R v Ward
[2007] VSC 388
•24 April 2007
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1479 of 2006
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| DALE PHILLIP WARD |
---
JUDGE: | KING J | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 13 MARCH 2007 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 24 APRIL 2007 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v WARD | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2007] VSC 388 | |
---
Plea – manslaughter – disparate offences from a number of presentments - armed robbery - early plea - remorse - mental health – dependency – young offender.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr S. Cooper | Angela Cannon Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr P. Tehan QC with Mr B. Kissane | Ronald Tait & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
Dale Phillip Ward, you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, two counts of intentionally causing injury, two counts of armed robbery, one count of making a threat to kill and one count of handling stolen goods. You have now pleaded to an additional indictable count of theft, being theft of a laptop computer on 3 November 2004, and pursuant to s.359AA of the Crimes Act 1958 to a summary offence, being the breach of a good behaviour bond on 20 November 2004.
In relation to the other offences, the manslaughter occurred on 25 August 2005 and all other offences 14 March 2005.
You have one prior appearance, at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court on 21 June 2004 for possession of a drug of dependence, being cannabis, and hindering a police officer in the lawful execution of duty. For those offences you were placed on a 12 month good behaviour bond, and although the prior appearance says, in the sum of $400, it is apparent from the material before me, that in fact you were directed to pay $400 to the court fund, although that is not noted on the prior appearance, but, it is the failure to pay the $400, that is the breach for which I am asked to sentence you and to which you have pleaded guilty.
You have just recently turned 25 years of age, having been born on 11 March 1982. You gave your occupation as landscaper and horticulture and at the time of these offences, you were residing with your mother and family at 222 Nicholson Street, Abbotsford.
At the time of the commission of the offences, your age ranged from 22 to 23.
The maximum penalties for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty are: manslaughter, 20 years' imprisonment; armed robbery, 25 years' imprisonment; intentionally causing injury, 10 years' imprisonment; threat to kill, 10 years' imprisonment; handling stolen goods, 15 years' imprisonment; theft, 10 years' imprisonment; breach of good behaviour bond, the court can vary, confirm or cancel the order as well as impose a fine of up to Level 10.
Further, it should be noted that, the offence of manslaughter was committed whilst you were on bail, for the offences relating to the armed robberies.
You were originally before this court on a count of murder, and the Crown accepted a plea of guilty, to one count of manslaughter. Which I have to say, appeared to me, to be a totally appropriate decision.
It was requested, that your plea be adjourned to allow for all other pending matters, that you had before other courts, to be dealt with at the same time by way of pleas of guilty. Thus, the factual scenario will take a little time to go through, as the offences are quite disparate and need to be considered individually.
In relation to the first presentment, that of manslaughter, on Thursday 25 August 2005, the deceased, Alex Cooper, who was then aged 28, was living in North Coburg, together with his de facto Michelle Lamb. They had been in a relationship, at that stage, for some 18 months.
On the afternoon of 24 August 2005 they travelled to Collingwood, went to a flat in Dight Street, occupied by a man called Marco. They went there to buy some drugs for personal use. During the time they were there, your brother, Simon Whelan, and his girlfriend Linda attended, stayed there for a while, shared some food. Michelle, left at some time in the afternoon and returned later that day. She didn't see her partner Alex again, until the next morning.
During that evening, Alex and your brother Simon went to 44 Palmer Street, Collingwood, which was a unit occupied by Keith West and Linda Stevens. They were both present at the unit, when your brother and Alex attended. Whilst there, your brother, Simon appeared to become very annoyed and he made accusations, about someone present in the flat stealing his mobile.
Whilst he was in the kitchen area, Simon Whelan pulled out knives from a knife rack and appeared to be playing with them, in a somewhat angry and aggressive manner. Alex Cooper left by himself, and Simon left with Linda and Keith, to get some money, later.
During the course of that evening, Alex met up with a man by the name of Spencer Thorne, together, they ended up in the Fairfield area, and what they did was, steal a racing bike. They took it back to the Collingwood area. Spencer Thorne had a mountain bike with him at the time, and it was the intention of Spencer and Alex, to try and sell, the stolen racing bike. They were unable to sell it that evening and they eventually, went their separate ways. Alex Cooper went back to Coburg, taking the bike with him. When he returned home, he and Michelle discussed the situation of the bike, and on the 25th of August they went back to the Collingwood area, to try and sell the bike again.
In the vicinity of the Collingwood area, they were approached by someone about the bike, and they had discussions about selling it to a man, that they met. I think, the sum involved was some $500. That did not actually culminate, but talk of it going to occur at a later stage, had.
They continued to walk, with the bike, towards the Ministry of Housing flats at Dight Street. As they got there, your brother Simon, was out the front with some other people. Alex and Michelle walked through the two glass doors to the area of grass at the rear of the flats, the common area. Shortly after this, your brother Simon, followed them and made a request, to allow him to ride the bike. Alex agreed, and then there was further discussions about the prospects of the bike being sold. In fact, to Simon. Alex declined the offer.
Michelle Lamb said, that Simon appeared annoyed, and shortly after this Simon came up from behind them, in the foyer area, jumped on to Alex's back, placed an arm around his neck, holding a knife in the vicinity of Alex's throat. A fight then ensued between them, and she said, that during the course of the fight, it appears that Alex was able to remove Simon from his back and fought back, and was able to get the better of Simon, and was actually seen to head butt him. It would appear, that during this time, the knife had fallen to the ground.
At that point, you and your brother Shane had come to the area. You had gone there earlier that day, with Simon, but you had split up with him, before the fight occurred. Michelle said, at a point, she just saw you in possession of the knife, that she had seen in Simon's hand earlier. Alex was unarmed, and you then, delivered a series of knife wounds, to Alex. There were in fact, five stab wounds, four to his chest and one to his upper left arm. He fell to the ground, in front of the units in Perry Street, he said, he could not breathe, and at that time, you and Shane, fled by foot, to your home. Simon took the racing bike and left also.
Ambulance officers arrived, but at approximately 11.52, Alex was found to be dead. They had tried to resuscitate him, but they had failed. They secured the crime scene, identified your brother Simon, as being a relevant person to their inquiries.
You were arrested about 10 p.m. that evening. The police had already been to your home, and they had spoken to you earlier in the day, while they were looking for Simon. They had asked about your movements that day, and what you had told them was, that you had actually been home all day, you had gone out only that morning to get some "choof", as you described it, you could not get any, and that you had left your brother Simon on the corner of Hoddle and Perry Streets, and you expressed surprise, when told of the death of Alex.
They returned and, as I said, you were arrested at 10 o'clock that night and taken to the Homicide Squad. There was a record of interview done at that time and you admitted your involvement. I consider that you made your admissions at an early stage, but to a degree, you did try and justify your involvement by saying, that you had received a call on your mobile phone telling you to come and help your brother. That part was not true, but the rest of what you said to the police, as I read it, was.
In relation to the second presentment, on 14 March 2005 you were living in Westgarth Street, Northcote. You had met your neighbours, Jeremy Impy, Shane Mantel and Paul Richardson, who were living also at Westgarth Street. You and your co‑offender in the matter, Ricky Manning, had actually a brief discussion in the carpark of the flat, the day before, with those very people.
In the early hours of 14 March, Mr Impy and Mr Mantel were sitting watching television in their house. The back door was unlocked. You walked in, sat down on the couch and started talking, or as the prosecutor described it, raving about lost pills. Mr Impy described you as "all over the place, slurring, getting your words twisted up". Quite clearly in his view, and I would imagine anybody else's, you were substantially affected by drugs. You behaved in this manner for some time, and then, quite suddenly, you pulled out a serrated blade with white tape wound around the bottom of that blade, from under your belt. The young men tried to keep you calm, telling you, they did not have your pills. This went on for some time, with you apparently, walking in and out of the back door. I would describe this, as a most unusual form of armed robbery, in which you were involved, but your co‑offender Manning then walked in. He asked to use the bathroom and from there the real problem started.
It appears that Mr Impy was basically falling asleep on the couch, as this had been going on for some time and he was tired, and suddenly you punched him in the face. His nose started to bleed and you, as I understand it, kept punching him. That is Count 1 on the second presentment, intentionally causing injury to Mr Impy.
Mr Manning then came back into the room, demanded money and possessions, at which stage you picked up the knife and demanded Impy's mobile phone, and during the course of this proceeding you and Mr Manning took the various items listed in the presentment. They included clothing, footwear, cash, cards, medications, wallet. You robbed both, Jeremy Impy and Shane Mantel and they form the two counts of armed robbery on the presentment, being Counts 2 and 3.
In respect of the injury to Shane Mantel, that is Count 4 on the presentment. Mr Mantel said, he had gone and got a washer for Mr Impy's injury and when he returned, he sat down on the couch and you started to hit him, and you hit him about four times. Mr Mantel described you as "acting crazy" and said, he was just trying to protect himself, by covering up, as you rained blows upon him.
In respect of Count 5, threat to kill, what occurred was, that you said to Mr Mantel, “give me the code to your car or I will cut your throat". The car was security protected and the only way that it could be driven, was to know the code. Before leaving, you told both Mr Impy and Mr Mantel, that if the coppers were called that they would be dead, a shotgun in their mouth if they lagged. They were, not surprisingly, terrified.
They each suffered injuries of bruising and cuts to the face and body from a fairly sustained attack upon them.
It is clear, that your participation in respect of those, was of a substantially higher order, than that of Mr Manning's, your co‑offender.
The police were subsequently called and when they were looking for you at your premises next door, they located a number of wallets and identification papers, which had been stolen from a series of individually parked cars, from 1st of February through to March of 2005, when they were located. Those are the items that form the charge of handling.
In respect of the offence of theft, on 3 November 2004 at about 4 p.m. you attended Jesuit Social Services, where you had been receiving counselling and a great deal of assistance. At that time, you removed a Toshiba laptop that you found in the office, and you subsequently sold it, at the Collingwood flats.
On 11 November 2004 whilst not being a suspect, you attended at Northcote Watchhouse, said you wanted to hand yourself in and made full admissions to the theft of the laptop.
Finally, the offence of breaching the conditions, that is, failing to comply with the condition of an undertaking, which consisted of failing to pay $400 to the court funds. You made a number of excuses and had the payment deferred, but ultimately, did not pay, when it was required.
They are the factual matters relating to this.
Your brother Simon Whelan, who was initially involved in this offence, in the manner I have described, pleaded to one count of intentionally causing injury and theft of the bike. He pleaded on 11 May 2006 and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. He received a sentence of two months, for the theft concurrent with the 15 months for the intentionally causing injury, and a non‑parole period of nine months was imposed. Simon is now aged 31.
In relation to these matters, I have received victim impact statements, in respect of both sets of offences. In relation to the offence of manslaughter, there is a statement from the deceased's sister. In that statement, she refers to the fact, that he did not have the opportunity to turn his life around, and the chance of seeing or living with his two daughters. Those two daughters reside with their mother in Western Australia, but there was regular telephone contact, once a week, between Alex and his two daughters.
I will bear the contents of that statement in mind when imposing sentence.
In respect of the second presentment, I received two victim impact statements which became Exhibit 2 on the plea. They were from Jeremy Impy and Shane Mantel. Particularly the one from Mr Mantel, referred to reports attached, but there were no such reports attached, to the material presented to me, and inquiries from the prosecutor, revealed that those reports had never been presented to the police. I accept what is contained in the reports, limited though it maybe in the case of Mr Mantel, and I will bear that in mind when imposing sentence.
This could best be described as, a trail of crime commencing in August of 2004 and culminating in the death of a young man in August of 2005, with the majority of the offending occurring, in a short period, between February and August of 2005.
Up until June 2004 you had not been in trouble with the police, and then you committed a series of offences, as I have outlined, of which the offence of manslaughter, is by far the most serious.
Your counsel made very able submissions on your behalf and explained at some length, the considerable disadvantages of your background, to which I shall shortly refer. I accept those matters, but it does little to relieve the crimes of their seriousness. The matters to which I have referred, provide some explanation for the offending, but it is apparent that you were really totally out of control during this period. The community cannot tolerate someone out of control. We all need to have a respect for law and the rules of our society, for otherwise, society cannot function. If everyone disregards those rules we just have anarchy.
I am mindful of the fact that you sought some assistance, and that was provided in the main by Jesuit Services, but despite that provision of assistance, there was no power to prevent you heading into the downward spiral, that must have been obvious to all of those who were trying to assist you. You needed help on a serious level. Help with mental health issues, dependency issues, and other more general areas of help, which people attempted to provide, but no‑one had or has the power to compel you to follow the advice given, or to take the medication provided, or even to incarcerate you, to prevent this downward spiral, until you have been suitably medicated, that is, no‑one had the power, until you killed someone.
It is a tragedy for Alex Cooper, his family and children, and it is a tragedy for you, for your family and our society in general, that it requires a death, to activate those powers.
It is appalling, that in our current society, we have no means of preventing you from descending into this drug created hell, which does such terrible things to young minds, as it has done to yours and causing such harm to others, as a result.
I do not know the answer, but we need something, that is an improvement on what we currently have.
I accept in this case, there is a need for both general and specific deterrence. You turned 25 just prior to your plea of guilty and, as I said earlier, you were aged 22 at the time of the armed robberies and other related offences and 23 at the time of the killing.
It would appear, that your life has been involved in illegal drug taking for many years. By March of 2005 you had developed an amphetamine psychosis, with the background being, that in the weeks and months prior to the killing , one of on and off again psychoses.
You had, until these offences started occurring, little in the way of criminality. You undoubtedly come from, what your counsel described as, "a difficult and chaotic background". At the time of the killing, you weighed 40 kilos less than you do now. That says a great deal about what drugs really do to people.
Your counsel, described his first interview with you as, "seeing a really young immature kid crying, very tearful, very sorry for what has happened. He is so sorry, and now so aware, that he's taken another young man's life. He knows he's only about 30 and, that he had two children, two young children". They are the true consequences of what these drugs have done.
As indicated, I have to take into account your personal circumstances and, to a large degree, they are extraordinary. You are one of nine children. Your mother was present in court during the plea. She was in a wheelchair. She suffers from osteoarthritis, diabetes and other illnesses. She is aged about 61 to 62. Phillip Price is your father, he was also present in court, and unless I am mistaken I note him present again today, which hopefully is an indication of ongoing support.
The children of your mother are David, the eldest, who is deceased, you never met him. Steven, 41, of whom I have no detail. Craig, 38, who actually appears to be someone who has succeeded, he has a company and says that when you are released he will have work available to you. Your brother Shane, 36, a pensioner with drug addictions, he lives with your mother. Jamie, who was aged 29 when he died in prison, of a drug overdose, in 2000.
I interpose here, that you were 18 when he died. Jamie Whelan had been convicted of murder in 1993, against a background of domestic dispute, in Geelong. His minimum term was reduced on a appeal, to 12 years. The killing of which he was convicted and his own death, have been described by your counsel, as hanging like a shadow over the family. You looked up to him. In effect, you maintained you were brought up by him until he was gaoled, and you adored him. He had a significant, what I would describe as, negative impact upon your life.
Next is your brother Mark aged 35, a drug user, currently in custody for thefts and other crimes. Simon, aged 31, who has now completed his time in custody for his participation in this offence and who, now lives in Preston. And finally Amy, the only girl. She is married with two children, aged 11 and nine and she is a foster mum, to three other children. You and Amy are very close and Phillip is your father, as well as Amy's father. The other children come from a variety of different fathers.
You were bought up substantially in the Geelong area. Your father left when you were relatively young and it fell to your mother to bring you and the other children up. You attended Corio Primary School. Your older brothers were in and out of custody, most of your life and your memories of family life really are punctuated by violence, drugs and prisons.
The family moved to Footscray, where you went to Footscray Secondary College in Year 7, and then to a non‑mainstream school called The Island, where you passed Year 10. It was something, your counsel informed me, you enjoyed. It's a school located in Clifton Hill and is more devoted to practical skills, but he also said, by the time you left there you had developed an addiction to cannabis, then ultimately that led on to amphetamine, ecstasy and in the latter part of 2004/2005 to ice. With those addictions, came a developing psychosis, a drug‑induced psychosis.
In relation to the move to Melbourne when you were young, the family moved back to Melbourne, at around the time of the conviction for murder of your older brother Jamie. You were around 11 at that time. When you were aged nine or 10 Jamie's girlfriend was murdered, about six weeks before the murder, with which Jamie was charged. Hers was a horrible killing, where her body was found in the lake at La Trobe University. You knew her through Jamie, with whom, I have indicated already, you had a very close relationship. Not surprisingly, as your counsel submitted and I agree, "death looms large over your family".
Your background is a chaotic background of drugs, aggression, prisons, and violence. To some degree I am amazed you got to the age you did without offending.
It is not surprising, that when you are raised in this manner that ultimately, you will end up before the courts.
In relation to your prior appearance, counsel explained that the prior matter related to your use of cannabis, and the hindering was when, you were at a party and capsicum spray was used to deal with your aggressiveness towards the police. That is dealt with at a later point, and I will come back to that.
Lester Alan Walton is a psychiatrist, he was called, and gave evidence. He told the court, he had seen you on three occasions. He also had the reports of many of those who had treated you over the past years.
He said, when he first saw you, it was the first time that you had been in gaol. He said, there appeared to be at that stage some residual delusions, when you were talking about hearing voices.
He said, the second time he saw you, he described you as much better. You had been on anti‑psychotic medication by that stage.
He said, he last saw you on 14 March and that you had been given to copious tearfulness, exhibiting, what he described, as genuine sorrow. He said, there were a number of reasons that he found that. He said, you spoke in an unusual way, about the victim. You demonstrated a degree of familiarity, he said, although it's a rather odd way of expressing empathy. He found that it was, in his view, a sign of genuine sorrow and remorse for what had occurred.
He said, in relation to the armed robberies in March of 2005, that it's his view, that you probably were suffering from a drug induced psychosis, at that time. But he said, in respect of the killing, he was not of the opinion that you were in fact suffering from a psychosis, at that particular time.
He said, in respect of the relationship that you had with your brother, Jamie, he said, any 9, 10 or 11‑year old would unfortunately be impressed by such notoriety, as your brother had gained. It, in fact, makes him more of an idealized hero, than he ever had any right to be.
In respect of your prospects of rehabilitation, Dr Walton was of the view that you are at risk of developing full‑blown schizophrenia, because it appears there is a family history of schizophrenia, and he said, although you have not developed it yet, he said, the hopeful thing is that you are getting towards the upper limit of age, at which it is likely to develop.
He described you as having, a genetic loading towards anti‑social behaviour, and that clearly, is in terms of your genetic background and the environment, in which you have been raised.
He also described you, quite correctly I think, as being a rather elderly recruit to anti‑social behaviour, at the age of 21, which is when your first offending occurred. Most anti‑social behaviour is exhibited very early. But, what he hoped was, that it implies that, although you have come to anti‑social behaviour late, it means equally, you have got a chance to mature later and possibly get to a point that, you don't wish to be involved in anti‑social behaviour, or have a lifestyle that just involves destruction of yourself and others.
I also have a written report from Dr Walton, which is exhibited in this plea and together with the other reports from doctors and youth workers, that he examined in relation to the preparation of his report, and his meetings with you. I have equally had the opportunity of reading that material and it has been helpful.
Nicholas Garofolo was also called to give evidence on your behalf. He's a drug and alcohol counsellor with a Masters in counselling, Graduate Diploma in drug and alcohol work. He had been employed by Connections, which is an organisation that works with young people with mental health and drug problems, combined.
From late April 2004 you had been a client of Connections, initially dealing with Peter Hoskin, but you had been referred there from YSAS prior. Now, the reason you had been referred was, that you had turned 21 and once you turned 21, you are now longer involved in Youth Outreach, you become an adult and Connections took over your care.
He said, that you presented with major symptoms. You continued to consume cannabis, you had amphetamine related psychoses, but he said, all that they were able to do, was to monitor you and be involved with you, on a day‑to‑day basis, to try and assist. There is no way that they could force you to do anything, force you to medicate appropriately, force you to give up any type of the drugs that you were involved with.
In respect of this, he gave evidence, that what you informed him was, that you took drugs because of two real reasons. The first, was to ameliorate your depression, guilt and grief. The grief being the death of your brother Jamie, and the guilt revolving around your sense of failure of yourself.
Let me say in relation to this, Mr Ward, if you don't get over the issue of Jamie you will have no future life. You need to resolve it, you need to talk to people, but you also really need to stop treating Jamie as a hero in your life.
You have never actually had a full‑time job. You have done some work, but it would appear, that a lot of that, has been through the Jesuit Services programs that were running in 2002/2003. There were times that you have lived away from your family. You have resided with your father briefly, your partner's parents briefly, living transiently with friends, living on the street.
Connections tried to obtain housing for you and he believed it had come through, but was unsure of what happened. Mr Garofolo gave an interesting example of what happened to you, in relation to your drug use, and how it actually impacted upon you. In respect of your appearance on the charge of hindering and use of cannabis, Mr Garofolo said, that he took you to court that day and he said, you once again used that as an example of the fact that you were being persecuted by the police. He said, what in fact occurred, was that you behaved badly, you initiated contact with the police, you overreacted and he said, the police had to then spend their time calming you down, which is typical of persecutory complexes.
He said, that around the start of 2005, your primary drug of choice was cannabis and benzodiazepines. He said, whenever you would binge on stimulants, your psychosis would become increasingly evident to anyone around you.
He said, in late January of 2005 your mental health deteriorated significantly. By February 2005, you were highly distressed, you went to Connections with a clear plan and you were intent on committing suicide. You had said goodbye to your mother, said that you were dying and wanted to be with Jamie. You got the CAT team involved and two days later, you were hospitalised for mental health problems.
In March, just after the armed robberies, you were involved in extensive drug bingeing. He said, there was a stage that you were on a binge on Ecstasy. He said, you were completely incoherent, irrational and exceptionally paranoid. He said, you were so bad by the 21 March that he had referred you to someone, Chris O'Neill, who was trying to get you to address your problems. He said, when you were placed on the anti‑psychotic medication, it was clear how much your thought processes improved.
You were involved with St. Vincent's Hospital. On 10th of May 2005 you were an inpatient at St Vincent's, with admissions again in July, June, August. They were all brief, all exceptionally brief, and you were actually discharged on 16 August, having been determined fit enough to be in the community. You had completed a detox program on 9 August 2005, when you were considered drug free.
You were, as I said, discharged on the 16th, you were seen by a CAT team on the 17th, not hospitalised, but on the 18th you presented to Mr Garofolo in a condition that you were totally out of it, in respect of illegal drugs. You didn't want treatment. He convinced you ultimately, to go to Clarendon Street Clinic to get some extra medication, because he said, you didn't have any left. But, it just seems that it's an in hospital, out of hospital, a day in, a day out, but there is no consistency, nothing that seems to work to prevent what it's doing. It is not, I must say, the obligations of just the hospital, the obligation rests upon you as well. You have an obligation to not put yourself in these positions, Mr Ward.
In relation to this, he also gave evidence, that September was when your brother Jamie died and, that September each year was a problem. YSAS used to admit you, often during the period of September. He said, that since this time he has seen you in prison. He said, in early 2006 you had finally become compliant with medication. You had initially refused to take it and there were problems. He also said, though, that at around the time of the killing, you actually had not consumed any illegal substances in that immediate time and that you had been taking your prescribed medication. So I agree with what Dr Walton had to say, in terms of, this was not related to any drug induced psychosis, the killing.
It's Mr Garofolo's view, that you have good prospects for rehabilitation. I have to say, that it is a terrible background story for a man of your age ,from your dysfunctional background, to your illicit drug use and subsequent mental health problems. I unfortunately do not share the view, that you have good prospects for rehabilitation, because you will return to this dysfunctional family, to this same environment and issues that you had previously.
I would hope, that you may be able to deal with the problems of addiction, whilst in the custodial setting and also receive counselling, that will allow you to move on from Jamie's death and the guilt and problems attached to that, but I am not overly optimistic. I will, however, act upon the basis that you have a reasonable chance of rehabilitation in the future.
You had been in custody, at the time of the plea, for 572 days. You spent two months at MAP and you are now in Sirius East. I am told, that you have had threats from some of the Koori prisoners and are in Protection, as a result. You have, however, been able to work, whilst in Protection. You have worked as a head billet, preparing and serving other prisoners. Your yard time is from 8.30 to 10.30 a.m.; that is a very limited time. There is limited education and you suffer the fear of abuse, and threats, within the system. That will hopefully change, upon your sentencing, as there are appropriate facilities where you can be kept, which will not be so restrictive, in terms of your movement and education.
I will take into account, when imposing sentence, that your time in prison, so far, has been more difficult than the average prisoner, and may remain more difficult.
I accept, that you are remorseful in respect of the killing of Alex Cooper and will act upon that. I accept, that you offered to plead guilty to the offence of manslaughter, at a relatively early opportunity. The same, cannot be said in respect of the armed robberies and related offences. I have received a number of character references, the majority being from your family and I will take them into account in imposing sentence.
I also need to take into account, the fact that your co‑offender in the armed robberies has pleaded guilty, at an earlier stage and been sentenced by Judge Lawson, on 20 March 2006. In that matter, your co‑offender Manning, pleaded guilty to two presentments, both of which contained counts of armed robberies. In respect of these armed robberies, Her Honour, sentenced him to 18 months, on each armed robbery, with six months to be cumulated, making a total of 2 years' imprisonment on those offences. She made those offences cumulative upon the other armed robbery, to which he had pleaded. Her Honour, also found that you were the instigator, and that Manning, was the follower, in those offences.
I accept, that you were at the time of the commission of the offences, a relatively young offender and accordingly, I agree, that rehabilitation is a most important factor in light of your age, but equally, does have to be balanced by other sentencing considerations, including imposing a just penalty, totality and deterrence.
I bear in mind the principles of parity and totality when imposing these sentences.
On presentment 02061083.1, being the count of manslaughter, you are convicted and sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment.
On presentment C 0504535.4, on Counts 1 and 4, being counts of intentionally causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for four months on each count.
On Counts 2 and 3, being counts of armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for 18 months on each count.
On Count 5, that of threat to kill, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of one month.
On Count 6, being the count of handling stolen goods, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two months.
In respect of the breach of the adjourned bond, I direct that the order be cancelled.
In respect of presentment No. C 0504760, one count of theft, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of one month.
I fix the sentence for the manslaughter as the base sentence, and further direct, that one year of Count 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed upon the count of manslaughter. Direct that, one year of the sentence imposed upon Count 3, be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed upon the manslaughter and upon the sentence imposed on Count 2.
I direct, that all other sentences be served concurrently with each other and the sentence imposed on the manslaughter.
That makes a total of 8 years' imprisonment. I direct, that you are to serve a period of 6 years as a minimum term, before becoming eligible for parole.
I make the disposal order as requested and the s.464ZFB(2) retention order.
I declare that you have spent 608 days in pre-sentence detention and I direct that such be noted in the records of the court.
---
0
0
0