DPP v Braine [2022] VCC 798

30 penalty units and a charge of contravening a conduct condition of bail, which has a maximum penalty of 3 months' imprisonment or 30 penalty units.

1. The circumstances of your offending are set out in the summary of prosecution opening dated 16 May 2022. This document became Exhibit A on the plea, and it forms part of and is attached to these reasons. I will not repeat it all here but summarise parts of it.
2. Your friend Mr Holz had a dispute with Mr Jenkins. Unhelpfully, two more people joined this dispute. Mr Smith on the side of Mr Jenkins, and you on the side of

Mr Holz. It's not important now but I understand it boiled down to Mr Holz being excluded from Mr Jenkins' home where he had a range of personal possessions. There were various confrontations between the parties about this in the lead up to the events giving rise to these charges. Apparently, there is a long history of dispute between you and Mr Smith. 3. On Friday, 13 August you called Mr Smith; he did not answer, and you responded by sending him the following text message ('Brody' is another name for Mr Holz):

"Why'd ya hang up champ? Just making it clear I've been past Jeff's house about 100 time the last two days trying to catch up for a chat, if anything of Brody's has been touched or is missing from Jeff's house make sure Yous know how to hide cause I will visit every location to collect if it is missing and believe me when I say EVERY location. I have a lot of hatred for you but never thought you'd lag, you should just come meet up and go 1 v 1 with me."

1. Two days later, on 15 August 2021 at 7:11pm, you sent a text to Mr Holz: "on my way". At 7:17pm you called Mr Holz, and again at 8:03pm.
2. I pause here to note that on 15 August 2021 you were subject to a Firearms prohibition order; the order took effect on 7 April 2021 and expires 10 years later in 2031. Further, I also note that, as the respondent to two active intervention orders and other matters, you were a prohibited person pursuant to the

Firearms Act. 3. You were also on bail. (See summary charge 10 commit indictable offence while on bail as amended). 4. Back to the 15 August: At about 8:20pm that evening you drove a car; your passenger was Mr Holz; and in your possession was a firearm. 5. At that time, Mr Smith was home at his house in Michelle Drive. It is a residential street. Also at home was Mr Smith's pregnant partner Ms Spurrel and her two children aged 14 and 8. 6. The car you were driving pulled up at Mr Smith's driveway; the passenger side of the car closest to him; the front passenger window was open. You were both known to Mr Smith. 7. You leaned across your passenger and shouted out the window in Mr Smith's direction: "You're a dead dog." 8. Mr Holz took the home-made firearm and pointed it in the direction of Mr Smith who was at that time standing near his car. 9. Mr Holz discharged the firearm once in Mr Smith's direction. Mr Smith saw a flash and heard pellets rain down on the front of his car, carport, and the bedroom window where his son was sleeping. (Charge 1 - possess firearm contrary to prohibition order and Charge 2 - Discharge firearm) 10. Mr Smith took cover behind his car door. He was uninjured. 11. You drove away. Mr Smith got into his car and drove after you - going only a short distance before deciding to return home to check on his family. 12. When Mr Smith got home, his partner Ms Spurrell was inside: her son, who was in the room with a window that was hit by the shot, was awake. The event was also witnessed by a neighbour. 13. A crime scene investigation found the following: the distance from the roadway to the front of Mr Smith's car was approximately 10.9 m. The front of Mr Smith's car had been struck by the spread of fired shot. Investigators concluded that the 'poor terminal performance' of the shot was probably because the weapon, and the ammunition used in it, were both of poor quality. 14. Subsequently, messages, calls, and location data were harvested from everyone's phones, some of which I have already referred to. 15. I have already noted you were on bail at the time of these events; it was revealed later you were not living at the address you had been bailed to, but rather at an address of your own choosing. That gives rise to summary Charge 11 - contravening a conduct condition of bail.

1. You were arrested on 17 August 2021, outside of a supermarket. Seized from you on your arrest was a small wooden baseball bat with a black handle and screws inserted into the end, hidden in your jacket. (Related summary Charge 9 - possess controlled weapon)
2. In your interview with police, you admitted that you had gone looking for Mr Smith the day before these events. You told police that you were hoping that if you showed up somewhere this would "sort of like scare him (Mr Smith) into giving Brodie's stuff back". You told police (falsely and for an unclear purpose) that

Mr Holz had been the driver of the car and you the passenger. You acknowledged your belief that the action of firing a shot could have led to someone's death. 3. You were charged and remanded.

1. Turning now to your personal circumstances. You are 27 years old; at the time of the offending, you were 26.
2. You were born in Melbourne; your parents also had two daughters, both older than you. You described living in a stable home where you grew up; and you now enjoy a close relationship with your parents and your siblings.
3. You lived with your family until you were 13-14 years of age, but by then your behavioural issues had brought you into conflict with your family, and you went to live with a school friend's family for a time.
4. You stayed at school until Year 10; you had struggled academically and did not thrive in that environment. After leaving school, you started work in the roof tiling trade, and over about a six-year period that is where you worked. Although you completed the practical components, your failure to finish the trade school component of the apprenticeship meant that you failed to fully qualify in the roof tiling trade.
5. You have had one significant adult relationship which lasted for seven years and from which a daughter, now seven years old, was born. You now have no contact with either your former partner or your daughter, and there is a current intervention order in place that protects them both. There is some suggestion that your former partner supports a variation of that intervention order to allow you to have contact with your daughter.
6. You have had a significant addiction to drugs of dependence for the best part of the last decade. Since 2018 you have not worked, and you have been living without any real structure. You have, during this time, laboured under a significant addiction to methamphetamine.

1. I now turn to the nature and gravity of your offending.
2. You committed these offences in the early evening, on a residential home in an ordinary suburb - from these facts you must have inferred, at least the very strong likelihood, that people would or could be in the house. It is not said that Mr Holz (and by extension you) fired at Mr Smith, but you did know he was there, and

Mr Holz discharged a shotgun in the direction of the premises, and of him. I note that the prosecutor conceded that there was no evidence that you had actual knowledge that Ms Spurrel and her children were home at the time. 3. You were the driver and not the shooter, but you are criminally responsible for the shot fired from the car. I do regard your culpability as a little lower than Mr Holz on that front; however, you were subject to a Firearms Prohibition Order at the time the weapon was discharged in the direction of Mr Smith. Messages from before these events show that you were not a 'passive actor here, you were well and truly engaged. I refer in particular to the text message you sent on the 13 August at 11:36am: I have already quoted here the 'why'd you hang up champ' message. 4. This was not your fight. You had involved yourself in a conflict between two others; you, apparently had not been directly offended. You were a prohibited person during these events: this is precisely the conduct that the prohibition on your possession of a firearm sought to restrain. 5. Only a few months before these events, you had been in Court for possession of a firearm as a prohibited person; notwithstanding the prosecution concession that you had no actual knowledge of the family inside the house, your counsel on the plea accepted that in the end the offending was rendered more serious by reason of the residential status of the building and that children were present. 6. I regard this as very grave offending on both Charges 1 and 2. I will deal with the need to avoid double punishment later in these reasons and I note that you are not charged with and will not be sentenced for possession of ammunition. 7. Notwithstanding your slightly more passive role as the driver of the car, I regard your culpability as high. With the recent prior conviction, on bail for other offending, you turn up with a home-made firearm and discharge it apparently in aid of rectifying somebody else's minor property dispute. What you did was outrageous. 8. Moreover, you were placed on conditional bail on 15 June 2021; you committed these offences while on that bail. You saw fit to reside at some other address other than the one that the order imposed on you.

1. I have had regard to the victim impact statement of Shelly Spurrell, Charlie Nelsson and Elijah Smith, as well as the one authored by Mr Smith. I make it clear that I am not sentencing on the basis of any previous threats made nor on the basis that Mr Smith's baseball cap was knocked off by the passing pellets fired in his direction.
2. Predictably and understandably, the victims of your offending were left shocked, anxious, and with a feeling of danger infusing their lives. The nine-year-old circled both the 'sad' and 'scared' faces on the VIS form. The family were separated after these events; the mother, Ms Spurrell moved into temporary accommodation with her children. The children were then, and remain, anxious. They worried about their father and their dog while they were gone. They missed school days; they do not feel as they should feel at home, being comfortable and secure. You have taken that feeling from them, at least for now. I take the impact of your offending on them into account in this sentence.

1. You have an enduring criminal record, and highly relevant prior convictions, including the conviction for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, and the possession of cartridge ammunition without a permit, dealt with in court on 22 February 2021, for which you received aggregate term of 120 days' imprisonment. That is very close in time to this offending. I take into account your prior history; it informs, in particular my assessment of the prospects for your rehabilitation and for the requirement for specific deterrence, about which I will say more in a moment.

1. First, your plea of guilty. This was an early plea entered at committal mention stage, it is objectively valuable. Witnesses were spared the anxiety and distress of giving evidence in court, and that is important, and I take it into account.
2. At any time, your plea would be acknowledged as delivering a strong utilitarian benefit to the community; but at this time, when the backlog of cases awaiting trial threatens the proper administration of justice in Victoria, your plea demands an additional and palpable benefit and I make it clear to you that were it not for this factor your sentence would have been significantly more stern than the one that I will impose today.
3. Your plea also does, I accept, indicate your acceptance of responsibility. You made admissions to the police, and I accept that your cooperation does, to some degree, reflect your remorse.

1. After your lawyers became concerned that you may suffer from some neurological dysfunction, you were assessed by Dr Linda Borg, neurologist. In the end, Dr Borg's report has little work to do legally, and your counsel did not submit otherwise. Briefly, the results of the testing Dr Borg undertook were unusable because they exhibited a range of unusual response patterns related to measuring effort. It is sufficient to say that early concerns about head injury or neurological disfunction were not borne out. In Dr Borg's opinion, you do not present with any neuropsychological, neurodevelopmental or mental health conditions. She noted some elevated levels of depression and anxiety. Your counsel did not press 'Verdins' submissions, or indeed anything to emerge from Dr Borg's report.

1. I accept that you are, to a degree, remorseful, indicated by your guilty plea and your co-operation with police, and that you made admissions to almost everything, except for saying you were the passenger, not the driver. This assertion was neither true, nor, in fact, mitigating in the circumstances.

1. Your mother and sister and a family friend wrote references that indicate their enduring affection and support for you; I have taken their contents into account. Your counsel acknowledged, appropriately, that there is some disjunction between the person your family members describe and the one who appears in a car with a loaded weapon in the prosecution opening. Your mother describes your involvement with the drug scene and how your ice use has had a radical impact on you. It is clear that at the time of this offending you had regular methamphetamine use: approximately 1 g per day. It is clearly a complete scourge on your existence.
2. Your barrister submitted that your rehabilitation hinges entirely upon your decision to, and capacity to, cease your use of methyl-amphetamine. For now, you retain the very great affection and support of your family; not everyone in your situation can say that. It is clear that you would have their support in your confronting this addiction, however, ultimately the decision is yours and given this offending and your prior history I accept what was conceded on your plea, which is that your prospects for rehabilitation at this time, seen in context, must realistically be assessed as 'guarded.'

1. The measures taken to limit the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the custodial environment have been in place since your remand and will continue for some time. I accept that this will make the burden of your imprisonment more onerous and more uncertain, and I take that into account.
2. Moreover, I accept that your current incarceration is made more difficult by knowing of your father's frail health, and the possibility of you not seeing him while at liberty again looms over you, and also knowing that you are one of the causes of your father's suffering. I take this impact on you into account in this sentence.

1. Turning now to the principles that I must have regard to on sentence.
2. It was uncontroversial that in this sentence the need for both general and specific deterrence is very great. Your persistence in the firearms possession offending in the face of a very recent conviction in the Magistrates' Court in February 2022, just 6 months earlier, underlines how important it is that this sentence be set at a level which might actually deter you, specifically, from doing this again.
3. The need for general deterrence to take a front seat in this sentence is also clear, and in relation to both charges. The power to make a Firearms Prohibition Order is conferred for the protection of the public. In

Chief Commissioner of Police v Websdale the Court said:

[T]he public interest to which these provisions were directed was the public interest in keeping the community safe from firearms-related violence. This is, in other words, a power conferred - and exercisable - for the promotion and maintenance of 'public safety and peace'.[1]

1. In the very recent decision of Bruce v The Queen, the Court of Appeal said:

As to general deterrence, the purpose of the Firearms Protection Order scheme is to promote community safety by ensuring that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.16 It is of the first importance that the sentences imposed for possessing firearms in breach of an Firearms Protection Order are set at a level which will send a strong message to others who might be tempted to disregard an Firearms Prohibition Order to which they are subject. In furtherance of that purpose, I am obliged to sentence you in a way that reflects the community's interests in people in your category not possessing firearms, and, sending a message to others who consider breaching their firearms prohibition orders.[2]

1. You must also be punished for what you did: your purpose was clearly to terrify

Mr Smith, and you did that, and much more. Through this sentence the Court denounces as entirely unacceptable the seriously dangerous conduct that you engaged in.

1. Authority makes it clear that while you are to be liable for two offences on the indictment (and the related summary offences), to the extent that those two indictable offences overlap you are not liable to be doubly punished.[3] Here, the 'ongoing criminal activity' referred to in some of the cases[4] is given specific expression in the form of Charge 2, for which you will be sentenced. I do not place your firearm possession charge into what has been called 'the more serious category'[5] having taken it into account in my assessment of the gravity of

Charge 2. 2. It is clear that the offence of possession a firearm and its discharge overlap to a significant degree; however, there is to be some cumulation between the two charges because of the additional culpability that inheres in the fact that you were subject to a prohibition order during the time you possessed the weapon that was ultimately discharged in the act giving rise to Charge 2. The focus of the

Firearms Prohibition Order offence, as the Court of Appeal has recently articulated, is on the offender's disobedience of the order of the prohibition to which he/she is subject.[6] Charge 1, I note, was complete, before Charge 2's acts began.[7] In sentencing you for Charge 1, I will, however, take into account the need for specific deterrence; this will increase the sentence on that charge, and is consistent with what the Court said in Berichon as to 'the previous criminal history (...) warrant(ing) a more substantial sentence'.[8]

1. I have had regard to other sentences imposed by other Courts for charges in these categories. My task though is to do individualised justice and no case is exactly like yours, but I take into account the general sentencing landscape for these offences.

1. Both parties submitted that this was a case that required the imposition of a head sentence with a non-parole period, and this is clearly the only formulation of sentence open to me.

(a) On Charge 1: possess firearm while subject to Firearm Prohibition Order, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. > > (b) On Charge 2: discharge a firearm at premises with reckless disregard for safety, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' and eight months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence. > > (c) On each of the related summary offences 9, 10 and 11 you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment on each of these three charges. > > (d) I direct that eight months of the sentence on Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon the sentence on Charge 2; all other sentences are to be served concurrently, making a total effective sentence of five years' and four months. > > (e) I fix a non-parole period of three years' and six months.

1. I declare that, had you not pleaded guilty but been found guilty by a jury, I would have imposed on you a head sentence of seven years with a non-parole period of four years' and six months.

1. Forfeiture - baseball bat automatically forfeited per s 9(1) Control of Weapons Act, unless ordered to be returned to the accused.

Are there any other ancillary orders sought, I'm yet to declare pre-sentence detention?

1. MR RACHAGAN: No, Your Honour, no ancillary orders.
2. HER HONOUR: No other ancillary orders. And I declare, and I'll hear the parties on whether this is an accurate statement, but I declare 283 days pre-sentence detention already served. Is that correct, counsel?
3. MS ZAYDAN: That is correct, Your Honour, thank you.
4. HER HONOUR: Mr Prosecutor?
5. MR RACHAGAN: Yes, Your Honour.
6. HER HONOUR: Thank you.
7. HER HONOUR: That completes this matter, and we'll adjourn until Monday. Thank you.

[1] [2019] VSCA 305, [35] (Maxwell P, Tate, and Niall JJA).

[2] Bruce v The Queen [2022] VSCA 100, [39] ('Bruce v The Queen').

[3] Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 51; Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610.

[4] Berichon v R [2013] VSCA 319; (2013) 40 VR 490, [26] ('Berichon').

[5] R v Graham [2007] VSCA 252.

[7] See DPP v Garoski [2018] VSCA 332, [34].