Subjective Circumstances
25The offender gave evidence at the sentencing hearing and testified to the truth of his history as provided to experts and also testified as to his remorse. I will deal with remorse slightly later, and set out his subjective circumstances from the report of Lia McInnes, Psychologist, of Duffy Robilliard Psychologists (Exhibit 1).
26The offender, who is of Aboriginal descent and obviously so, was adopted by Caucasian parents, at six weeks of age. There is no evidence that this was part of any social policy. Rather it was an adoption in the ordinary course. Not that the latter aspect would, of itself, have any substantial impact on sentencing.
27Until nine years of age, his upbringing and early childhood was "normal" and supportive. The young Mr Lewis was not cognisant of differences in his colour from that of his parents. At nine, his colour was the subject of comment in the schoolyard, including the difference in colour between Mr Lewis and his parents. On relaying this issue, his parents, for the first time, informed him of his adoption and of the process thereof.
28In 1994, whilst in prison at approximately eighteen years of age, Mr Lewis met his birth mother. She died in 1997. Mr Lewis has met his biological father only once. The biological father seemed disinterested in him and the family. He considers his adoptive parents as his mother and father. Mr Lewis did, however, after gaining information from his biological father, make contact with his five siblings with whom he has had semi-regular contact.
29After the schoolyard incident at age nine, Mr Lewis commenced a rebellious period. He was unaware of any other Aboriginal youth in his area. While he acknowledges the acceptance and love of his parents, he searched for other Aboriginal people, thinking he would "fit in" with them. He formed negative associates and negative lifestyle practices.
30Mr Lewis was thereafter easily influenced by other Aboriginal youth and commenced antisocial behaviour. To the extent he continued school, he was the only "non-white" student and was called names referring to his colour, which became nasty as he aged. His early education was successful in primary school but the above circumstances eventually took a toll on him; schooling suffered; and he dropped out at Year 9.
31The new associations formed in Mr Lewis' quest for inclusion exposed him to a life hitherto foreign to him of drugs, alcohol, violence, abuse and criminal activity, which led, it seems, to his downfall.
32Mr Lewis has had limited involvement in employment and has had one significant relationship, which Mr Lewis regards as generally positive, punctuated as it was, with periods of incarceration. He has two children with this person and considers, subject to prison, the prospects of a continuing relationship with his children and their mother relatively positive.
33Subject to what may follow, there are no substantial issues relating to mental health, except as to the effect of alcohol and drug abuse and dependence. Mr Lewis is of average intelligence, measured since his latest imprisonment.
34Lastly I deal with remorse and rehabilitation. Mr Lewis has completed Years 10 and 11 of his schooling while in prison. He describes his children, and the possibility of a positive relationship with them, as his motivation to progress. His prison history discloses a positive effect of cultural programs providing him with role models from within the Aboriginal community.
35In his evidence, he referred to the shame he felt at his conduct and, in particular, that he could not put his parents through the shame of attending the court hearing. His expression of remorse during evidence was profound and genuine, bringing Mr Lewis to tears or almost to tears.
36Prior to this offence, and despite a criminal history bearing the hallmarks of drugs, Mr Lewis had been violence free for some thirteen years. I consider he has positive prospects for rehabilitation. That assessment is guarded, as was the assessment of the psychologist. In my view, his prospects improve markedly if he is treated appropriately in custody and supervised appropriately for an extended period in the community.
37The offender (or more accurately his counsel) seeks to rely on the principles summarised by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58. See the High Court judgment in R v Bugmy [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 at [18] and [36]-[43]. This is not a traditional Fernando case. Those principles are well known and I will not now repeat them. They largely deal with persons, whether Aboriginal or otherwise, from a deprived background where abuse of alcohol and physical abuse are accepted norms of conduct.
38The offender's exposure to such an environment really results, as earlier stated, from his attempt to find a peer group arising from his exclusion from social groups at school and in his neighbourhood. It does not reflect his home environment. Nevertheless, there are analogies.
39More to the point seem to be the factors of social exclusion referred to by Professor Baumeister and on which the offender relied in his further supplementary submission.
40In a most helpful submission, aided by an equally helpful Crown submission, Mr Bruce SC cited some passages from the Baumeister studies. The Crown acknowledged its possible application, at page 7 of its supplementary Crown submissions, in the following terms:
"It is accepted that the evidentiary material provides the court with some bases to conclude that the offender did suffer social exclusion in his formative years. From the Baumeister Study it would appear that the offender's reaction to social exclusion by connecting with his cultural peers and resorting to an antisocial lifestyle marked by alcohol and drug abuse, violence and criminality was expected and possibly inevitable."
41The thesis of Professor Baumeister can be summarised in the following passage and I apologise for citing it at length. In R.F. Baumeister & C.N DeWall, "The Inner Dimension of Social Exclusion: Intelligent Thought and Self-Regulation Among Rejected Persons" (2005) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 888, 589-504, the authors remarked:
"It is easy to propose how people ideally or optimally would respond to social exclusion. They ought to redouble their efforts to secure acceptance. Toward that end, they should reduce their aggressive and antisocial tendencies and increase prosocial behaviour. They should improve at self-regulation so as to perform more socially desirable actions. And even if improved social acceptance is not a promising option, they ought at least to become more thoughtful and intelligent and should avoid self-defeating behaviours, so as to fare better on their own if necessary. Yet our laboratory studies have found the opposite of all of these to be closer to the truth.
Initially we thought that emotional distress would be the central feature of the impact of social rejection, and all behavioural consequences would flow from this distress. This too has been disconfirmed. Across many studies we have found large behavioural effects but small and inconsistent emotional effects, and even when we did find significant differences in emotion these have failed to mediate the behaviours. Indeed, the sweeping failure of our emotion mediation theories has led us to question the role of emotion in causing behaviour generally (but that is another story).
Self-regulation and cognition, instead of emotion, have emerged from our most recent data as the most important inner processes to change in response to social exclusion. Rejected or excluded people exhibit poorer self-regulation in many spheres. They also show impairments in intelligent thought, though these are limited to forms of thought that are linked to self-regulation (that is, thinking processes that depend on effortful control by the self's executive functioning).
Nonetheless, the findings from this work have helped shed light on both the inner and outer responses to exclusion. They help illuminate why many troubled individuals may engage in maladaptive or seemingly self-destructive behaviours. They may also have relevance to the responses of groups to perceived exclusion from society as a whole. Although there are some exceptions, such as the intellectually vigorous culture maintained by Jews during the centuries of discrimination and ghettoization, many groups who felt excluded or rejected by society have shown patterns similar to those we find in our laboratory studies: High aggression, self-defeating behaviours, reduced prosocial contributions to society as a whole, poor performance in intellectual spheres, and impaired self-regulation. Our findings suggest that if modern societies can become more inclusive and tolerant, so that all groups feel they are welcome to belong, many broad social patterns of pathological and unhealthy behaviour could be reduced."
42See also, J.M Twenge, Baumeister, C.N DeWall, N Ciarocco, J.M Bartels, "Social Exclusion Decreases Social Behaviour" (2007) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56-66.
43It seems, in a similar manner to Fernando, such a factor, as that espoused by Professor Baumeister, may be used to mitigate or fashion an appropriate sentence, but not so as to impose a sentence that does not reflect the seriousness of the offence.