The Queen v Blundell
[2015] ACTSC 383
•12 November 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | The Queen v Blundell |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 383 |
Hearing Dates: | 7 October and 11 November 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 12 November 2015 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. Paul Blundell be convicted of the first burglary at Casey on 1 October 2014. 2. Paul Blundell be sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 November 2015 to take account of pre‑sentence custody. 3. Paul Blundell be convicted of theft from those premises. 4. Paul Blundell be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence today 10 November 2015, that is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary. 5. Paul Blundell be convicted of the second burglary at Casey on 1 October 2014. 6. Paul Blundell be sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 March 2016, that is to be cumulative as to four months on the sentence for the first burglary at Casey. 7. Paul Blundell be convicted of theft from that burglary. 8. Paul Blundell be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 August 2016, that is to be cumulative as to two months on the second burglary at Casey. 9. Paul Blundell be convicted of the third burglary at Casey. 10. Paul Blundell be sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 November 2016, that is to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the theft in the second burglary at Casey. 11. Paul Blundell be convicted of theft from that burglary. 12. Paul Blundell be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 March 2017, that is to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for the third burglary at Casey. 13. Paul Blundell be convicted of the fourth burglary at Casey. 14. Paul Blundell be sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2016, that is to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the theft in the third burglary at Casey. 15. Paul Blundell be convicted of theft from those premises. 16. Paul Blundell be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2017, that is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the fourth burglary at Casey. 17. Paul Blundell be convicted of the first burglary at Calwell on 1 October 2014. 18. Paul Blundell be sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 October 2017, that is to be cumulative as to seven months on the sentence for the fourth burglary at Casey. 19. Paul Blundell be convicted of theft from that burglary. 20. Paul Blundell be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 October 2017, that is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the first burglary at Calwell. 21. Paul Blundell be convicted of the second burglary at Calwell on 1 October 2014. 22. Paul Blundell be sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 May 2018, that is to be cumulative as to seven months on the sentence for the first burglary at Calwell. 23. Paul Blundell be convicted of theft in that burglary. 24. Paul Blundell be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 May 2018, that is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence on the second burglary at Casey. 25. That sentence be suspended today, 12 November 2015, for four years. 26. Paul Blundell be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), for a period of four years, with a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him for four years or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate. 27. Paul Blundell pay the sum of $170 within two months, to be paid to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, for payment out to MN of [an address in the ACT]. . |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – sentencing – burglary – theft – Good Behaviour Order – history of drug addiction – ongoing use of cannabis – serious medical condition – significant criminal history – period of no offending – contemporaneous offending |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act1900 (ACT), s 114C Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311 |
Cases Cited: | Gulyas v Western Australia (2007) 178 A Crim R 539 Oliver (1980) 7 A Crim R 174 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Paul Anthony Blundell (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Mr R Davies (Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 36 of 2015 SCC 37 of 2015 |
REFSHAUGE J:
Burglary is an offence which is serious because of the invasion of people’s property and the disturbance it causes to our community. Theft deprives people of goods which they have often worked hard to acquire or which have special value. See R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 [48]-[51].
Paul Anthony Blundell has pleaded guilty to six offences of burglary and six offences of theft, each of which were committed on 1 October 2014.
Burglary is an offence against s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) attracting a maximum penalty of 1400 penalty units (that is a fine of $210,000) and fourteen years imprisonment.
Theft is an offence prohibited by s 308 of the Criminal Code and renders the offender liable to a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units (that is a fine of $150,000) and ten years imprisonment.
Because of the threat to our community, but also the maximum legislative penalties (Oliver (1980) 7 A Crim R 174 at 177), these are to be regarded by the courts as serious offences.
When Mr Blundell was committed for trial to this Court, a summary offence of possession of property reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise illegally obtained was transferred under s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act1930 (ACT) to be dealt with under Pt 8 to the Supreme Court Act1933 (ACT) as a related offence.
This is an offence under s 114C of the Crimes Act1900 (ACT) which provides for a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units (that is a fine of $30,000) and imprisonment for two years.
The facts
On 1 October 2014, Mr Blundell entered four residential townhouses at 15 Andersch Street, Casey ACT, where there were a group of townhouses.
Once in the units, he opened cupboards and drawers, taking out items such as clothing and paperwork and leaving them strewn around the properties.
He then stole items of property, mostly electronic items, such as telephones, iPods, laptops and cameras but also jewellery, money, clothing and other property.
The value of the property stolen from the first townhouse was estimated at about $400; the value of the property stolen from the second townhouse was estimated at over $9,130, possibly as high as $10,000. The value of the property stolen from the third burglary was $4,635. The value of the property stolen from the fourth burglary was $1,650.
In entering these premises as a burglar, Mr Blundell, in each case, caused some damage to the property, such as to the door handles in particular.
Apparently later that day, Mr Blundell committed two further burglaries in the suburb of Calwell. In the first, he entered a residence through a side door and a rear sliding door which may have been left open.
He opened drawers and cupboards and left the contents strewn around the house.
He stole some electronic equipment, eighteen bottles of wine, some clothing and some jewellery. The total value of the property taken was estimated to be $2,700.
He also entered a townhouse nearby, apparently through the front door where he had interfered with the doorknob. Again, he opened drawers in the lounge room and emptied their contents on the floor, scattering property around the house. He also entered the garage and opened drawers in a buffet, tallboy and dressing table and scattered the contents of those drawers on the ground.
He took a number of electronic items, some sunglasses, bottles of alcohol, some clothing, a passport, some coins and jewellery. I did not have an estimate of the value of the property stolen by him but it must have been of some significance.
In mid‑afternoon that day, Mr Blundell was seen to run from Garema Place to a rubbish bin near the traffic lights across Akuna Street and stuff a blue calico shopping bag into the rubbish bin. He then ran towards a black Honda while another male ran from Garema Place to the vehicle, getting into the driver seat, and the two drove away.
Detective Senior Constable Katz stopped the vehicle, and Mr Blundell and the driver identified themselves.
The police officer asked Mr Blundell what he had been stuffing into the bin and was told it was a bank bag, as Mr Blundell had just deposited $400.
Detective Senior Constable Katz saw in the car several bags squashed into the foot wells of the rear passenger seats and several bags on the seats. He arranged for other police to attend. The blue bag was retrieved, as was a moneybox which Mr Blundell also identified as his.
In the black Honda, police found a camera, a blue camera case, a “Rockstar” backpack, foreign currency, clothing and an HP laptop in a carry bag. Police also found a yellow screwdriver, torches, a beanie and two pairs of Motocross gloves. Mr Blundell told the police that the camera was his and that he was going to sell it. He was arrested and cautioned.
Other items of equipment and alcohol were found in the boot of the black Honda, together with a passport stolen from the second Calwell robbery, and other items with names of some of the victims on them.
These items were later identified as being items stolen from the burgled homes.
Mr Blundell later participated in an interview with police, which was recorded, and he claimed that he had received the property between 11:00 am and noon that day.
Among the items seized was a multi‑grip tool, which a forensics officer used to compare the damage with tests he made using the tool. He concluded that the tool marks on the doorknobs and handles were made by the multi‑grip.
Mr Blundell was arrested on 1 October 2014. He was initially charged with receiving stolen goods.
He appeared in court the next day when bail was opposed and he was remanded in custody. The next day, on 3 October 2014, he entered a plea of guilty to the charge of receiving and was granted bail. He has been on bail since then. Accordingly, he has been in custody for two days.
Subjective circumstances
I had a Pre‑Sentence Report, a report from the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS) and a criminal history tendered by the Crown. The author of the Pre‑Sentence Report gave oral evidence. Mr Blundell’s counsel tendered two further CADAS reports, an earlier Pre‑Sentence Report and a letter from Directions (formerly Directions ACT), a drug and alcohol rehabilitation agency. Mr Blundell also gave evidence.
From these I make the following findings.
Mr Blundell was born in Queanbeyan thirty-seven years ago, one of seven children. He seemed to have a stable childhood until his parents separated when he was six years old. He lived with his father until he was nine. There was some inconsistency between the various documents but he was, at a young age, placed in foster care and made a ward of the State. While in care, he was the victim of sexual abuse. This has, it appears, led to him suffering post‑traumatic stress disorder, which has not been treated.
He maintains a positive relationship with the mother and his six siblings but has a rather distant relationship with his father.
He left the education system after Year 9, although he later completed his Year 10 Certificate while in custody. Since then, he has obtained various qualifications, including a heavy machinery and forklift license and his white card.
He has had employment in the building construction and retail industries and was in employment until he was given notice by his employer following his arrest in October 2014.
He has established himself as a self‑employed subcontractor since July 2015.
Mr Blundell has been in a supportive relationship for thirteen or fourteen years and is the father of four children. While the relationship seems to have been generally positive, the current offending was precipitated by an argument with his partner. There had, however, been other periods of some disharmony.
Mr Blundell managed to obtain employment relatively soon after he left prison, within about three months. He has been working relatively continuously since then. When not in employment he looks for work. In this case, his employment was terminated after his arrest for these offences, as I have noted above (at [34]).
To his credit, he has now started an insulation business with a partner but, although they met through drug use circumstances, his partner now does not use drugs. He is reasonably confident of the likely success of the business.
Mr Blundell has no current issues with alcohol, although he started drinking at age twelve and would binge-drink on weekends as a teenager. He is suffering from liver disease and has not consumed alcohol in 2015.
He also started using other drugs at an early age. He was said to have started using heroin when he was twelve but it became problematic for him by age fourteen. He uses it intravenously but has not used recently, except just prior to these offences.
He commenced using cannabis when he was fourteen, initially using up to 3.5 grams daily then reduced to 1.5 grams daily. As a result of ACT Corrective Services monitoring, he says he ceased using it two months ago. Drug analysis conducted on 8 July and 11 August 2015, however, confirmed the presence of cannabis at a high dose. He failed to attend for urinalysis on 21 September 2015. Given the length of time in which cannabis can remain in the system it is not necessarily inconsistent with him stopping because of the monitoring, although it would have been more helpful if the September urinalysis had been completed and had not shown high doses of Tetrahydrocannabinol still in his system.
It is relevant that he started using drugs and became addicted at an age when he was unable to make an informed decision about the use of such a drug. See R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 364 at 397-8; [273].
Mr Blundell used amphetamines experimentally when he was seventeen but did not like their effect and has ceased their use.
He has used Benzodiazepines but said that he used those to help him with sleep. He denied recent use, but the urinalysis on 8 July 2015 confirmed their presence.
Mr Blundell has engaged briefly in residential rehabilitation. In 2001, he spent a short period of time in Karralika (in one report it was said to be five weeks, in another three weeks) and attended residential rehabilitation in Lyndon House in 2002 for six days.
Mr Blundell is currently enrolled in a methadone maintenance program. He is prescribed up to a 120 milligrams of methadone daily and doses at a community pharmacy. By 30 September 2015 he was currently dosing at 65 milligrams a day but there are no difficulties.
He commenced counselling with Directions on 1 December 2014, attending monthly appointments until 25 May 2015, when he appears not to have scheduled any further appointments. The CADAS Report suggested that there is no further need for counselling treatment at this time.
CADAS prepared a treatment plan for Mr Blundell and he has complied with that treatment plan to date and remains engaged in alcohol and other drug treatment.
Mr Blundell appears to be in generally good physical health. Unhelpfully, the Pre‑Sentence Report referred to him “being treated for a physical condition by his general practitioner that is related to his illicit drug use”. I did not know whether that means that he is suffering from hepatitis C, consequences of an overdose or something completely different. The inexplicable failure of the Pre‑Sentence Report to be specific about the diagnosis is extraordinarily unhelpful. I understand that this coyness was a policy decision in relation to the form and content of such reports and it is to be altered next month so as to provide more benefit to sentencing courts.
Unlike the Pre‑Sentence Report, the CADAS Report is able to report that he has chronic liver problems, and, indeed, that may be the diagnosis for the disorder obliquely referred to in the Pre‑Sentence Report. I am told that he is currently awaiting treatment which is not yet available but scheduled for 2016. He is unable to take Interferon, and this provides, currently, a bleak prognosis.
As to mental health, Mr Blundell saw a psychiatrist previously and stated that he has been diagnosed with Post‑Traumatic Stress Disorder and Violent Temperament Disorder. He is not presently engaged in any mental health treatment.
Mr Blundell has a long and depressing criminal history. He has been found guilty of at least seventy-three offences. The vast majority (fifty) are dishonesty offences, many of them burglary or breaking and entering and stealing.
The most recent offence was committed in February 2014, but it was a relatively minor traffic offence that he had been a driver when never having been licensed to drive. He was fined $200. Prior to that, he was convicted and sentenced to seven months imprisonment for obstructing or resisting a public official on 5 January 2009. His most recent dishonesty offences were committed on 30 October 2008, for which he received a sentence of imprisonment from this Court.
That Mr Blundell has not committed any dishonesty offences for well over six years is to his credit although he was, for a portion of that period of time, in custody. It also corroborates his explanation for his offending which, he said, was
precipitated by an argument with his de facto partner. He then made a mistake and accepted a phone call that he shouldn’t have, from a former associate. Following this he had a shot of heroin, which he said was, “a lapse.”
The period of about seven years since he has committed a serious offence, or any offence of dishonesty, is some demonstration that he has the capacity to reform. It was properly acknowledged by the Crown prosecutor to be significant.
I also had a report from the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Unit of the Canberra Hospital confirming Mr Blundell’s chronic liver infection. The disease had progressed to the stage where he now has a significant liver scarring, which current drugs provide a very low chance of clearing because of his unfavourable gene profile. A new drug, not yet available, would provide a better treatment response. He is at risk of progressive liver failure and liver cancer.
Mr Blundell’s doctor commented on the effect prison would have on his illness. He could not comment specifically. He continued:
However, the management of this disease requires frequent visits to the liver clinic, dietician, imaging department, endoscopy testing and other medical visits. It’s likely that a prison sentence could disrupt regular attendance at these sessions.
My attention was drawn to some inconsistency in the two Pre‑Sentence Reports which relate to the same offending. The first was provided to the Magistrates Court and it is not entirely clear what the purpose of obtaining it was for that Court.
Nevertheless, the author of the earlier Pre‑Sentence Report described his attitude as follows:
Mr Blundell agreed with the police statement of facts and did not engage in minimisation or blame. He acknowledge his poor decision‑making at the time of these offences.
Mr Blundell was able to articulate the impacts of his behaviour, not just on himself but his family and his victims.
The most recent Pre‑Sentence Report referred to his attitude to the offences as follows:
Although Mr Blundell agreed with the statement of facts, he minimised his actions and took limited responsibility for the offences. He stated he recommenced the use of heroin before the current offences were commissioned and attributed his action to his drug use.
Mr Blundell demonstrated some insight into his offending behaviour and was able to acknowledge the impact his actions had on his victims. He acknowledged an ongoing need to address his illicit drug use in order to prevent further offending.
It seems to me from these two statements that it is unlikely Mr Blundell said something that was very different to the two authors. The difference seems to be in the perception and, perhaps, evaluation of what he said. On the basis of this, I could not find as an aggravating factor that Mr Blundell expressed no remorse and tried to evade responsibility and accountability for his actions. Taking into account what he also said to the author of the CADAS Report, I am satisfied that he understood the impact of his crimes on his victims and acknowledged the criminality of his actions.
There is a fine line between an offender giving an explanation of offending and trying to minimise it or excuse it.
In this case, I do not consider that Mr Blundell has tried to minimise his offending. He was open about it, acknowledged that it was wrong and indeed pleaded guilty, although not at an early stage.
He is, as he agreed, a somewhat weak‑willed man who can be easily led. That means he gives in to the demands of others but that does not mean, necessarily, that he blames others for his own failings.
It does mean that he needs to take more responsibility for his own actions and he does need to learn to take more control over his life and emotions.
For example, he learnt of his serious liver condition about a month before this offending. That clearly had an effect on him and, I accept, made him more vulnerable to the unfortunate meeting with a peer who encouraged him use heroin again.
This is an explanation. The value of that is that is that it shows it was not a decision he made to return to a lifestyle of crime. In the circumstances, that can be considered somewhat of a current aberration, and I do so.
Mr Blundell continues to use cannabis. It is an illegal drug and its use cannot be condoned. It cannot, however, be considered as the source of or motivation for his criminal activity. He says that, as he cannot drink alcohol because of his liver, he uses cannabis, as others use alcohol, to relax. Again, he needs to take responsibility for his compliance with the law. He is entitled to relaxation after a hard day’s work but he is not entitled to smoke cannabis.
The offences
I have summarised the effect of the offences of burglary and theft above (at [1]-[2]). I do not need to repeat what I there said.
In general, these offences were relatively unremarkable examples of the offences themselves.
There was some damage caused in the entry to the premises in all cases but not significant damage.
It is also relevant that Mr Blundell not only opened all the drawers but scattered the items from them around the places. While one cannot expect burglars to be neat and tidy, the prospect that the owner of the house, into which he has trespassed with the intent to steal, coming across their belongings scattered through the house must be very distressing. There was, in this case, no vandalism, however, and that is to be acknowledged.
The amount stolen varied but, in one case, was very substantial and in other cases reasonably substantial. The value of the property stolen is a relevant factor in determining appropriate sentences. See R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220 at [27]; Rees v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 6. It seems to me, the value of the property stolen is very relevant to the seriousness of the theft offences and, at least in one case, amounted to a very serious offence indeed.
Victim impact statements
I had victim impact statements from two of the victims of these offences and a claim for compensation.
The first victim was a resident of one of the townhouses in Casey. She was a young female who lives alone. The burglary and theft left her feeling distressed and unsafe in her own home and as though her privacy had been violated.
These are reactions that the court knows well but it is important to be reminded that these are real fears and concerns expressed by real people, whose rights to privacy and to feel safe in their own home have been violated.
In addition, she felt, as I have flagged above (at [72]), that it was “a horrible sickening feeling to walk into your home to find your personal belongings strewn all over the floor, your personal bills and letters all opened, and your clothes and other personal items touched by a stranger who had no right to be in your home”.
Indeed, the victim had to stay with a friend and her parents made the four hour drive to come and help her clean things up and settle her back. She said that she could not bring herself to touch the items that had been moved and she was unable to sleep, waking at every unfamiliar noise. She also had to take time away from work. While, after several months, she began to feel safer in her home, she said that she even now still gets startled and worried by unfamiliar noises.
The other victim, of one of the burglaries at Calwell, gave a similar expression of her feelings. Indeed, she described them as “extreme fear and violation that [her] personal belongings had been handled and searched by a stranger”. In her case, the feelings turned to anger and distress and she also had to take a week’s leave as a result of the stress and to put her home back in order.
She, too, lives alone and works seven days a week, including evening work at weekends. She now experiences constant feelings of apprehension every time she enters her home for fear of disturbing an intruder, even though she has taken extra security measures.
Her youngest daughter will not now enter her yard at home unless she is certain that her mother is at home. This means that she cannot feed the victim’s animals while the victim is away on holidays or similar.
It is those matters the courts often forget. They are unexpected and quite troubling consequences of such crimes.
She sought payment of the $170 which it cost her to replace the front door lock.
Consideration
Of the purposes of sentencing set out s 7 of the Crime (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), it seems to me that general deterrence must play a significant part. These are offences that cannot be tolerated in our community.
The role of specific deterrence is somewhat more complicated. If, as I accept, this was a lapse into criminality of a kind Mr Blundell had not committed for a significant number of years, then it does not seem to me that the punishment need be so severely deterrent as rather a stringent reminder to him of what happens when he relapses.
The problems experienced by the victims is one which requires recognition of the harm they have suffered and, of course, Mr Blundell must be punished appropriately and held accountable for his actions.
Mr Blundell has pleaded guilty but not at the earliest opportunity. He was committed for trial from the Magistrates Court and on 25 May 2015, the matter was listed for trial on 29 September 2015. On 5 June 2015, however, he entered pleas of guilty to all the charges. This is, in my view, an expression of his willingness to facilitate the course of justice and his willingness to take responsibility, as I have earlier described it (at [59]-[63]). He is entitled to some discount, though not as if he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
I also have regard to the factors listed in s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, so far as I know them they are set out above.
The matter of sentencing practise was not specifically addressed. I have nevertheless set that out in R v Ogilvie [2015] ACTSC 296 at [28], and I take that into account.
Mr Blundell’s health problems are of significant concern. In R v Hagen [2014] ACTSC 129 at [43]-[45], I addressed this issue and note that health and age are relevant to the length of a sentence but do not excuse an offender from a sentence of imprisonment if it was otherwise warranted.
Nevertheless, where ill‑health will make imprisonment more arduous (Gulyas v Western Australia (2007) 178 A Crim R 539 at 552; [54]), or where the necessary treatment cannot be provided in gaol (R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570 at 573), appropriate amelioration may be appropriate.
I note that Mr Blundell has been assessed as not suitable for a community service work condition, specifically due to his unresolved illicit drug issues, and for the same reason not suitable to serve a sentence of imprisonment by periodic detention. I would have thought, also, that his liver condition may be problematic.
Nevertheless, having regard to the seriousness of the offences and the offending, it does seem to me that a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable.
As to whether the sentence or part of it needs to be served in full‑time custody, it is a matter of some concern for me and I have given it careful consideration.
The Crown prosecutor identified five relevant matters that point to support for a community based sentence. These are: the seven year period during which Mr Blundell committed no dishonesty offences or drug offences; his compliance with court orders in the past; his current compliance with his bail conditions; his current employment and work ethic; and his family situation where he is clearly devoted to his children and there has been a generally long‑term stability in his relationship with his partner despite some volatility. I add to this the circumstances of his offending, which places the spree of burglaries as indicative of a rather aberrant fall from grace.
In my view, this is strongly supportive of a community based sentence. The Crown did not oppose that course.
There are, of course, multiple sentences that need to be imposed given that there are six offences of burglary and six offences of theft. This requires some care in sentencing.
I have carefully considered the length of each of the sentences to ensure that when there are overlapping common elements between any of the offences, such as with the burglary offence and the associated theft offence, Mr Blundell is not punished twice.
I have also considered whether the sentences should be partly or wholly concurrent because, for example, they are part of the same enterprise or otherwise. In this case, it seems to me that the fact that they are contemporaneous, leads to some appropriate level of concurrency even though the sentences were discrete criminal incursions in separate properties.
I have then reviewed the length of the term of imprisonment arrived at and ensured that the principle of totality is respected and that the total sentence is adequate to reflect the criminality of the offences committed, but no more than that, that the total sentence is not too severe and leaves open the realistic prospect of reform and hope for the achievement of Mr Blundell’s goals when he returns to the community. Where necessary to achieve this, I have adjusted the accumulation or concurrency of the individual sentences.
Mr Blundell, please stand:
1. I convict you of the first burglary at Casey on 1 October 2014.
2. I sentence you to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 November 2015 to take account of pre‑sentence custody. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment.
3. I convict you of theft from those premises.
4. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence today 10 November 2015, that is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to fifteen months imprisonment.
5. I convict you of the second burglary at Casey on 1 October 2014.
6. I sentence you to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 March 2016, that is to be cumulative as to four months on the sentence for the first burglary at Casey. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment.
7. I convict you of theft from that burglary.
8. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 August 2016, that is to be cumulative as to two months on the second burglary at Casey. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to fifteen months imprisonment.
9. I convict you of the third burglary at Casey.
10. I sentence you to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 November 2016, that is to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the theft in the second burglary at Casey. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment.
11. I convict you of theft from that burglary.
12. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 March 2017, that is to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for the third burglary at Casey. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to fifteen months imprisonment.
13. I convict you of the fourth burglary at Casey.
14. I sentence you to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2016, that is to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the theft in the third burglary at Casey. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment.
15. I convict you of theft from those premises.
16. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2017, that is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the fourth burglary at Casey. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to fifteen months imprisonment.
17. I convict you of the first burglary at Calwell on 1 October 2014.
18. I sentence you to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 October 2017, that is to be cumulative as to seven months on the sentence for the fourth burglary at Casey. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to twenty-four months imprisonment.
19. I convict you of theft from that burglary.
20. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 October 2017, that is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the first burglary at Calwell. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to fifteen months imprisonment.
21. I convict you of the second burglary at Calwell on 1 October 2014.
22. I sentence you to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 10 May 2018, that is to be cumulative as to seven months on the sentence for the first burglary at Calwell. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to twenty-four months imprisonment.
23. I convict you of theft in that burglary.
24. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 May 2018, that is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence on the second burglary at Casey. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to fifteen months imprisonment.
25. That is a total sentence of four years imprisonment to commence on 10 November 2015 to take into account pre‑sentence custody.
26. I suspend that sentence today for four years.
27. I require you to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), for a period of four years, with a probation condition that you be under the supervision of the Director General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising you for four years or such lesser period as the person supervising you considers appropriate.
28. I order that you pay the sum of $170 within two months, to be paid to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, for payment out to MN of [an address in the ACT].
[His Honour then spoke directly to Mr Blundell]
Mr Blundell, that is the formal orders that I make. The essence of it is that this spree of criminality is, I assess, worth four years in prison. However, the matters that I have indicated mean that you have earned the opportunity to spend that in the community if you can show that you can really address your criminality. You have worked, you have got yourself a family, you have been compliant with orders and you have been compliant with your bail conditions. I believe that that means you are likely to be compliant with your good behaviour order now and not commit any further offences.
You do need, however, to address your cannabis use because that is illegal and if you are arrested for that you will be breach that order. Any of the kind of offending that you have been committing in the last seven years will also breach that order, and if you breach that order you will be brought back before the court and the court can resentence you, including sending you to gaol.
This was very criminal but incredibly stupid because it put at risk what you have built up for yourself, which is a job, a business, a family, kids and an opportunity to participate in the community like the rest of us do. If you take these kinds of risks again and do not take responsibility for yourself then you will end up in custody, and you know what that is about and you know what that is like.
| I certify that the preceding one hundred and four [104] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge. Associate: Date: 11 January 2015 |
6
6