N.B. Copyright in this transcript is the property of the Crown. If this transcript is
copied without the authority of the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory,
proceedings for infringement will be taken.
__________
THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
SCC 21542559
THE QUEEN
and
ASHLEY MATZ
(Sentence)
HILEY J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT DARWIN ON MONDAY 20 JUNE 2016
Transcribed by:
DTI
HIS HONOUR: Ashley Matz, you have pleaded guilty to the six charges set out in
the indictment.
Count 1 was that on 25 August 2015 at Darwin you robbed Jannis Hilgemann of
$1800 in cash and a mobile telephone valued at $800 which belonged to Hilgemann.
That charge was aggravated by the fact that you and your co-offender were each
armed with an offensive weapon, namely broken glass; that you were in company
with your co-offender; and that immediately before the robbery you and your cooffender caused harm to Hilgemann. That offence carries potential imprisonment for
life.
Count 2 was that on the same day you robbed Joe Pierre Maack of $40 in cash,
a mobile telephone, a Volvo motor vehicle, two laptop computers, an iPad, clothing
and a driver’s license (which had a combined value of $1500), all of which belonged
to Maack. Again that involves the circumstance of aggravation that the two of you
were armed with an offensive weapon, namely broken glass. You were also in
company with each and you had caused harm before the robbery to Maack.
Count 3 was that on same day you robbed a third person, David Nienhaus, of a
mobile telephone and a wallet with a combined value of $550 which belonged to
Nienhaus. Again this charge had the same circumstances of aggravation, namely
that you were armed with an offensive weapon, you were in company with each
other and you caused harm to Nienhaus before the robbery. All of those three
charges carry potential life imprisonment.
Count 4 is that on that on the same day you caused damage to a conveyance by
using fire, that was a car, and that also carries a potential imprisonment for life.
Count 5 was that on the same day you engaged in conduct that gave rise to a
dangerous serious harm to Hilgemann, Maack and Neinhaus, being reckless as to
the dangerous serious harm to them arose from that conduct. That carries a
potential sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Count 6 was that on the same day you caused damage to property belonging to
another person, Francis Reyes. That offence is punishable by up to 14 years’
imprisonment.
You have been in custody since 28 August 2015. At the time when you
committed these offences you were on bail for a number of offences that you had
committed less than three weeks earlier, on 9 August 2015.
Most of the circumstances concerning your offending are contained in the
Statement of Facts which was read out to the court. Those three men, Maack who
was aged 25, Neinhaus who was 21, and Hilgemann who was 19, were German
nationals who were travelling in Australia and had been in Australia for less than a
year.
That night, on 25 August they were at an address in Casuarina Drive,
Rapid Creek, where there was situated an uninhabited block of units that were
undergoing renovation. At that time they were working on that site assisting with
demolition work during the day and they were living out of their cars.
They had the owner’s permission to stay on that land. At about 8:45pm that
night they were sitting around a camping table in the yard that address in Rapid
Creek when Nienhaus noticed a person who had come into the yard and was
urinating on a wall of one of the buildings closer to the street.
Nienhaus told that person to urinate somewhere else next time. That person,
who is your co-offender, walked over to where the three men were sitting around the
table. He called out to you and you then came into the yard. The two of you were
carrying two cups, a bottle of coke and bottle of spirits. You were both very
intoxicated.
You asked if you could sit at the table and you started to mix some drinks there.
Initially you were friendly towards the three young men asking Maack for a smoke
and you were talking with them. You told them you were part German.
Your co-offender however, was being aggressive right from the start. He told the
group, ‘you say I can’t piss on my ground, it’s my land.’ Your co-offender began to
tease Maack by slapping lightly on the face. You tried to calm down your cooffender by speaking to him and holding him back.
At one point your co-offender said ‘I’m going to kill these guys.’ You said ‘Nah,
don’t kill them.’ Your co-offender then suddenly slapped Hilgemann and grabbed his
hair. He told the three victims to give you and him their wallets. You then joined in
and started to threaten the group.
The two of you told the victims that you had guns in your pants and you referred
to a knife. The victims did not see any knife or firearms but they were intimidated
and afraid of the two of you, not knowing whether or not you did in fact have
weapons.
The two of you were behaving very erratically. Some of the things that were
being said to the victims included that they were racists and Nazis, and that they had
raped Aboriginal children. You told them that if anyone called the police you would
find the victims and kill them.
You and your co-offender intermittently and randomly struck these three young
men. You ordered them around saying, ‘You’ve got five seconds to move over there’
or ‘Twenty seconds to get your money and put it on the table or we will cut your head
off.’
Your co-offender demanded that the victims’ name the three colours of the
Aboriginal Flag. When one of them gave the answer your co-offender gave him a
hug. The two of you often appeared confused and you argued with each other. That
erratic behaviour coupled with the violence and your references to weapons caused
the victims to fear for their lives.
Hilgemann went to his car to find his wallet but he could not find it there. You
went over to Hilgemann while he was at his car and you accused him of calling the
police. You punched him in the face and the arm with a closed fist.
Hilgemann then walked to another car and got his wallet out of that car. He
showed the two of you that there was nothing in his wallet. He was then punched in
the face again by one of the two of you. You said ‘Let’s kill them and fuck off.’
Nienhaus also retrieved his valuables from the same car. He handed to one of
you his iPhone 4 with a gold case and black colour and wallet, which had a
combined value of $550. One of you burnt Nienhaus under his right forearm with a
flame from a cigarette lighter, holding it there for two seconds, causing pain.
Maack also went to his car to get his wallet. You followed him and Maack
handed you the wallet which contained $40 in cash. You also took Maack’s black
iPhone 4 valued at $500.
The two of you wanted Maack to sign over the registration to his vehicle. He
cooperated with that out of fear and he asked who he should sign it over to.
Your co-offender told him to write ‘ISHINE’ and Maack complied. You then punched
Maack on the left-hand side of his face.
You and your co-offender then said, ‘Let’s drive to the ATM in Casuarina.’ You
then ordered the three victims to get into Maack’s vehicle, which is a Volvo 940 GL.
Before getting into the vehicle your co-offender reached into Hilgemann’s jacket
and stole his Samsung mobile telephone valued at $600. Maack was forced to drive
the car. You sat in the front passenger’s seat. Hilgemann was made to sit in the
middle of the rear seats with your co-offender on his right and Nienhaus on his left.
Your erratic behaviour continued while you were in the car. Both of you were
yelling out random directions. You pulled the headrests off the seats and you made
Maack throw them out of the window while he was driving.
You punched the rear-vision mirror. You played with the controls of the car,
turning the radio on loudly, turning the high beam lights on and off and beeping the
horn. You also moved the automatic gear into low while Maack was driving, causing
the engine to over-rev.
The two of you made Maack drive the car around the Casuarina area. As Maack
was driving the vehicle along Trower Road you pulled on the steering wheel causing
the car to swerve across the double lines that divide the inbound and outboard lanes.
There was a white car alongside at that time. Maack was able to keep control of
the vehicle and avoid a collision and get the vehicle back into its correct lane. That
conduct exposed all of the people in your vehicle as well as other road users to a
danger of a motor vehicle accident and consequent possible serious harm to them.
During the journey you punched Maack a number of times and at one stage your
co-offender also put his hands around Maack’s neck and grabbed him on the
shoulders as he was driving. Maack was in fear of his life and could hear his friends
being assaulted in the back seat as he was driving.
Your co-offender threw rum around the car and tipped it on Hilgemann. He
produced a cigarette lighter and threatened to burn Hilgemann because he looked
like Adolf Hitler. Your co-offender struck Hilgemann’s left knee with a glass bottle
causing the bottle to break, giving Hilgemann a large laceration. Your co-offender
then held a piece a glass to Hilgemann’s neck and said ‘I will kill you.’
You eventually arrived at the Hibiscus Shopping Centre in Leanyer. Maack
parked the car in the car park. As he was parking the car you used a piece of
broken glass to cut Maack three times in his left arm. The two of you ordered all
three of them out of the car and over to the ATM.
Maack was ordered to withdraw money from the ATM but was unable to do so
because he had already used his daily limit. Your co-offender then demanded that
Hilgemann withdraw $2000 from his account. He withdrew $1800 because that was
all that he had in his account and he gave that money to you.
After you had been given the money the two of you seemed to be placated and
your co-offender said ‘Now you get your life.’ You then let your three victims leave.
They ran away from the area to a nearby house and they called the police at about
10:30pm.
After that your three victims were taken to the Royal Darwin Hospital but they left
without seeking treatment. They received a number of injuries. Hilgemann felt pain
in his left eyebrow, nose and neck from being punched. He had a one 4 centimetre
cut, two 3 centimetre cuts and a number of smaller cuts in his left knee from where
the bottle broke.
Maack had a swollen left eye with a bruising underneath it. He had a number of
lacerations, one 10 centimetres long, one 4 centimetres and one 2.5 centimetres, all
on his left arm as a result of being cut with the broken glass.
Nienhaus had soreness in various areas of his head, face and neck and also
pain in his stomach.
So that all relates to counts 1, 2 and 3, the robbery counts.
In relation to count 4, the two of you got into the Volvo and drove it away along
Vanderlin Drive. You stopped in some bushland opposite the intersection with
Mueller Road, Malak. One of you removed a laptop bag that belonged to Maack
from the car. The two of you then set the vehicle alight, completely destroying the
vehicle.
Maack had recently purchased that car for $500 and had put new tyres on it
which had bought for about $400. Inside the car Maack had an iPad, clothes and
two laptops (one broken and the other in use) with a total value of $600. They were
also destroyed in the fire.
A witness reported seeing two males running from near the blazing motor vehicle
carrying a jerry-can across Vanderlin Drive at about 11:05 pm. At some stage
Maack’s laptop computer and bag were thrown away into a yard in Sergison Circuit,
Rapid Creek. They were later located by one of the residents on 26 August 2015.
Count 6 relates to different offending that occurred about three quarters of an
hour later.
By 11:40 that night the two of had made your way to an address in Rapid Creek
and you knocked on the door of one of the units. Francis Reyes was leaving for
work from one of the other units there and he saw the two of you and said, ‘Hello
how are you guys going?’ You responded, ‘Good’. Reyes thought that there was
something odd about your behaviour. He then overheard one of you calling out as
you were knocking on the door of a nearby unit, ‘We have money, we have drink.’
Reyes got into his car, which is a black Toyota Caldina that was parked on a
median strip outside the front of the units. As he was reversing the car your cooffender knocked on his driver’s side window and asked him for a lift. He said, ‘Can
you give us a lift to Malak? I’ll pay you money.’ Reyes explained that he could not
because he had to get to work. You and your co-offender then got angry and
insisted that he should drop you off. Your co-offender said ‘If you’re not going to
drop me off I’ll break into your house.’
That frightened Reyes because his wife and children were asleep inside. Your
co-offender offered Reyes $20 to take you to Malak but Reyes said ‘No’ and started
reversing again. At that point you kicked Reyes’ car on the door and the mirror on
the passenger side causing the plastic wind guard to break off.
Your co-offender pretended to swing a glass bottle at the car as if he was going
to hit the car with it. Reyes got out of his car and told you to stop. He walked around
to the back of his car. Suddenly your co-offender approached him and punched
Reyes hard in the face striking him in the nose, causing him to become dizzy.
When Reyes came to he was leaning against the car and his nose started
bleeding immediately. Reyes was shocked and felt scared and ill. The two of you
had gone by then and Reyes got help from a neighbour. He later spoke to the police
about that incident.
In the meantime the police had spoken with the three German backpackers.
They had gone to the address in Casuarina Drive, Rapid Creek and set up a crime
scene there. Police there found a number of items including a wallet, mobile phone
and a black cap all left on the table in the yard. The wallet contained your
identification.
While the police officers were documenting things at the scene one of them
heard the sound of a bottle smashing in the laneway immediately adjacent to the
yard of that address in Rapid Creek. One of the police officer’s heard someone say,
‘Let’s get out of here.’
Police quickly ran around to Sergison Circuit where the laneway exits and spoke
with a woman. The woman was outside because she had heard two people talking.
One of those people saying, ‘Come on, come on, we’ve got to go, let’s go.’ She saw
those two people walk off and the police appeared shortly after that.
You now admit that you were one of those two people. Police found a smashed
Wild Turkey Bourbon bottle in the laneway. You were identified from police
photoboards by all of the three victims and also by Reyes.
You also had distinctive features that all of the witnesses recalled including your
long mullet hair style, a large tattoo on your torso, and I mentioned you had also left
your wallet and identification at the scene. Your co-offender was not identified.
At 10:15am on 28 August 2015 you were arrested at an address in Moil in the
company of the person that has been charged as a co-offender, Paul Alley. Both of
you were observed to have freshly shaved your heads. You have not assisted police
by identifying your co-offender.
You were detained by police and you were asked to participate in a Record of
Interview but you exercised your right to silence, which you are entitled to do. You
were refused bail and you and you have been in custody since then.
The court has been provided with two Victim Impact Statements, one of them
from one of the three German backpacker victims, Maack. He made a Victim Impact
Statement on 26 August 2015. That is the day after your offending.
He talked about his eye being swollen and he has got big lips and cuts inside of
his mouth and said he could not eat. He is having trouble with the cuts on his arm.
He said he was shocked and he is scared to walk the street. He said he lost all his
belongings, his car, phone, license, iPad, clothes, watch, all is gone.
I have also been provided with a Victim Impact Statement from Reyes and that
was also prepared within a few days of your offending. Amongst other things he
talks about cut lips and so on and that he cannot eat properly. He said he ‘doesn’t
feel safe anymore.’ I do accept on the agreed facts that it was your co-offender and
not you that inflicted those bodily injuries.
What you did was particularly serious for a number of reasons. First, the
offending was carried out over a long period of time. It was over one and a half
hours from the time when the two of you first started intimidating these three young
fellows at Casuarina Drive and the time when you have finally let go.
You should have been able to tell that they were scared and terrified of what you
were doing. But notwithstanding that you continued to engage in this escalating
violent conduct.
Second, they had done nothing to deserve what you did to them. If your sole
purpose was to obtain cash then there was no need for you to have continued with
any of your violence.
Also of course the use of the vehicle was dangerous and potentially could have
caused danger not only to the occupants of the vehicle but to other road users.
Even after you had let these victims go you continued to offend by burning the Volvo
and then terrorizing Reyes.
The Crown submits that you are as criminally culpable as your co-offender at
least in respect of Counts 1 to 5. Although the facts suggest that it was your cooffender who started the aggressive behaviour, you soon joined in and became the
more violent of the two as the episode progressed.
You are solely to blame for your conduct and you are the principal offender in
your own right. I agree that your level of moral culpability is high. The two of you
destroyed the Volvo presumably to escape detection and I agree with the submission
made by the Crown that you returned to the scene and you shaved your heads also
in order to avoid detection.
Your barrister submitted that I cannot find beyond reasonable doubt that you
returned to the scene to escape detection. Ms Chalmers however, points out that
your wallet that contained your identification was left at the scene. I see no rationally
open reason for you to have gone back to the scene if it was not recover your wallet
and your identification.
Without that you probably would have thought that you could not be identified.
That you did that is also consistent with you having burnt the car which would have
had the effect of destroying your fingerprints and so on.
Another aggravating feature is that you inflicted numerous injuries to your
victims. Luckily they were not serious but nevertheless that behaviour continued
over a period of time and of course you caused damage to property.
There are a number of other aggravating features set out in the Sentencing Act
that I have regard to. First, you committed these offences in company with another
person. Second, you were armed with a weapon. Third, you did not have regard to
public safety. Fourth, the offences involved violence or threats of violence. Fifth, the
offences involved more than one victim. The facts also suggests that there may have
been some motivation by hate against a group of people namely backpackers from
Germany.
Mr Abayasekara, your barrister, told me a number of things. First he said that
you had taken methamphetamine before you committed these offences. That would
explain the erratic, volatile and unpredictable nature of your conduct. Even if that is
so, that erratic, volatile and unpredictable behaviour of you and your co-offender
would have been all the more terrifying for your victims as it is clear that they did not
know exactly what you wanted and how they could placate you.
Mr Abayasekara also submitted there was no pre-planning. Even if that was so
that would make it more difficult to understand why you trespassed on the private
property and committed these offences upon these three young men who did nothing
to warrant your attention.
Mr Abayasekara also pointed out that you were initially calm and you attempted
to hold back your co-offender. However, as I have said you became very aggressive
very quickly without any provocation.
I consider that your offending in relation to the first three counts was towards the
higher level of serious for this kind of offence, namely aggravated robbery. However,
in relation to the arson charge, that is Count 3, your offending was probably towards
the middle level of seriousness.
You do have a criminal history, most of which relates to the time that you have
spent in South Australia. First, you were convicted on 11 November 2011 and
sentenced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment for intentionally causing harm.
You committed that offence on 4 August 2010.
Second, you were convicted on 16 September 2014 also by a court in South
Australia for assault, damaging a building or a motor vehicle, resisting police and
breaching bail. You were fined for those offences.
Third, within three weeks of committing these offences you committed six
offences in the Northern Territory. You committed those on 9 August 2015. Amongst
other things they involved methamphetamine in your system and also possessing
methamphetamine in a public place. As I mentioned you were on bail in respect to
those six offences when you committed these offences.
You are not being punished again for any of those things but your history does
show that you have previously been in trouble in relation to violent offences and also
in relation to drug related offences. You have not learnt from punishments that have
been given to you in the pasts. That is that you should not do things like this to
people.
Your criminal history also has a bearing on factors that I will be taking into
account when considering the need for specific deterrents, protection of the
community and your prospects of rehabilitation.
Your barrister told me a number of things about you. You were born on 27 April
1990 so that means that you are now 26 years of age, and you were 25 at the time
of this offending. Mr Abayasekara also told me that you were raised in Adelaide and
that you came to the Northern Territory about a year ago to visit members of your
extended family.
Your parents separated when you about 4 years old and you continued to live
with your father but you have also had some ongoing contact with your mother.
Unfortunately both your parents were heavy drinkers but your father did reduce his
alcohol consumption once he was responsible for looking after you.
You have a number of other half-brothers and half-sisters and you are quite
close to your older half-brother. You were educated until the end of the first term in
year 11. You have also worked in various areas while you were in South Australia;
in construction as a roofer, as a steel fixer and general labouring work. However,
you have not worked since you have been in Darwin.
You began drinking alcohol when you were about 14 years of age and you
started to engage in binge drinking for up to weeks at a time. You began smoking
cannabis when you were about 14 as well. That continued for the next six years or
so. From about the age of 18 you began using ecstasy and morphine and you then
turned to methamphetamine which became your principal drug. You would normally
smoke your methamphetamine but sometimes you would inject yourself.
Your barrister has told me, as I have already mentioned, that when you
committed these offences you were heavily under the influence of Ice, having binged
for a number of days leading up to this offending. He also told me that you have
never been involved in any alcohol or drug rehabilitation. I am not aware of any
support for you from family or from anybody else. Nor am I aware of any plans that
you might have for you future once you get out of prison.
Your barrister told me that you have voluntarily attended and completed the
Safe, Sober, Strong Program since you have been on remand. Also that you have
found the program beneficial and you wish to undertake further programs to help you
overcome your drug issues. He said, and I accept that this demonstrates some
insight on your part, that you need to address your drug problems.
In relation to your offending, as I said, Mr Abayasekara said that you had been
taking methamphetamine. But even if that is so it does not justify your conduct. I
also said that less than three weeks earlier you had been charged with committing
other offences after you had consumed methamphetamine. That should have made
you realize that if you consumed methamphetamine you would have a tendency to
engage in antisocial and even criminal behaviour.
You indicated that you would be pleading guilty some time ago and you agreed
to a hand up committal. The matter did not get to the stage of being listed for trial so
that means that the public has been saved the expense and further delays of further
investigations and a trial involving you.
You have not made any admissions or otherwise cooperated with the police.
Some time was taken negotiating and agreeing the facts. I do regard your plea as
an early one but not a plea at the earliest time.
Your barrister said from the bar table that you feel very bad about what you did.
However counsel for the Crown does not accept that statement without you getting
into the witness box and swearing to it. You did not do that. I do not accept either
that you feel very bad about what you did.
The Crown also submitted that if you truly felt remorseful you would be willing to
cooperate with the police and identify your co-offender. Without your evidence it is
likely that your three victims will still have to come back and give evidence at the trial
of your co-offender.
Of course there is no obligation upon you to cooperate with the police or the
prosecution, but I do agree that your refusal to identify your co-offender does create
some real doubt about you being remorseful toward your victims.
The Crown’s case was a strong case primarily because you had left your wallet
and identification at the scene of the initial offending and also because you are
readily recognizable because of your tattoos.
I do not accept that you are truly remorseful. I do however propose to discount
the sentences that I would otherwise impose for these offences of somewhere
between 17 and 20 percent.
In relation to rehabilitation I am aware that you voluntarily attended and
completed the Safe Sober Strong Program whilst in remand. But I am not able to
realistically assess your prospects of rehabilitation at this stage.
As I said, unfortunately you do not appear to have the support of family or others
or realistic prospects of employment or any particular plans for your future.
Also you do not appear to have learnt anything after having spent time in gaol for
your offending in 2010. As I have already said, you committed these offences while
on bail for drug related offending less than three weeks earlier. These matters,
coupled with the seriousness of the offending suggest that your prospects of
rehabilitation may be regarded as poor at this stage.
I have also mentioned that these are serious offences. I have been referred to
sentences imposed in other matters involving aggravated robbery. While each case
must be dealt with on its own facts. There are certain similarities and differences
between two of those cases and between this case, which assists in determining the
appropriate sentences.
The first case I referred to is the decision of Wright v The Queen [2007] NTCCA
5. In that case the Criminal Court of Appeal allowed the offenders to appeal against
the sentence and resentenced him using a starting point of 5½ years.
That case was not as serious as this one. In that case the offender was a
25 year old drug addict who stole drugs from a pharmacy and threatened a
pharmacy attendant with a loaded syringe. There was no actual violence. He acted
alone. His conduct was amateurish and not protracted.
His drug addiction followed a serious work accident that he had suffered some
years earlier and he had previously sought assistance from a drug rehabilitation
centre. He was found to have good prospects for rehabilitation.
The Court of Criminal Appeal also increased the 15 percent discount that he had
been given for his early plea and remorse to about 27 percent. In that case,
Mr Wright had indicated that he would be pleading guilty at the earliest possible
opportunity. He provided some assistance to the police and he had shown true
remorse. That enabled the victim to continue on with her life without fear of being
required to relive her experience by giving evidence before a jury.
The second case that I was referred to was the case of R v Mitchell Hall, a
decision of Chief Justice Riley in September last year. That involved a 19 year
offender who was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment after
allowing a discount of about 19 percent.
That related to six offences committed against the same victim on a single
occasion. The starting point for that sentence was 7 years’ imprisonment. The most
serious of those six offences was a robbery committed with actual violence, namely
jabbing the victim in his upper arm with a knife and punching him in the arm. The
victim suffered other injuries when he tripped and fell heavily as he is running away
from the offender.
There are a number of similarities between that case and this one. It too
involved depriving the victim of his liberty for a period of time forcing him to drive to
different locations, including to an ATM, dangerously interfering with his driving,
threatening to kill him and burning his car.
However, like Mr Wright, Mr Hall acted alone, not in company with another
violent offender. Mr Hall was also able to provide the court with two very helpful
references in his support. The Judge also extended him some additional leniency
because he was only 19 at time of his offending.
On the other hand, as you barrister has pointed out there was a degree of preplanning on Mr Hall’s part because he had arranged to meet his victim under a false
pretence.
Luckily your three victims did not suffer the permanent injury or serious physical
harm that they could have. There can be no doubt that they were and will remain
emotionally affected by the ordeal which you put them through. What you did is
likely to deter them and perhaps other backpackers and visitors from thinking of
Darwin as a safe place to visit.
There is absolutely no justification of you engaging in any of this conduct. You
must be punished for the terrible things that you did that night. That punishment
must be tough enough to make you realize what you did was very wrong and you
must not do anything like this again.
Your sentence must also be tough enough to show other people who like you
take methamphetamines then bash and rob innocent people, that they too must not
behave that way, otherwise they will be sent to gaol.
The community does not approve of this kind of behaviour and expects people to
be strongly punished for it. The community is entitled to be protected from people
doing those kinds of things to them particularly at night-time.
So I propose now to sentence you. In respect of each of the six counts charged
in the indictment and each of the circumstances of aggravation I find the facts proven
and I find you guilty. I convict you of each of those offences. I have taken into
account the fact that you did plead guilty in the other matters that I have already
mentioned.
In relation to Count 1 I sentence you to 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
But for you plea of guilty and your limited remorse I would have sentenced you to
6 years’ imprisonment.
In relation to Count 2 I sentence you to also to 4 years and 10 months’
imprisonment and the same for Count 3. In both cases, but for your guilty pleas I
would have sentenced you to 6 years’ imprisonment
In relation to Count 4, that is the arson count, I sentence you to 24 months’
imprisonment. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to
30 months’ imprisonment.
In relation to Count 5, that is the reckless conduct causing serious harm, I
sentence you to 18 months’ imprisonment. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have
sentenced you to 22 months’ imprisonment.
In relation to Count 6, that is the damage to Reyes’s property, I sentence you to
3 months’ imprisonment. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to
4 months’ imprisonment.
That all adds up to a lot of years. I have regard however to the principle of
totality and concurrency and I concluded that the just and appropriate aggregate
sentence would be 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, and that would be
backdated to 28 August 2015. That is the date when you were arrested and taken
into custody.
I propose to achieve that overall objective by ordering a substantial degree of
concurrence. That is appropriate in cases such as this, where all of the offences
were committed within about four hours of each other and five of them involved the
same group of victims.
So in respect of Count 1, as I mentioned, the sentence is 4 years’ and
10 month’s.
In respect of Count 2, I will order that 54 of the 58 months be served
concurrently and another 4 months’ cumulatively.
In respect of Count 3, the same, that is 54 months will be served concurrently
with the sentence on Count 2 and another 4 cumulatively.
In respect of Count 4, 3 months will be served cumulatively.
In respect of Count 5, 3 months will be cumulatively on Count 4.
In respect of Count 6, 3 months will be cumulative on Count 5.
That should all add up to 75 months, which is 6 years and 3 months.
I fix a non-parole period of 3 years and 2 months, also backdated to
28 August 2015.
Anything further from counsel?
MR ABAYASEKARA: No, your Honour.
MS CHALMERS: Nothing from the Crown, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Very well. I thank you for your assistance, the court will adjourn.
_________________