Regina v Stanley John Sebbens

[2007] NSWDC 217

CITATION:	Regina v Stanley John Sebbens [2007] NSWDC 217
JUDGMENT DATE:	13 April 2007
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Offender convicted of the offence; NPP 9 months; balance of term 6 months; Suspend sentence conditional upon entering bond.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentence - after s. 11 bail - Aggravated break enter and steal - standard non parole offence - broke in knowing person present - stole $3350, spent moneys on alcohol and gambled remaining proceeds - member of Christian commune - repaid victim by working 4 hours weekly for 52 weeks - mental health issues - plea of guilty - standard non parole period not appropriate.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
PARTIES:	Regina Stanley John Sebbens
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/31/0054
SOLICITORS:	Cr: Mr White Def: Ms Hall

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: For some years now Stanley John Sebbens has lived as a single male at the Camp Obadier Christian Community. He suffers from schizophrenia and in the normal course of events is usually good about taking his medication.

2 On 1 November, ironically All Saints Day, 2005 Dr David Allen, who also resides at a house within Camp Obadier, had placed a cash box containing something of the order of six to seven thousand dollars in a wardrobe upstairs above his surgery. He had not done banking for a couple of weeks and there were cheques and cash there.

3 He woke up at seven the next morning to find that the cash box had been taken from the wardrobe. The cash box and the cheques were located in the Camp Obadier region. A couple of days later on 4 November Dr Allen attended the Taree Police Station with Stanley Sebbens. Doctor Allen had spoken to the offender and the offender admitted to him stealing the cash box. He, that is Stanley Sebbens, was spoken to by police who were of a view that he was displaying symptoms consistent with a mental illness. He was interviewed.

4 In the course of the interview he indicated that he had entered the premises through a closed but unlocked front door - I image most of the doors around Camp Obadier are probably unlocked - that he knew Dr Allen was at home and had presumed he had gone to sleep. He had searched the upstairs room, located the cash box and taken it. He had taken it to his own room. He had used a screwdriver to open the box and he took approximately two thousand three hundred and twenty five dollars. The rest of the material was there left.

5 He had made his way to Maitland where he drank five middies, he said, of VB beer - which is possibly an understatement - and played the poker machines. He put a thousand dollars and such winnings as he had made through the machines. He then caught a train to Muswellbrook, went to another hotel and repeated the exercise drinking beer and playing the poker machines. He there lost four hundred dollars. He then went to Singleton and did the same thing yet again put six hundred dollars through. All up he thought he had about eight hundred dollars left. He woke up in Singleton Hospital and was being treated for head injuries. He is unable to account for how he had received the injuries. Ultimately discharged from hospital, returned to Maitland, again consumed alcohol and put three hundred dollars through the poker machines. Finally he returned to the Forster/Tuncurry area where he was spotted by Dr Allen. It was at that point that he confessed to Dr Allen that he had taken the cash box.

6 The offence is a serious one. I am satisfied it was motivated by a desire to consume alcohol and to gamble. There maybe some perception that the offender has, that gambling is a macho/adult type way to behave. It may also be that he has a gambling addiction problem as well.

7 Of significance when this matter came before me in April last year at Taree was a letter from the doctor whose premises had been burgled. The doctor wrote in these terms,

“Although I acknowledge that I have little understanding of your task of sentencing I do however believe in the principle of mercy. As such and as the victim of Stanley’s crime I would like to express the fact that I would be satisfied if Stanley received a sentence in line with the principle expressed in Jewdish law that he should repay the amount not reclaimed, twenty six hundred dollars plus twenty percent.”

The doctor continued,

“He could repay this to myself by performing supervised work in my garden at a rate of fifteen dollars per hour with $3,350 to be repaid. This would be four hours per week for fifty-two weeks.”

8 There was also on that occasion a presentence report before me which indicated that the offender had been before courts at least since 1980 and had been supervised by Probation and Parole. A case management of him in the past had focused upon his mental health issues, gambling and alcohol problems, adherence to medication, financial management and compliance with his responsibilities as a member of the Obadier Christian Community. These are all worthwhile focuses for him.

9 When discussing his attitude to the offence, the presentence report author noted that he was highly emotional when discussing his offence and made this observation,

“Whilst acknowledging the impact on his victim it was the potential risk of losing the support of Obadier residents and in particular Mr and Mrs Stafford, the administrators, which he found distressing.”

10 I am satisfied that the relationship between the offender on the one hand and Pastor and Mrs Stafford on the other is a very close and supportive relationship and one of great value to Stanley Sebbens.

11 Pastor Daryl Stafford gave evidence before me on the first occasion and indeed on two subsequent occasions indicating generally what is contained in a report that was tendered this morning that the offender had carried out his obligations to Dr Dave Allen successfully and without complications.

12 There were in fact complications because Dr Allen was not always there and a sort of quid pro quo arrangement was instituted whereby work being done for the community was recognised as equating in part or in whole - I am not entirely sure - to the obligation undertaken to Dave Allen.

13 Pastor Stafford also noted that he had attended to continue Probation and Parole appointments as required. That was elaborated on in evidence this morning. The pastor said that frequently arrangements were made with others in the community to attend Port Macquarie or where ever it was that the offender had to attend to report to Probation and Parole, or other appointments. They would go as a group to that place. But on occasions the offender himself was required to make his own way there and back.

14 I was impressed with that evidence because it shows that Sebbens is prepared to accept, and can be trusted to accept on occasions, responsibility for his actions providing the tasks are clearly defined and have, as it were, a beginning period and an end period.

15 He has attended appointments with Dr Ted Campbell, a clinical psychologist - and I will come to that shortly. He has continued to take prescribed medication. Pastor Stafford notes that Stanley Sebbens has become somewhat anxious as sentencing day approaches and I am sure that that would be a normal reaction for anybody.

16 In the course of evidence today Pastor Stafford spoke about an ultimatum that had been given to the offender that he could no longer come back if there was another offence. Frankly my focus is perhaps a more narrow focus than that of the pastor, who has a larger community to look after than the person with whom I am involved. But one of the very crucial ingredients of rehabilitation is support and support that an offender knows can be ongoing even in difficult times. His own self image will be locked into a view that others take of him. Were he fearful of being excommunicated, as it were, from those he loves and from those who have been supportive of him, it may in fact be counterproductive. That is not to say that it may ultimately be the appropriate course, if his behaviour interferes with the lives of others in that community.

17 The outcome that I am giving is predicated upon, and I am not seeking to obligate anybody here, but is predicated upon ongoing support from his community. If I were not confident of that some other outcome may well have to be investigated. There are plenty of instances in the Christian culture of forgiveness and of acceptance, continual acceptance of the “prodigal son” and that from our point of view plays an important aspect in our assessment of rehabilitation.

18 I come to the report of Ted Campbell who in July of last year was saying this, and it seems to me it is as true then as it is now or true now as it was then, that his treatment has consisted of sessions aimed as combating the poor self concept Mr Sebbens holds of himself.

19 Let me pause here and at least say this for his consideration:- my experience is that people dealing with addictions, whether addictions to alcohol, drugs or gambling, who are able to combat those addictions with a modicum of success, (in my view you have done better than that) ought to be able to hold their heads up high. Because to overcome or contain an addiction which continually niggles at you is a sign of great courage and significant determination. But it is not something that you can ever let go of, you must continually fight it until it gets further and further away from the centre of your being.

20 Dr Campbell speaks of issues centring on the offender’s sense of his unworthiness, his weakness at combating drinking and gambling tendencies and a general feeling of isolation. These, he said, all contribute to his abuse of others when he becomes a bit depressed. The rationale is that if Mr Sebbens can appreciate his strength and his abilities more, he will be less likely to feel badly when things go wrong for him.

21 In treatment they have also examined the importance of the people at Camp Obadier in his life and their importance to him. He commenced to examine how the offender can better deal with daily life frustrations that impact upon him with a view to developing new coping strategies.

22 It seems to me that a continuation of that treatment is the better way to secure community safety than placing this offender into full time prison, where sixty something percent of people leaving re-offend within two years.

In terms of the offender’s attitude Dr Campbell says,

“Mr Sebbens has been punctual and reliable in attending all appointments made for him. He has worked hard and I feel has begun to benefit from the sessions.”

That for me is significant.

23 Continuing on with Dr Campbell’s comments, he tells me that the offender has enjoyed the sessions and learned a lot about himself. There was a recommendation for another six sessions.

24 I would urge those who will oversight of the offender to continue that treatment.

25 The report in December of last year made this observation,

“Recently the offender left Obadier Community having sought permission from fellow residents in the absence of camp administrators to be absent two days. However he extended his absence to five days during which time he gambled and consumed alcohol having obtained his Centrelink payment. During this absence he missed an appointment with his psychologist as well as his anti-psychotic and anti-depression medication.”

26 To his credit he returned to Obadier and resumed his medication.

27 He will have to learn that there will be times when Pastor Stafford and his wife are absent from the community. He will have to take responsibility for his actions during their absence. That conduct, strictly speaking, represented a breach of the bail that I had given and could have resulted in him being incarcerated.

28 The offence that was committed is a serious one. That is made plain to me by the law; the law says that the maximum penalty for this offence is twenty years imprisonment. If this offence falls within what is called a mid range of seriousness, I am obliged to consider why I should not impose what is called the standard non-parole period of five years imprisonment. So this offence you are talking big time criminality.

29 The criminality is related to these propositions, firstly it is an offence against the person to invade his private space and his privacy and to take property from him, and secondly it is an offence against the property that is taken. It is a trespass against the property that is taken.

30 It has been submitted and I think correctly so, that this is not an offence that would have fallen within a mid range of seriousness. There are a number of reasons that convince me of this on its objective criminality. There was no damage to any property in order to secure the entry. That is to say there was no lock damage, the offender simply opened the door and walked in. He was known to his victim. So it is not as though a total stranger had intruded into the victim’s personal space. There was only one room that was visited, although I imagine that that room was disturbed. The disturbance of the room was limited to one locale only.

31 In any event he has pleaded guilty. That plea is a demonstration of remorse and was entered at the first available opportunity. He would have been entitled to a full discount in any event. It is said that the standard non-parole period only applies to accused persons after trial.

32 His subjective factors and particularly his schizophrenic condition and his absence of medication, and I read somewhere where he was actually hearing voices at the time of this offence are all matters that would tend to militate against a finding that the offence fell within the mid range of seriousness.

33 Both parties have submitted that a sentence of full time incarceration is not required. The crown has submitted, and again I think correctly so, that a term of imprisonment none the less is called for. I intend to impose a term of imprisonment. But as the crown submitted, and I think the defence would not be seen to disagree with the proposition, that sentence will be suspended.

34 The significance of the suspended sentence should be explained to the offender so that he understands if there is any other offence which breaches the good behaviour bond that I am about to give him I must consider whether the law permits me to do other than incarcerate him.

35 Again the crown submitted and as did the defence, that a favourable finding in respect of rehabilitation is very much available. I think the tenor of my remarks to date would have indicated that I find the offender has done very well, responded well to the support and resources that are in the community there for him. If he continues to do so, he will probably be able to progress from needing conditions such as those I am about to impose and will be able to maintain the lifestyle that hopefully he is coming into.

36 I note in his criminal antecedents that prior to this offence with which I am dealing his last offence appears to have been in 1999, a gap of some six years. Well, he should be able to enlarge that by even more before he next offends because prior to 1999 there were quite a lot of offences that were occurring.

37 But for the plea of guilty I would have set a sentence of something of the order of two years, twenty months perhaps. I have applied a discount of twenty-five percent and I have reached an overall figure of fifteen months imprisonment.

38 I would find special circumstances particularly his mental health conditions, his rehabilitation progress that that is best advanced in the community and in the community in which he lives.

39 I would set a non-parole period of nine months and an additional term of six months.

40 Would you stand up please Mr Sebbens. Stanley John Sebbens you are convicted of the offence that you on 1 November 2005 at Johns River broke and entered the dwelling house of Dr David Allen situated at Camp Obadier and while you were in that dwelling house you committed a serious indictable offence that is, that you stole in circumstances of aggravation cash and the cash box. The circumstances of aggravation were that you went into his house when you knew he was there.

41 For that offence I sentence you to a non-parole period of nine months and to a balance of term of six months on condition that you enter into a good behaviour bond which will have the conditions very similar to the conditions that your bail had, I am willing to suspend the sentence that is, you will not have to go into gaol.

42 Now the question is are you prepared to enter into the conditions?

OFFENDER: Yes I am your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Just talk to your solicitor about that for a minute.

HALL: Your Honour Mr Sebbens indicates to me that he understands the consequences of a suspended sentence and he is prepared to accept the conditions your Honour may impose.

HIS HONOUR: All right. You know that if you break this bond that I am about to give you you will go to gaol for nine months, do you understand that?

OFFENDER: Yes your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And you have got to behave yourself for fifteen months, that will be until about August of next year I think.

43 The offender indicates that he is willing to accept conditionally entering into a bond pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The good behaviour bond will have the following conditions,

1. that he be of good behaviour for the duration of the bond.
2. that he give this Registry his address.
3. that he remain at the Obadier Christian Community while ever he is welcomed by the community leaders.

44 That means if ultimately they do decide that they cannot put up with you anymore they can put you out. You can only stay there while you are welcome.

4 . that you are to obey all reasonable directions of the Pastor and Administrator who for the present purposes is Mr and Mrs Daryl Stafford.
5 . that you will not leave the community without first informing a leader of your intended destination and the intended length of time of absence.
6 . that in the event that they say they no longer want you you will notify the Court Registry of your new address and that you will seek the assistance of Probation and Parole in finding yourself some other accommodation.
7 . that you are to comply with the taking of prescribed medication and treatment as prescribed by your treating medical practitioner.
8 . that you will continue counselling with Mr Ted Campbell for the next four months and thereafter at the discretion of you and your counsellor.
9 . that you will accept supervision of Probation and Parole.
10 . that you will obey all reasonable directions of your case manager and do all programmes, treatment and counselling sessions as required by them.
11 . that you will come to my Court if you should be in breach of this good behaviour bond that I am giving you where a nine month imprisonment non-parole period would be impose and a six month additional term.

HIS HONOUR: Any other order Mr Crown?

WHITE: No, thank you your Honour.

HALL: No, nothing your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. I am going to remand him into your custody because strictly speaking he is in custody until such time as he enters the bond.

*******