reilly and his business partner, Peter Floyd, operated a company known as SLC Australia, trading as Tecom Systems. It designed and manufactured electronic security devices. In mid-July 1999 the company was sold to American interests, but Mr Reilly and his partner continued to manage its operation. The sale of the business netted both men many millions of dollars.
In March 2000 Mr Reilly met you, Joe Vodopic and your wife Toni, at a Ferrari ball. Mr Reilly's business partner, Mr Floyd, was among those present on that occasion. At the time, Toni Vodopic was operating a clothing store called "Revo" in Toorak Road, Toorak which sold up-market retail clothing. You, Joe Vodopic, were operating a business which you owned called Steadfast Automotive in which you employed your wife's daughter Stephanie Walsh (although your wife had given you to believe that Stephanie was her cousin).
On the night before the kidnapping of Dean Reilly you, Joe Vodopic, were told by your wife that she required your assistance to recover a bad debt of $3m. This was portrayed as an enterprise to assist two criminals, which, if not undertaken, could place you and your family at risk.
I accept that you were given limited information about what was to occur, but you were told that your role was to open the door of the kidnap vehicle, enter the car behind the person involved and, in effect, intimidate him. You were also told by Toni Vodopic that she intended to drug the person with heroin.
You, Jessica Regan were enlisted by Toni Vodopic, who is your mother, to obtain the necessary heroin. You, in fact, suggested the use of Rohypnol in a drink as a substitute, but your mother insisted on heroin as part of a scheme to inject Mr Reilly in the motor vehicle. Efforts by you and your sister Stephanie to obtain the drug, which included visiting contacts in the St Kilda area on 15 May 2000, proved to be unsuccessful.
At an earlier time Toni Vodopic had obtained Mr Reilly's mobile telephone number from his receptionist. She had contacted him with the untrue story that she desired his assistance to hide a birthday present for Peter Floyd, namely a Ferrari wheel, on the business premises of SLC Australia at Mitcham.
On the morning of 16 May you, Joe Vodopic, together with Toni Vodopic and Stephanie Walsh drove in your Mercedes Benz sedan from your home at 5 Church Street, Burwood towards Mitcham. On entering the car you had noticed a round piece of timber and rope ties. In response to your query as to their purpose, you were told, in essence, that these were just in case the person put up a fight.
You told the police that about one kilometre from Dean Reilly's work address you were shown a piece of paper with his name upon it and realised, for the first time, that he was the target of the debt recovery.
Your wife assured you that he owed the money.
The plan was to lure Mr Reilly into your car, under a false pretence, to drug him using the heroin, and then take him back to a destination described as Uncle Tony's house.
On arrival at the Mitcham premises Toni Vodopic contacted Mr Reilly by mobile phone and he left the building to meet her. After some discussion at the car it was agreed that the Ferrari wheel would be delivered through the rear of the premises. It was suggested that Mr Reilly get in the back seat of the vehicle and you got in next to him.
The vehicle was driven by Stephanie Walsh to the rear of the premises and parked in the street. Toni Vodopic briefly alighted and there was some pretence that the car door locks were not functioning. In fact, the child-proof locks had been activated so as to keep Mr Reilly inside the vehicle.
Immediately after Toni Vodopic returned to the car, it drove rapidly from the scene. According to Mr Reilly you, Joe Vodopic, commenced to assault him by hitting him in the head. On your account you grabbed his hands informing him that he was in a lot of trouble and owed some people a lot of money. Mr Reilly spoke of you holding him down while your wife endeavoured to inject him with a syringe. You claimed that this took you by surprise, although your wife had earlier told you that she intended to drug the person involved with heroin.
Mr Reilly managed to kick the syringe from your wife's hands, whereupon she attempted to hit him with the piece of timber. This action was also thwarted in the course of the struggle.
Mr Reilly endeavoured to escape from the car, at one stage having his body half-way out of the rear driver's side window. You, Joe Vodopic, pulled him back into the car grabbing him by the belt and the genitals. You eventually overpowered Mr Reilly, virtually lying on top of him.
During the car trip, which traversed Whitehorse and Canterbury Roads, it appeared that several motorists observed what was happening and informed police of the registration number of the Mercedes vehicle. Meanwhile there was a change of plan as to your destination and the vehicle was ultimately driven to the home of your parents, Ivan and Marica Vodopic at Walerna Drive, Glen Iris. An argument had erupted when Toni Vodopic indicated she wished to take Mr Reilly to your parents' home. You did not wish to involve your parents but, according to the statement of Stephanie Walsh, Toni talked you into it.
Once you were at that address, you were instructed to guard Mr Reilly in the backyard of the premises. According to Mr Reilly you informed him that you had been a professional fighter and a bouncer at a King Street nightclub. There was, however, no physical violence in the backyard. It was at this location that, according to Mr Reilly, Toni Vodopic informed him that he owed a debt of $3m. Mr Reilly said that you told him, amongst other things, that all you had to do was to ensure that the debt was collected.
As to the relationship between you and your wife Toni, Mr Reilly described Toni as the dominant partner and that you seemed to be very docile in her presence during normal conversation.
On the evidence before this Court your wife was clearly the person controlling the situation. She was making numerous calls on two mobile phones and the emphasis changed from Mr Reilly owing the debt to a version of events in which that debt was owed by his business partner, Peter Floyd, but had been assigned to Mr Reilly.
On the Crown case, during that Tuesday morning, you, Jessica Regan, were telephoned by your mother who told you that if the police turned up on your doorstep you should inform them that you were in a car with herself and Joe on High Street Road, Blackburn, and that you were yelling out "help", but that you were just joking around. You rang back in an endeavour to obtain some more details, but your mother's mobile phone was turned off. In the event, the police did not contact you.
Later that day (the Crown place it at about midday) you were again contacted by your mother via the mobile phone of a girlfriend. According to your statement to the police your mother said: "I'm going to ring you back and I want you to tell this person, his name is Dean, that he owes $3m and if he pays it Peter will be fine. You are not to reveal your identity." In your statement you say: "I told her (being your mother) I would do it. I didn't argue with her or ask any more questions. Mum has a big hold over me because she is my financial support and I am used to being told to mind my own business and just do what I am told. She has never asked me to do anything like this before but she knew that I would do what I was told." You delivered the basic message before quickly terminating the call. Apparently your mother rang back wanting you to repeat the exercise but your girlfriend retrieved the mobile phone and turned it off because she was worried the battery would go flat. It was this phone call which formed the basis of the offence to which you pleaded guilty.
In the early evening, about 6 p.m. you, Joe Vodopic, and your wife, escorted Mr Reilly into the house. Further discussions about the debt occurred in one of the bedrooms. It is unnecessary to detail them. Some time later, Toni Vodopic instructed you to knock Mr Reilly out. To this end he was led to another bedroom, which he was told was Rob's bedroom (Rob being your brother).
Mr Reilly's description of what happened next is as follows: "Joe and I paced around the room for about five or ten minutes before Joe told Toni to go into the kitchen and get my phone. I watched Toni walk out of the room. As I turned back towards Joe he was running toward me with a stereo speaker held over his head. I don't think he expected me to turn around. He swung the speaker at me but I moved and grabbed hold of it. I asked him what he was doing and his reply was, 'Peter has put a hit on you'. I then flew into a rage. Joe and I then started wrestling each other."
Your own version to the police was in these terms: "Toni had told me what to do and I did not really know how to do it, Toni expected me to knock him out. I then picked up the speaker box and swung it towards the back of Dean's head. Half-way through swinging the box I gave up but I think I still made contact with Dean's head. This is the time when the second fight or brawl developed between Dean and ourselves."
In a later portion of his statement Mr Reilly says that he fended off the stereo speaker at first, but that you swung it a second time and hit him in the face just above his eye. Given your propensity on this night to implicitly obey your wife's orders, I would regard you as having made a genuine attempt to strike Mr Reilly.
Mr Reilly told police of your parents watching the ensuing struggle and your mother collapsing in the hallway. The wrestling continued and, as the statement of Mr Reilly relates: "I yelled for Joe to stop and help his mother. He didn't stop and we continued to wrestle. Only a short time later, Joe, his parents, Toni and Stephanie, all started to clobber me. I was hit with all sorts of objects including vases, statuettes and the stereo speaker. During this I remained focused on Joe and most of the things that were smashed over me were coming from behind. This took place in the hallway in between the two bedrooms."
Mr Reilly described you as sitting on his legs and at the same time gouging his eyes. Your wife Toni was trying to tie his legs together but failed because of his kicking. At one stage, Mr Reilly managed to throw you off him but was immediately thrown back on the ground onto his stomach. You, Joe Vodopic, then punched him in the back of the head and shoulders and you, Ivan Vodopic, got some rope and tied Mr Reilly's legs together. It appears also that both you, Joe Vodopic, and your wife attempted to force water containing Mogadon into Mr Reilly's mouth. As it turned out he did not swallow any and you gave up.
Next, in this farrago of violence, grey coloured electrical tape was wrapped around Mr Reilly's eyes and mouth. He could not recall who had done this. According to his version of events he was begging with you, at this stage, to let him go because all he wanted to do was to marry his girlfriend. Not surprisingly he described himself as being in pain. He stated that he had never been so scared in his life and on a number of occasions thought he was going to be killed.
After the incident in the hallway Mr Reilly was dragged towards the bedroom in which the initial discussions had occurred. He described his hands as being free and tearing the electrical tape off his face. In the bedroom with you, Joe Vodopic still on top of him, you Ivan Vodopic put a green coloured plastic bag over his head. He ripped this off. You then got a hessian bag and put it underneath his head.
In your statement to the police about these events, you Ivan Vodopic, described coming from the kitchen of your house and observing your son, Joe, and Mr Reilly wrestling each other. Your wife was endeavouring to stop them fighting. She fainted and fell onto the floor and you attempted to pull her away from the men. After ministering to her in the kitchen you returned to the scene of the struggle.
As I have already mentioned, Mr Reilly described you, Ivan Vodopic, and your wife Marica participating in the assaults upon him. Your son Joe also told police that you and your wife were involved. Given that this unexpected violence was occurring in your home and given the potential for your son to be harmed in the conflict, it would be understandable if you did become involved. On this matter I accept the statement of Mr Reilly. Further in my view, Mr Reilly could not conceivably be mistaken between a green plastic bag pulled over his head and one laid under it, as you assert occurred.
Ultimately, Mr Reilly and you, Joe Vodopic, sat on the hallway floor. Mr Reilly recounts the following conversation as having occurred: "While sitting in the hallway with Joe I asked him why he was doing what he was doing to me. He simply said that he was scared that if he was unable to arrange the recovery of the debt, he would be killed or if I was let go, I would go to the police and he would go to prison." It appears that, while this conversation was occurring, the other persons present in the house were clearing up the blood and debris.
Subsequently, both Stephanie Walsh and Mrs Marica Vodopic cleaned and dressed Mr Reilly's wounds.
The balance of the evening was characterized by a number of mobile phone calls made by Toni Vodopic, some of which purported to be to her solicitor, a Michael Fetter, seeking legal advice. In the early hours of 19 May, handwritten documents, prepared mainly by Toni Vodopic, were signed by Mr Reilly. These documents related to the transfer of $3m from the National Australia Bank to her solicitor's trust account. Mr Reilly also agreed to sign a document indemnifying his captors from any civil or criminal liability.
At the commencement of business hours on 17 May, contact was made with the National Australia Bank and a transfer document was faxed to the relevant branch. As a result of the crude nature of the handwritten document and irregularities within it (for example, the bank manager's name was misspelt) and the use of a Tecom account rather than Mr Reilly's personal account, the bank contacted Mr Reilly's business partner, Mr Floyd, who directed that no transfer of funds be made.
At some stage, you Ivan Vodopic left for work and later Mr Reilly requested you, Joe Vodopic and your wife Toni, to take him to hospital. You said to him that you originally thought the debt was real but now realised it was nothing more than an extortion. Both you and your wife agreed to take Mr Reilly to hospital and you drove first to your home in Burwood. At that point both you and your wife were crying and you dropped her off. You then drove Mr Reilly to his work in order to pick up his wallet, before travelling on to the Knox Private Hospital arriving about 2.45 p.m.
You subsequently rang Mr Reilly to see if he was all right and, according to your statement, which was essentially confirmed by that of Mr Reilly, you said that you had been told by Toni Vodopic that she had worked it out with "the crooks" and nobody was going to be hurt as a result of the incident.
I have not attempted to detail all of the convoluted exchanges that characterise the dealings between the parties during the period of Mr Reilly's captivity. In particular, I have not sought to unravel the motivations and machinations of Toni Vodopic, but have dealt only with her activities which relate to each of you.
The injuries sustained by Mr Reilly included lacerations to the forehead and nose; abrasions to the forehead, both cheeks, the neck, back, upper arms, hands, elbows and left leg. There was bruising to the right eye, gums, right thigh, both ankles and the back, as well as tenderness over the right clavicle and lumbar spine. An X-ray revealed no abnormalities and actual hospitalization was not required.
Among the psychological effects of this incident which Mr Reilly continues to experience are flashbacks, sleeping difficulties, feelings of insecurity and an incapacity to trust others. He regards himself as less outgoing and as having a tendency to become reclusive.
In relation to your role, Joseph Vodopic, it was put by your counsel, Mr Punshon, that you were, in effect, pathologically smitten by your wife. The offences were committed under her influence and direction with you being caught up in the events as they unravelled and being drip fed limited amounts of information which may or may not have been true. In my view the materials tend to bear that out.
I have already referred, in passing, to the observations of Mr Reilly of your subservient role. Indeed, the only time you apparently demonstrated any initiative was the suggestion that the note authorizing the bank to transfer the money should be faxed to it. Further, I accept that your participation in these events was to assist your wife who claimed that if the alleged debt was not recovered, she, and, indeed, your family, could be at risk. Consequently, your participation was not with a view to any monetary gain for yourself. As I have recounted the events, it is obvious that they were marked by both fluidity and confusion, and you were swept along by them.
All that being said, the offence of kidnapping is a serious one and in this case it was accompanied by episodes of violence. Indeed, this was a terrifying experience for Mr Reilly which lasted almost 30 hours. Further, this was a kidnapping undertaken for financial reasons.
The Court, by any sentenced imposed, must denounce this type of illegal conduct as well as deterring others from embarking upon it.
In your case, Ivan Vodopic, I accept that your role must be seen in the context of Mr Reilly being brought unexpectedly to your home by your son and daughter-in-law who were persons you implicitly trusted. On the evidence a struggle broke out involving Mr Reilly and your son Joseph. During that altercation your wife collapsed. It is not surprising that in the course of this conflict which occurred, no doubt, in a highly emotional atmosphere, you should intervene on the side of your nearest and dearest against a total stranger. However, as your plea of guilty to common as a result indicates, you do not claim that your actions were lawfully justified as in self-defence.
Jessica Regan, the limited role in this affair upon which you face the Court was, as I have indicated, the making of the phone call telling Mr Reilly that if he paid the $3m, Peter (that is Mr Reilly's business partner), would be fine.
In a statement you made to the police on 24 May 2000 you said:
"I did have a choice as to whether or not I was going to do these things for my mother. I would have felt bad if I did not do them for her because she is the only one who helps me out and gives me money. I love my mother but I do not agree with what she has done. Although I do not know the full details I was shocked when I realised what has happened. Even if I knew more of the plans, I probably would have still done what she asked me to do because she is my mother. I would never have actually done the kidnapping or anything. I could never actually hurt anyone, not even an animal."
I accept that you were reluctantly drawn into this incident under the influence of your mother and that you were unaware of its full extent.
I now turn to personal details of each of you which are also pertinent to the sentences to be imposed.
You Joseph Vodopic are 34 years of age, having been born in Melbourne on 21 February 1967. You have one brother, Robert, who is eight years your junior. Your parents, Ivan and Marica, migrated to Australia from Croatia and are now well integrated into the Australian community.
You attended the Glen Iris Primary School and then Swinburne Technical College to Form 4 level. You were an average student but excelled in the subjects of electronics and engineering. Upon leaving school at 15, you undertook an automotive electrical apprenticeship at Steadfast in Surrey Hills. On its completion you were immediately taken on to the staff. At the age of 21 you bought into the business in partnership with two others. Your one-third share cost you $5,000. At the same age you purchased your first home at 5 Church Street, Burwood. To obtain the necessary finance you had taken several part-time jobs between the ages of 18 and 21. These included weekend work delivering furniture and mowing lawns. When you were approximately 22 years of age, two of the partners, (one of which was yourself), purchased the business interests of the third partner for approximately $40,000. By the age of 27 you bought out the remaining partner for about $60,000. The finance for this was achieved by working some 60 to 80 hours each week.
In the ensuing years you increased the profitability of the business and by May 2000 it had a turnover of approximately $300,000 per annum. By that stage, among the persons you had employed, were your brother Robert, and Toni Vodopic's daughter, Stephanie Walsh. In addition, you employed your wife as a part-time bookkeeper with financially disastrous consequences. You had met your wife in about 1995 at a Melbourne nightclub. You became obsessed with her and, within months, a steady relationship developed which resulted in marriage in 1997.
In a statement by Stephanie Walsh, dated 28 September 2000, the impact of her mother upon the Vodopic family is detailed. It appears that Toni Vodopic consistently lied about her past. These falsehoods included the assertions that she had never been married, that her only child had been killed in a car accident, and that she had previously been a member of the Victoria Police Force. During the course of your relationship with her, she purchased a Ferrari for $75,000 and a Porsche for $150,000. She also began the Toorak business called "Revo". It now appears that the source of the money required for these activities was an overdraft facility, not a wealthy relative named Pat, as your wife asserted.
In terms of the influence of Toni Vodopic over the financial affairs of the Vodopic family, Ms Walsh described how Toni Vodopic took money from your business enterprise Steadfast by forging your signature. Additionally, according to Ms Walsh, Toni Vodopic forged signatures of members of the Vodopic family in arranging mortgages of your home and that of her parents-in-law. Indeed, I was informed by Mr Punshon that, as a result of her frauds Steadfast has a $35,000 debt and the mortgages on the two houses are $300,000 and $400,000 respectively. These properties may well be lost as a result of foreclosure.
Ms Walsh concluded her assessment of the relationship between you, Joe Vodopic and Toni Vodopic in these terms:
"I believe that Joe is a nice man who unfortunately fell in love with the wrong woman. He comes from an honest and hard working family who have never been exposed to the side of life that Toni showed them existed. I believe that Toni was the first person that he ever really loved and, therefore, he was extremely blinded by that love. So when Toni told him something he chose to believe it because he would rather do that than believe that the woman he loves would lie to him. I believe that his relationship with Toni was one-sided in that he did all the giving and she did all the taking. I believe that Toni saw him (as) a meal ticket in life and she used this to her full advantage."
Evidence was given on your behalf by Ms Christine Whittaker, the Managing Director of an Internet company, and Anthony Stephens, a businessman, who were a current and former neighbour respectively, of your family at Walerna Road, Glen Iris. Both spoke of the hard work engaged in by you, Joe Vodopic, to build-up your business; of your honesty; of your devotion to your parents; and of how you were dominated and manipulated by your wife.
Mr Stephens who had visited you in prison spoke of your remorse. I accept their evidence. It was corroborated by character references from Mr Mark Sycamnias (the branch manager of a hire company) and Mr R.J. Lindsay, another family neighbour.
A detailed psychological report dated 29 June 2001 was prepared by a clinical psychologist, Mr Jeffrey Cummins. It described your remorse for what had occurred and a nervous breakdown that you suffered following your realisation that you had been duped by the woman you loved. At that time you were prescribed the antipsychotic drug Largactil. You currently suffer from what Mr Cummins described as "a severe agitated depressive disorder". However, you have no antisocial personality disorder and are not psychotic. Mr Cummins described you as being slightly below average intelligence.
There is no need to further detail the spectrum of lies propagated by Toni Vodopic. They extended from claims that her marriage to you was her first and that she had rich relatives, to the personal tragedies of a miscarriage and breast cancer.
Since your arrest you have gainfully utilised your time in prison to study Level 3 and 4 English, as well as mathematics, and information technology. You are a trusted prisoner having been given a job working in the prison laundry.
In summary, you are a person who, for sentencing purposes, may be regarded as having no prior convictions. You are extremely hard working, having built up a successful automotive business, and you have continued to exhibit that quality within the prison system. You will be able to return to your business, which is presently being operated by your brother Robert, upon your release from gaol. You also have the benefit of a strongly supportive family. I accept that you were led in these offences by your wife and you are genuinely remorseful for what has occurred. That remorse was reflected as early as your actions in driving Mr Reilly to the Knox Hospital.
All these factors point to your excellent prospects of rehabilitation. I accept that these offences are out of character and consequently this is a case where there is effectively no need for specific deterrence.
Additionally, you must be given credit for your early plea of guilty. Further, you have undertaken to assist the Crown by giving evidence in any further prosecution arising out of this incident. That, in itself, will make the serving of any terms of imprisonment more onerous. It attracts a considerable sentencing discount.
I also take into account the emotional and financial punishment which you have experienced upon learning the true nature of your wife's attitude towards you and of her fraudulent activities directed against you.
Ivan Vodopic, you are almost 71 years of age having been born on 12 May 1930 in Rozdele in Croatia during the depression. You were one of nine brothers and sisters. The life of your family was impacted upon by the Second World War and the destruction of the post-war Croatian economy. When your father died in 1947 you had to support the family. In fact, you commenced work at the age of 14. Education was a luxury that circumstances would not allow you. In 1945 you became an apprentice cabinet maker. Thereafter you participated in the rebuilding of Yugoslavia working for various Governments. In 1957, at 27 years of age, you left Croatia to work in Germany. You worked as a miner sending money home to your family.
In 1960 you migrated to Australia and, within two weeks of your arrival, you secured a job as a cabinet maker with a firm called Rosango Furniture. You remained with that business for nine and a half years. Following that you spent a period of two and a half years as a kitchen cabinet maker for a builder. You then obtained a position with the Board of Works at their East Malvern depot where you worked for the next 19½ years. When the Board of Works carpentry business was sold to the Transfield Corporation as part of privatisation, you were retrenched. At 62 years of age and with a limited knowledge of English, you found it difficult to gain employment. You occupied yourself rebuilding your own house and assisting neighbours renovate their homes. In 1965, at the insistence of your neighbour, Mrs Whittaker, you applied for a pension. In her evidence Mrs Whittaker described you and your wife in terms of your absolute honesty. I have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
You married your wife Marica in February 1963. You have been married for 38 years and have brought up two children. You purchased the family home in early 1970 and, by the end of 1982, had fully paid it off. In recent years you relied upon your daughter-in-law to oversee the family finances. This appears to have led to the situation where, she having forged your signature on the mortgage documents, you are in grave danger of losing your home. If this occurs, your financial future will be parlous indeed.
You have no prior convictions and, until the moment of the incident which brings you before this Court, you had led an exemplary life. The Crown conceded during the plea, that given your age and antecedents and the relatively minor role you played in the this incident, a gaol sentence is not warranted. Nonetheless, it was argued by Mr Rapke, on behalf of the Crown, that I should impose a conviction upon you whatever other form of penalty was imposed. Given the level of violence and the context in which this occurred I am of the view that a conviction a warranted. However, in all the circumstances I do not propose to imprison you, nor is a fine a practical option.
Jessica Regan, you are 19 years of age having been born on 28 October 1981. You were 18 at the time of this offence. You are one of the four children of Toni Vodopic. Your sister Stephanie has already been dealt with by this Court. You have a younger brother living with your father and a sister who passed away in 1993. Your parents separated when you were about 10 years old and, thereafter your father, who has a criminal record for violence, spent some time in custody. He stayed with you for a short period of time upon his release, but effectively you have been on your own since the age of 15. At the time of this offence you were dependent upon the financial support of your mother.
Your disrupted early life resulted in you attending a number of different schools in various localities including Western Australia. However, you completed Year 10 by correspondence. After leaving school you worked for a period of time at child minding centres in Glen Waverley and Elwood. You did not, however, see that as a career. I was informed by your counsel, Mr Turner, that you hoped to go to the Box Hill TAFE with a view to doing a course in hospitality and tourism. You are currently residing at Box Hill with your fiance, an electrical engineering student at RMIT. It was said by your counsel that this had brought some stability to your previously turbulent life.
No prior convictions are alleged against you, and given the dysfunctional nature of your family that, in itself, is a remarkable achievement.
Also in your favour is your cooperation with the investigating police and your plea of guilty. Moreover, since you are a young offender, your rehabilitation should be the focus of any sentence imposed. Whilst Mr Rapke conceded that, in view of your background, the relatively minor role you played and the influence of your mother, there was little need for any component of specific deterrence in any sentence imposed, he submitted that there was a need to give weight to general deterrence and to the need for denunciation of this type of offence.
However, Mr Rapke also conceded on behalf of the Crown that given your level of criminality was at the lowest level of those participating in this episode, this was not a case for the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence. I agree with that view.
In accordance with my sentencing remarks I have concluded the appropriate sentences are as follows:
Ivan Vodopic, on the offence of common assault, you are convicted, but I propose to adjourn the proceedings for a period of 18 months and release you upon you giving an undertaking to be of good behaviour for that period.
The consequences of that undertaking are (1) that you must appear before the Court if called upon to do so during the period of the adjournment, and, if the Court so specifies, at the time to which the further hearing is adjourned, and (2) that you are of good behaviour during the period of the adjournment.
Are you prepared to give that undertaking?
MR LEWENBERG: I have communicated that and he agrees, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I will make that order. He will need to sign the undertaking, which we can do in a moment.
Jessica Ryan, on the offence of making an unwarranted demand with menaces, you will be released, if you agree, upon a Community Based Order for a period of 12 months. Apart from the core conditions of that order I add the condition that you perform 100 hours of unpaid community work as directed by the Regional Manager of the relevant Community Corrections Centre.
The core conditions of that order are:
1.That you do not commit, whether inside or outside Victoria during the period of the Order, another offence punishable by a term of imprisonment.
2.That you report to the specified Community Corrections Centre within two clear working days after the coming into operation of the Order.
3.That you report to and receive visits from Community Corrections officers.
4.That you notify an officer at the specified Community Corrections Centre of any change in address or employment within two clear working days of the change.
5.That you do not leave Victoria except with the permission of an officer of the specified Community Corrections Centre, granted either generally or in relation to the particular case.
6.That you obey all lawful instructions and directions of Community Corrections officers.
7.There is one program condition, that you perform 100 hours unpaid community work as directed by the Regional Manager.
I understand that Ringwood is the appropriate Community Corrections Centre, and the supervising Court would be the Ringwood Magistrates' Court.
Do you agree to comply with that?
PRISONER REGAN: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Joseph Vodopic, on Count 1, the charge of kidnapping, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 5½ years, and on Count 2, the charge of intentionally causing serious injury, you will be sentenced to 1½ years' imprisonment. Six months of Count 2 is to be cumulative upon Count 1, making a total effective sentence of six years. I fix a period of three years before you become eligible for parole. It is declared that the period of 322 days, inclusive of today's date, be reckoned as the period of detention already served under the sentence. I direct that there be noted in the records of the Court the fact that such declaration is made and its details. It is also to be noted in the records of the Court that a less severe sentence has been imposed upon you by reason of your undertaking to give evidence for the prosecution in any future trial of your co-offender, Toni Vodopic, for offences arising out of the incidents which occurred on or about 19 May 2000.
Mr Joseph Vodopic may go and the other co-offenders can come forward to sign the necessary documentation.
The only other thing I need to say is that the earlier Order relating to prohibition of publication of certain aspects of this sentence is continued. In an excess of caution I have also signed it today. I will read it to you:
"It is hereby ordered that subject to further order no person shall publish or cause to be published in any newspaper or journal, or broadcast by means of radio or television or other means, any report referring to current police investigations into alleged fraudulent activities of Toni Vodopic."
That is in the same terms as the Order on the last occasion. Anything else apart from getting the documentation signed?
MR HILLMAN: No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Those documents will need to be photocopied so that each of you has a copy of them. You will need to wait while that is done, but otherwise I will adjourn the Court.
---
0
0
0