IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 15-01472
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
KEEGAN DANIELZ
---
JUDGE:
HIS HONOUR CHIEF JUDGE KIDD
WHERE HELD:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
20 November 2015 and 3 December 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:
16 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
DPP v Danielz
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2015] VCC
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
--CRIMINAL LAW
Sentence - Recklessly causing a bushfire x 2. Subornation of
Perjury
Sentencing Act 1991, Crimes Act 1958
Verdins; Buckley; Vo (2007) 16 VR 269; R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235;
Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43
15 months Youth Detention
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
For the Director of Public
Prosecutions
Mr D. Trapnell
For the Accused
Mr A. Malik
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTING SERVICE
7/436 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne Vic 3000 - Telephone 9603 9134
178396
Solicitors
HIS HONOUR:
1.
Keegan DANIELZ, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of recklessly causing
a bushfire contrary to section 201A of the Crimes Act 1958. The maximum
penalty for Recklessly Causing a Bushfire is 15 years’ imprisonment. You have
also pleaded guilty to one charge of Subornation of Perjury. The maximum
penalty for Subornation of Perjury is also 15 years’ imprisonment.
2.
You were born on 31 May 1995 and are currently 20 years old. You were 19
years old at the time of the offending.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDING
3.
A prosecution opening was tendered on the plea. It is an agreed summary.
Your offending may be summarized as follows.
Lighting of the Fires
4.
You joined the Silvan County Fire Authority Brigade (‘CFA’) in July 2013 at the
age of 18. You later became qualified as a Wildfire Firefighter. Your CFA
training included training in basic bushfire behaviour. You responded to the
majority of fire calls received by the Silvan CFA.
5.
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 the weather was clear with a maximum
temperature of 18.9 degrees. It was not windy and there had been no rain.
There were fire restrictions in force, but no total fire ban, and the fire danger
rating was low.
6.
.CK:CQ
In the early evening, you lit two fires alongside George Road, Silvan, in the
1
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
Dandenong Ranges. The fires were approximately 200 metres apart and both
occurred on council land between the unsealed roadway and the abutting
private properties.
7.
At approximately 7.30pm, witnesses at a premises above George Road
observed fire and smoke rising from George Road. The witnesses observed
the second fire further down the hill on George Road in the direction of Graham
Road.
8.
At 7.50pm, you telephoned the CFA from your mobile telephone and reported
the fires and suggested a Code 1 response. A ‘Code 1’ incident authorises the
individual CFA member to drive CFA vehicles with lights and sirens activated,
and to drive safely but in excess of posted speed limits.
9.
Moments later, the witnesses on George Road also telephoned emergency
services.
10.
The witnesses were concerned about their nearby fence line which also
comprised a number of trees and other neighbours attended the scene and
expressed their concern about the fire crossing the road and reaching an
orchard.
11.
After telephoning emergency services, you were the first to arrive at the Silvan
CFA station. In total, three CFA trucks attended the fires and seven Silvan CFA
members were involved, including you. The first fire was burning on the nature
strip of the road. Both fires were burning at a very slow rate but were spreading.
You attended to the first fire and the crew used water hoses to extinguish it. In
total, it took approximately 25 minutes to fully extinguish both fires. Neither fire
posed an immediate danger to any life.
.CK:CQ
2
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
12.
A forensic examination of the scene revealed the following:

The first fire burnt an area of approximately 300 square metres,
extending 25 metres along the roadside. It was 12 metres at its widest,
crossing into the unfenced paddock. The second fire burnt an area of
approximately 100 square metres, extending 20 metres along the
roadside. It was 5 metres at its widest.

The origins of the fires were considered to be probably quite close to the
road. The causes of the fires were ignition of available combustible
material such as leaves and fine twigs. There were no obvious sources
of accidental ignition and the two most probable sources were direct
ignition such as by match or lighter, or indirect ignition such as a burning
item dropped or thrown from a vehicle.

The possibility of an ember from one fire causing the other fire was
excluded.
13.
You met with police at Lilydale Police Station on Tuesday, 24 March 2015. You
provided police with video footage of your attendance at the fires taken from a
camera mounted to your helmet.
You also provided police with a sworn
statement regarding the incident in which you provided a false alibi namely you
had been with a friend of yours, WJ, at Lilydale. You stated that you did not
light either fire and only saw the columns of smoke.
Subornation of Perjury
14.
On Saturday, 28 March 2015 police telephoned you and asked you for the
telephone number of WJ to enable a statement to be taken from him. You
advised that the number was stored in your mobile and you would have to call
back. You immediately telephoned WJ. WJ was 17 at the time and had been
friends with you since high school.
15.
.CK:CQ
You said to WJ:
3
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
"Can you please talk to Bridget from CI at Lilydale police station
and say you were with me last Saturday because I put you in a
statement to say you were with me in Lilydale."
16.
You told WJ to tell police you were together at 7:00pm and attended
McDonald’s Restaurant to get food. WJ replied:
"If I say I was with you I won't want to be with you for a long time.
Why did you drag me into this?"
17.
You said you did not know why and couldn’t think of anything else to say.
18.
You then telephoned police and provided WJ’s contact details. WJ was
contacted by police and subsequently provided a sworn statement confirming
you picked him up on 21 March 2015 at about 6:00pm or 7:00pm and travelled
to McDonalds in Lilydale for a meal, before being dropped home.
19.
After making the statement, WJ telephoned you and asked you why you made
him do that. He told you to come to Lilydale to discuss it and work it out. You
collected WJ and the two of you travelled to McDonalds and talked. WJ asked
you to promise him you did not light the fire. You replied ‘Why would I light the
bushfire?’. You spoke for about 30 minutes, before returning home.
20.
Police obtained CCTV footage from Lilydale McDonalds from the day of the
fires. Neither you nor WJ appeared in the footage at the relevant time.
21.
On Monday, 13 April 2015, police spoke with WJ about his statement. WJ made
a second sworn statement confirming that his first statement was untrue and
that he did not see you on the day of the fires. He said he only made the
statement because you had asked him to, and he had felt terrible about it since.
.CK:CQ
4
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
Arrest and admissions
22.
On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, you were arrested and cautioned, following which
you stated
"I just want to say I am deeply sorry for lying to you and getting [WJ]
to lie and putting him in it but I didn't know what to do. I was alone
and wanted you to believe me that I did not light those fires."
23.
Later that day, the Incident Controller from the George Road fires telephoned
you about an unrelated matter. You informed him that you had been charged
in relation to the fires, that you threw a match onto the nature strip but did not
think it would burn, and that you did not light the second fire.
24.
On Sunday, 10 May 2015 you spoke with your mother by telephone and
informed her that you had lit a fire. You said that you were really sorry for what
you had done and did not know why you had done it.
25.
You participated in a Recorded of Interview and made admissions to the police.
In broad terms, you made the following admissions in relation to the fires:

Admitted to lighting the first fire by throwing one match from a moving
vehicle using your legs to steer while you lit the match. You threw the
match out the window and kept driving;

You expressed deep regret and sorrow for your actions;

You said it was bigger than you expected, referring to the fire;

.CK:CQ
You said that given the conditions at the time, you believed there was
5
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
about a 30% chance that a fire would actually start;

As to the background to the offending or your reason for offending you
said had ‘a brain fart’ saying that you were in a ‘shit or shonky mood’.
You said that fire brigade was your escape and just takes your mind
away. You said you felt alone and ‘and that’s why CFA is so important to
me ‘cause it’s a big family’. In the hours preceding the fire you had been
thinking about difficulties in your schooling years and previous family life;

You had given no prior thought, you said, to the particular location or
timing of the fire;


You categorically denied lighting the second fire;
In relation to the subornation of perjury you made full admissions, saying
that you did it because you thought the police would not believe you
since you were alone in your car. You said:
"What I did was idiotic and dangerous and I don't even
know why I did it. I don't want to get people involved. I
don't wanna hurt people, especially close friends."
OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS
Recklessly causing bushfires
26.
You are to be sentenced for having caused two bushfires recklessly. It is also
important to have regard to the seriousness with which the legislature regards
an offence of this kind. The gravity of these offences is reflected in the maximum
penalty, namely 15 years imprisonment.
.CK:CQ
6
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
27.
You will of course be sentenced for recklessly causing bushfires not
intentionally causing bushfires. I note, however, that the maximum penalty is
the same. Further, the offence of recklessly causing a bushfire is only
committed if the offender foresaw the probability that his/her actions would
cause the bushfire, and went ahead regardless of that probability. This is not
mere carelessness, where an offender fails to appreciate the risk of a bushfire
occurring. This is a conscious disregard of a risk of a bushfire which the offender
knows to exist.
28.
In relation to the first fire (charge 1), I sentence you upon the basis as outlined
in the Opening and by you in your interview, namely you lit the fire by throwing
a match from your vehicle.
29.
You have never given an account of the lighting of the second fire. You denied
lighting the second fire to the Incident Controller and to the police. Your counsel
was unable to provide an account on the plea. All I have is your bare plea of
guilty in respect of the second fire that is, Charge 2. I cannot speculate as to
the precise circumstances of how you caused that second fire. I sentence you
upon the basis that you lit this fire within a short period of time after having lit
the first fire, and that you did so recklessly. The fact that you have never offered
any explanation for the second fire is troubling. The second fire makes your
overall criminality in this case more serious. It means that you engaged in two
separate acts of recklessly lighting a fire. You do not fall to be sentenced for
one isolated moment of stupidity. Having said that, I accept that both fires
involved repetitious behaviour over a short span of time in the same general
location.
30.
While there was no total fire ban, and the fire danger rating was low, there were
fire restrictions still in force, it being the end of March. These may not have been
fires lit on a fiercely hot day in January – but nor were they lit on a cold wet day
.CK:CQ
7
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
in July.
31.
The fires were not particularly destructive, and the fires posed no immediate
danger to any life. But they were dangerous enough that they caused great
concern to neighbours and ultimately required the urgent intervention of the fire
authorities for some 25 minutes. The fires were not of an insignificant nature.
The acts of lighting the two bushfires carried the potential risk of danger to
people and damage to property nearby.
32.
Your counsel accepted that your membership of the CFA made your offending
more serious. Given your status as a trained member of the CFA, you had
increased insight into the unpredictability of bushfires. Your conduct involved
an abuse of your membership as a CFA member. The public must have
confidence that those trained in firefighting, and who are members of firefighting
services, will use their training and membership only to protect them from fires.
33.
I accept there was no planning involved and the lighting of the fires was
spontaneous and unsophisticated.
34.
Your counsel submitted that trying to find a coherent or concise explanation for
your actions is a little difficult. I agree. It did involve some desire to join your
CFA colleagues in fighting the fire. I will return to your motivation soon.
35.
In any event, both acts were self-centred and committed without regard for the
safety of the community. In your interview with police, you accepted that you
well knew that what you were doing was wrong, and that you knew it was ‘idiotic
and dangerous’ to light a fire.
36.
.CK:CQ
Your counsel initially submitted that your participation in suppressing the fire
8
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
with your CFA colleagues mitigates your offending.
I do not accept that
submission given that this was – at least in part – the reason for your offending.
Your role in putting out the first fire was a playing out of the motive for having
engaged in this offending conduct in the first place.
37.
The prosecutor submitted that the DVD footage taken from your helmut camera
shows that you attended at the fire scene with some enthusiasm and engaged
in some dishonesty or deception by suggesting that it may have been
deliberately lit clearly not by you, but by somebody else. I have watched the
video.
While some post offence conduct may amount to an aggravating
circumstance, whether that is so is a question of degree. Lies told post offence
are generally not treated in that way. Even if your conduct and statements were
deceptive, I am not prepared to treat them as an aggravating circumstance.
Your conduct depicted on the DVD is relevant to the question of remorse, your
motive for your offending, and to gaining an appreciation of the extent of the
fire. I do not take it into account for any other purpose.
38.
There was a dispute over your knowledge about whether the fire danger period
or season was still in force. In your record of interview, you claimed you thought
it had come to an end. I am not able to find to the criminal standard that you
knew this. In my view not much turns upon it. You did of course know that you
were still in the warmer months – albeit towards the end of the warmer season.
You also knew that the day in question was at least proximate to the end of the
fire danger period.
39.
Overall, I consider your moral culpability to be relatively high. Your offending
constituted a serious example of a serious offence.
Subornation of perjury
.CK:CQ
9
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
40.
Your offending did not stop at the two bushfires. A week after this offending you
imposed upon a younger and reluctant friend to lie for you, that is, to provide a
false alibi for you in a police statement. You were motivated to conceal your
involvement in the commission of a serious crime.
41.
Perjury related offending is a serious offence because it constitutes a direct
deception or attempted deception of the court and indirectly tends to subvert
one of the institutions by which society protects itself.
Conduct which
undermines or threatens the administration of justice must be viewed very
seriously.
42.
While I accept that you committed the offence of subornation of perjury out of a
sense of panic, when you committed this offence you had already had a week
to reflect upon your involvement in the bushfire offences, but proceeded to
attempt to cover up your wrongdoing nonetheless.
PERSONAL CURCUMSTANCES
Family history, unfortunate background
43.
Two reports of Dr Nina Zimmerman, forensic psychiatrist, were tendered on the
plea on your behalf. Dr Zimmerman assessed you on one occasion in
preparation for this plea.
44.
Dr Zimmerman outlined your background in her reports. I do not propose to
repeat the details here. Suffice to say you had a difficult upbringing with your
childhood characterised by unstable attachments and major relocations. You
were brought up in South Africa by your father in an unsafe neighbourhood.
You witnessed your uncle being killed. You had an emotionally and physically
.CK:CQ
10
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
abusive relationship with your father in South Africa, before he sent you to
Australia to live with your mother. In fact you did not form a relationship with
your mother until you were 5 years of age.
45.
A range of men then came and went out of your life preventing the formation of
a stable relationship with a father figure. You suffered from bullying at school.
You became at one point involved in drugs at a young age but eventually (to
your credit) extracted yourself from that milieu.
46.
I take into account your difficult background. Your background is relevant to an
understanding of the psychological difficulties you faced at the time of the
offending and today. Your background does shed some light on your offending
and to some extent it bears upon your moral culpability for the current offending.
I will return to this in a moment.
Education and employment history
47.
Your work history as outlined by your counsel – notably as a kitchen hand at
Yering Station for many years - indicates that you have good work ethic, which
I take into account. It bodes well for your rehabilitation. I take that into account.
No Priors
48.
You are a man of good character, with no prior convictions. You are thus a first
time young offender. You have no subsequent offending. I take that into
account.
Plea of guilty
.CK:CQ
11
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
49.
You pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity. You get the utilitarian
discount for the plea at the earliest opportunity and it also reflects on your
remorse which I will get to below.
Psychological difficulties and motive
50.
As I said, in the course of the plea your counsel tendered two reports from Dr
Zimmerman, Forensic Psychiatrist.
51.
In short, Dr Zimmerman expressed the opinion that you had developed a
borderline personality disorder as a result of your developmental history, with
your poorly developed sense of identity. During your upbringing you had
experienced unstable attachments and major relocations. I have already noted
that you suffered emotional and physical abuse from your father and you were
a victim of bullying during your schooling years.
52.
You had developed a sense of attachment to the CFA through your
membership. You appear to have gained significant affirmation and a sense of
worth from your time with the CFA, as well as sense of belonging.
53.
Not long before the lighting of the bushfires, you had phone contact with your
father. While you have given varying accounts as to when your last phone
contact with your father occurred, your counsel has submitted in supplementary
written submissions, that I should proceed upon the basis that it was
approximately 1 week before, which is what you said in your record of interview.
I will do that.
54.
Your phone contact with your father resulted in you feeling distressed in the
period that followed.
.CK:CQ
12
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
55.
On the night of the lighting of the fires, you were still in a state of distress,
experiencing feelings of anger and abandonment.
56.
You were suffering from an episode of depression at the time of the offending
which affected your mood and self-worth.
57.
You felt alone and wanted to be around your ‘family’, that is your CFA mates.
58.
The lighting of the fires was an attempt by you to connect with the CFA – an
organisation you had formed a significant attachment with.
59.
Following the plea hearing and in light of the recent Court of Appeal decision in
DPP v O’Neill [2015] VSCA 325, I requested further submissions from your
counsel Mr Malik addressing the relevance of your psychological difficulties and
how they are relied upon in the sentencing process.
60.
Your counsel specifically disavowed in those supplementary submissions (as
he did in the course of the plea hearing) any reliance upon Verdins’ principles
apart from proposition 5, which I will come to.
61.
Your counsel does rely upon Dr Zimmerman’s reports as matters personal to
you which explain (though do not excuse) why you – a young person of
otherwise good character – would engage in such serious offending. Your
counsel submits your psychological difficulties provide some explanation for
your offending.
62.
This evidence, in conjunction with your difficult background, in a limited way,
reduces your moral culpability and the seriousness of your offending. Of course
it does not attract the level of mitigation that must be allowed where the Verdins’
.CK:CQ
13
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
principles are applicable.
63.
As I understand Dr Zimmerman’s reports were also relied upon as establishing
the absence of a diagnosis of pyromania. I accept that.
64.
Your counsel submitted that your psychological difficulties are not relevant in
explaining why you committed the offence of perjury.
65.
A report of Mr Barry Cripps, Psychologist, was also tendered on the plea. You
had seen Mr Cripps on more than ten occasions from October 2011 – thus your
consultation with Mr Cripps commenced prior to your offending. You saw him
to obtain assistance in the treatment of ‘anxiety, arising from a history of
traumatic childhood’. While your counsel’s submissions really focussed upon
Dr Zimmerman’s reports and opinions, it seems to me that the fact that you
were seeing Mr
Cripps about these issues prior to your offending is
confirmatory evidence of your troubled upbringing, your psychological
difficulties and a willingness on your part to seek help.
Custodial hardship (Verdins principle 5)
66.
At the time of sentencing, you suffer, according to Dr Zimmerman’s report, from
moderate depression, in addition to your personality disorder. This affects your
mood and self-worth. Dr Zimmerman has expressed the opinion that you would
be more vulnerable in a custodial setting, given you had previously been the
target of bullying, had a history of difficulty managing your feelings and give
than you present as immature.
67.
It is submitted by your counsel that this condition is relevant to the application
of principle 5 of Verdins, namely a sentence involving a custodial setting would
weigh more heavily on you. It is not submitted that your condition is likely to
deteriorate in a way apprehended by Verdins proposition 6.
68.
The prosecutor at the plea explicitly did not take issue with your submission that
proposition 5 of Verdins applied. In subsequent written submissions (post
.CK:CQ
14
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
O’Neill) the prosecution submitted that your vulnerabilities are really more about
your personality traits rather than your depression, and moreover that the risk
associated with your vulnerabilities are significantly lessened if placed in a
Youth Justice Centre rather than in an adult prison (the prosecution referred to
the YJC Report which stated as much).
69.
Reading Dr Zimmerman’s opinion as a whole, it seems to me she is opining
that a custodial setting will be more difficult for you than a person in normal
health because of a mix of your depression, personality disorder and personal
traits. Even allowing for better management in a YJC, I still accept that a
custodial setting would, to some extent, weigh more heavily on you. I will make
some allowance for it.
Youth and immaturity
70.
I take into account that you were a young offender at the time of the offending
(19 years of age) and remain a young offender (currently aged 20 years of age).
71.
The youth and rehabilitative considerations and principles discussed in R v
Mills1 and Azzopardi v The Queen2 apply subject to some moderation (with
respect to Charges 1 and 2), which is discussed below.
Remorse
72.
I accept that generally you are now genuinely remorseful. There is evidence of
remorse to be found in your record of interview, from your pleas of guilty, in the
medical reports, and in the YJC Pre-Sentence report.
.CK:CQ
1
(1998) 4 VR 235.
2
(2011) 35 VR 43.
15
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
73.
This finding cannot, however, be expressed in absolute terms.
74.
In the period following the commission of the offence – both at the fire scene
itself, and especially later in your conduct in suborning perjury – you were
anything but contrite. It took you some time before you accepted responsibility
for your conduct.
75.
You have also never really expressed remorse – beyond that which is to be
found in the bare plea of guilty – in relation to the second fire. You have not
taken full responsibility for your actions in relation to the second fire as you have
in relation to the first fire and the subornation of perjury.
Prospects of rehabilitation
76.
I think your prospects are generally good in light of the matters advanced by
your counsel including your good character, your youth, and your willingness to
address your issues.
77.
As Dr Zimmerman has noted, your prospects will largely depend upon whether
you are able to address your psychological issues. I am reasonably confident
you will do this.
78.
I do have one reservation and that is the fact that an incomplete explanation
has only ever been offered for your offending. No explanation has been offered
in relation to the second fire. There remains a gap in your account and in your
insight into the full breadth of your wrongdoing. This leaves me with an uneasy
feeling that I am sentencing you in circumstances where I still do not have the
full picture. I would not have entertained any real doubts about your prospects
had you fully confronted the entirety of your wrongdoing.
.CK:CQ
16
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
DETERRENCE
Balancing general deterrence with youth
79.
Mr Danielz, the lighting of bushfires is repugnant.
The community rightly
entertains a very real concern in relation to bush fires. Bushfires are very easily
lit. They are, by their nature, unpredictable and extremely dangerous. They can
be, and often are, calamitous, though fortunately this did not eventuate here.
Sentences imposed must deter others who might think of offending in this way.
80.
The sentencing objectives of general deterrence, denunciation, and protection
of the community are prominent in the sentencing process for your bushfire
offending under Charges 1 and 2, despite your youth and good character. The
youth principles must give way in this case to some degree.
81.
Having said that, your youth remains an important factor in sentencing.
Specific deterrence
82.
Specific deterrence also has a role to play. While I think it is unlikely that you
will commit this type of offence again – given that you will never again be a
member of a fire authority and having regard to the absence of a diagnosis of
pyromania - you need to be deterred from acting irresponsibly and criminally
when feeling lonely and in a state of distress and anger.
Community Correction Order
83.
Your counsel submitted that I should impose a Community Correction Order
(‘CCO’) upon you.
.CK:CQ
17
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
84.
The prosecutor submitted that the sentence had to include an immediate period
of confinement. The prosecutor submitted that a Youth Justice Centre (‘YJC’)
sentence was a disposition within range.
85.
In my view, the purposes for which sentence is to be imposed on you cannot
be achieved by the imposition of a CCO. Notwithstanding your youth, good
character and the other mitigating factors, I consider that the only appropriate
sentence is one which involves confinement.
86.
This is one of those cases where certain sentencing purposes – in particular
denunciation, general deterrence and protection of the community – cannot be
sufficiently served by the making of a CCO, even with onerous conditions.
Youth Detention
87.
At the conclusion of the plea hearing, I asked that you be assessed for a YJC
sentence. You have been assessed as suitable. The Report finds that you meet
all the criteria under section 32 of the Sentencing Act 1991.
88.
I note that the Report states that you would be extremely vulnerable in a prison
setting to bullying and standover by other unscrupulous prisoners. However, if
placed in a YJC the potential for this situation is significantly lessened by the
vigilance of staff. The report notes you would be required to undergo
psychological counselling whilst in detention and whilst on youth parole.
89.
The author expresses the opinion that you are genuinely remorseful and have
demonstrated a willingness to change.
90.
.CK:CQ
I am satisfied that you meet the criteria under section 32 of the Sentencing Act
18
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
1991 – you have reasonable prospects for rehabilitation and that you are
particularly impressionable, immature or likely to be subjected to undesirable
influences in an adult prison.
91.
In all the circumstances, it is appropriate in your case that your detention be
served by way of a Youth Justice Centre Order. While such a sentence is an
expression of punishment, deterrence and protection to the community, its
practical and rehabilitative focus is also calculated to facilitate your reform,
which is important because of your youth and previous good character.
92.
The sentences which I intend to impose on charges 1 and 2, that is the bushfire
offences, will run concurrently which recognises that the two bushfires were lit
in relative quick succession in the same general vicinity, and were thus part of
a course of conduct. I have decided to direct that part of the sentence on Charge
3 be served cumulatively which recognises that the subornation of perjury
involved wrongdoing which was different from the bushfire offending and was
committed at a subsequent time. It involved additional wrongdoing.
SENTENCE
93.
Would you please stand up, Mr Danielz.
94.
On Charge 1 – recklessly causing a bushfire – you are convicted and sentenced
to 13 months youth justice detention.
95.
On Charge 2 – recklessly causing a bushfire – you are convicted and sentenced
to 13 months youth justice detention.
96.
.CK:CQ
On Charge 3 – suborning perjury – you are convicted and sentenced to 4
19
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
months youth justice detention.
97.
The sentence imposed on Charge 1 is the base sentence.
98.
In accordance with the legislative presumption, the sentence imposed on
Charge 2 is concurrent with the sentence imposed Charge 1.
99.
I direct that 2 months on the sentence imposed on Charge 3 be served
cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 1.
100.
This makes for to a total effective sentence of 15 months Youth Detention.
Pre-Sentence Detention
101.
There is no pre-sentence detention.
6AAA
102.
In accordance with s.6AAA, had you not pleaded guilty I would have imposed
a total effective sentence of three years youth justice detention.
.CK:CQ
103.
As I understand it, there is no presentence detention?
104.
COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
105.
HIS HONOUR: Anything else, gentlemen?
106.
MR MALIK: Nothing, Your Honour.
20
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
107.
MR TRAPNELL: I take it Your Honour's exercised your discretion not to order
a non-parole period.
108.
HIS HONOUR: Correct.
109.
MR TRAPNELL: Yes.
110.
HIS HONOUR: Well, it is youth justice detention, so I would not incline to do
that anyway. Well, I would not do that.
.CK:CQ
111.
MR TRAPNELL: No.
112.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, if Mr Danielz could be taken away, please.
113.
MR TRAPNELL: Sorry, there was a forensic sample application.
114.
HIS HONOUR: Hang on.
115.
MR TRAPNELL: I believe there was a forensic sample application.
116.
HIS HONOUR: I think I made that order on the last occasion.
117.
MR TRAPNELL: If Your Honour pleases.
118.
HIS HONOUR: I have actually made that order.
119.
MR TRAPNELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
120.
HIS HONOUR: If I have not, I will check and I will make that.
121.
MR TRAPNELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
122.
HIS HONOUR: Anything else?
123.
MR TRAPNELL: No, Your Honour.
124.
MR MALIK: No, thank you, Your Honour.
125.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, if Mr Danielz could be taken away, please. Yes, thank
21
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz
you.
---
.CK:CQ
22
SENTENCE
DPP v Danielz