In early 2021 Ricky Munn, the offender now before the Court, chose to help dispose of the proceeds of a very serious crime. He was arrested in Victoria on 11 May 2021 and has been in custody ever since. When he was before the Local Court he pleaded guilty to an offence of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime; s 193B(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment.
Because the plea was indicated in the Local Court, I will reduce the otherwise appropriate sentence by 25% to recognise its utilitarian value.
There are agreed facts before the Court. They indicate that early in the morning on 10 February 2021 four men robbed a local opal dealer of gems worth approximately $500,000. One person was identified during the police investigation. A lawful telephone intercept was placed on his phone. That phone intercept indicates that Munn had taken possession of some of the opals, the proceeds of the robbery, and that he was making arrangements for their sale.
The offender travelled to Victoria. There he continued to make arrangements for the sale of the opals. He contacted a number of potential purchasers, negotiated sales and regularly reported back to his principal Alcock. Some of that reporting back is set out in the agreed facts. A message from Munn to Alcock on 3 May indicated "Okay brother I have a few meetings. This is hard work, people are bidding".
One of the deals proposed was apparently to exchange opals for drugs.
On the morning of 4 May 2021 some co-offenders met up with Munn in Melbourne. On 11 May a co-offender checked into apartments in St Kilda, police attended, and he was arrested. A large quantity of opals were found.
Munn was also arrested and business cards for opal dealers were found on him. Although he initially denied the offences, he entered a guilty plea in the Local Court.
Munn gave evidence today and was cross-examined. In his evidence he said that he did not take possession of all of the opals, but only had a sample with him. He said that the opals that were recovered were brought by the co‑offender to Melbourne. Ms Collison solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions, submits that a careful reading of the agreed facts and the telephone and text conversations gives a different impression.
Not every matter of fact can be resolved one way or the other on sentencing proceedings, particularly where there are agreed facts. What I am left with is a situation where due to good police work some of the proceeds of the robbery were recovered. It is accepted that there is no evidence linking this offender to the robbery itself.
There is however no agreement as to how many of the opals Munn had in his possession. I do not have to resolve that difference today.
But I still have to identify those matters which indicate the seriousness of the offence. In doing so I look at the manner of dealing, the level of planning and sophistication involved in such dealing, the underlying criminal conduct from which the proceeds were derived, the value or amount of the proceeds and any harm that may be occasioned: Ramos [2018] NSWCCA 206.
I do not have a Victim Impact Statement but its absence does not mitigate.
A robbery, a jewellery robbery, has no point unless the goods are converted to cash or other saleable commodities. That is why heavy penalties are imposed on those who seek to dispose of the proceeds of crime. Heavy penalties are imposed in an attempt to deter them and others who might be tempted to act in a similar criminal way.
I accept that there is no evidence that Munn was involved in the robbery, but he was trusted with some of the proceeds. He played an integral but subsidiary role. He took some of the goods interstate and provided a haven for them interstate. He took a series of active acts and engaged in a number of transactions over about two weeks. A sum of $300,000 was mentioned at one stage.
All of those matters indicate a deliberate engagement in criminality and call for a custodial sentence. The amounts, the dealings and the obvious fact that he was dealing in a large quantity of jewellery all increase the seriousness of the matter and must be taken into account. It is not necessary I identify where this lay on any notional scale of seriousness of offences. It is accepted that a custodial sentence of some length has to be imposed in order to exact just retribution and to bring home to this offender and others who might be tempted to involve themselves in a crime such as this the consequences of doing so.
In that regard I take into account the maximum penalty of 15 years. It is one important guide to the exercise of my sentencing discretion.
The offender has been in custody since 11 May 2021 both in Victoria and following his extradition, in New South Wales. He has served his time in custody during the pandemic. He caught COVID and was put in a special facility that did not appear to be conducive to his recovery or the treatment of a serious disease.
Corrective Service NSW are doing what they can, but what they have been able to do has meant that prisoners, such as Munn, are subject to lengthy periods of quarantine. There is evidence he spent at least 60 days in isolation. There has been no contact with family through direct visits, although AVL facilities have been expanded. Due to COVID there is little opportunity to work or engage in programs. But this offender was able to work as a wing sweeper at Parklea. He has now moved to South Coast Correctional Centre. And, it would appear that things are looking up so far as his prospects for programs or education are concerned.
He is not a first offender. He has been regularly before the courts since he was a child. He is not entitled to the leniency given to many without such a criminal record. He has offended in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. There are outstanding warrants in Queensland. Primarily, his offending appears to be damage to property matters. He says he is a graffiti "artist" rather than a "tagger." But throughout his young life he has shown little respect for the property of others and damaged other's property with the consequences. He has gone to gaol on many occasions for graffiti offences.
In his evidence today Munn said that he had, after his release from gaol in 2019, moved to Victoria. There with the assistance of his partner, who also gave evidence today, he took up a law-abiding lifestyle. He said he was making some progress. However, he came back to Wollongong in December 2020. He soon after engaged with old and new criminal associates. He took up illicit drug use, particularly methamphetamine. He couldn't return to Victoria, possibly because of COVID restrictions, and ended up becoming involved in crime.
When he returned to Victoria, he was still using methylamphetamine. He was arrested with some of that drug in his possession. And earlier graffiti or damage property charges from Victoria caught up with him.
In his subjective case I have the benefit of a report from Ms Sears and the evidence of Mr Munn and his present partner.
Munn told me he is not getting any younger. He sees himself at a crossroads in his life. His partner has said that she will continue her support for him and has accommodation available for him. She will do what she can to support him unless he breaches the trust she has shown in him by returning to crime and drugs, particularly methylamphetamine.
Ms Seer's report details what is described as a "rough" childhood blighted by drugs and alcohol. There is evidence of childhood trauma, but he was not believed. Assaults of the sort detailed can have a profound and highly detrimental impact on a child. They are relevant by way of mitigation. I do not devalue the impact of assaults upon a child and the destructive capacity of such assaults to one's later maturity. They can help explain why this young person took up drug use and crime so young.
Munn went into DOCS' care and as a young person spent time in refuges, kids accommodation services and juvenile detention; where he claims further assaults were committed upon him. He spent time at a behavioural school and has been to TAFE.
He has never been able to settle as he has regularly been in and out of trouble; and in and out of gaol. He reports daily cannabis use and prescription drug use for most of his teens and 20s.
He told me he moved back to Wollongong for a visit because due to COVID he was unemployed. It was not a good move. His relationship with a pro-social partner did not prevent this offending.
I am also assisted by a Sentence Assessment Report. It notes that he regrets involvement in this crime. But it also notes that he minimises his criminal activity. The report says that he is now more "clear-headed" but he remains at a medium to high risk of reoffending.
His partner, in her evidence and her letter, told me of the support that she is prepared to give him. If he takes that support his prospects might be good. But I must be guarded.
Ms Sears in her report notes that he was not given the nurture or support or affection as a child that most in our community expect. Rather his life was blighted by instability and poverty, leaving him with a negative self-concept and at times a sense of hopelessness. She noted he has limited insight into his offending. She says in part this is due to his history of emotional and psychological neglect. He had had no real prosocial model until he met his partner and her friends in Melbourne.
Ms Sears notes some growing resilience and a capacity for self‑improvement. In her opinion he needs to engage first in drug prevention relapse programs. She notes that the Bridge Reintegration Centre in Richmond, Victoria provides a suitable program.
While he has shown no actual remorse for his involvement in such serious crime and displayed some attempt at minimisation, he did accept responsibility early and some insight and empathy was indicated; as best he could.
An offender who had the start in life that Munn did is not regarded by the law as bearing equal moral responsibility with someone who has had what might be termed a normal or advantaged upbringing. His background has left a mark. It has compromised his capacity to mature and learn from experience. Common sense and common humanity dictate that such a person will have fewer emotional resources to guide their behavioural decisions. That does not mean that he should bear no moral responsibility for his crime, but that background must be taken into account: Millwood v R [2012] NSWCCA 2. His moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in the way set out in the material before me: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37.
I have had the benefit of written and oral submissions from Ms Collison and Mr Kwan, solicitor, for the offender. Ms Collison notes, as the agreed facts indicate, Munn took an active, aware role. He made persistent attempts to dispose of the property, albeit unsuccessful as they were thwarted by comprehensive police work. She indicates that any assessments of Munn's prospects for the future would be guarded, and I agree with that submission.
Mr Kwan says that this offending falls at the low end of objective seriousness. I do not agree with that assessment. The length of time he was involved and the number of actions that this offender took bring it out of that low level. But the other material as to his background is clearly established.
Munn has some important decisions to make. He can; take the support that has been offered by his partner, try and get some additional education, engage in relapse prevention and establish a life for himself, possibly in Victoria, or he can give up with the consequence that he will probably commit further offences against the community. If he turns his back on a law abiding future, he could spend much of the rest of his life in gaol. While I do not undervalue the problems that he may face, given his background, that choice having been made has to be supported. This provides one reason for finding of special circumstances.
The Sentence Assessment Report is opaque as to whether it is necessary that he spend time in New South Wales before his parole can be transferred to Victoria. I would hope that during the balance of the custodial portion of his sentence arrangements can be made with the Victorian authorities so that on release he can be assisted in engaging in rehabilitation, accommodation and work in Victoria. I would trust both States authorities will do what they can to cooperate in that regard. This is not to pass a problem to Victoria; if Munn sticks to the promises that he has made those resources will be well spent. I am confident reciprocal arrangements can be made for those moving to Victoria from New South Wales.
Synthesising all those matters. The offender has had a long history of living outside the law without support. The genesis for those various problems I accept lies in a childhood subject to of deprivation and abuse; sometimes in institutions that were meant to protect young persons. He has an opportunity. Once before he turned his back on that opportunity and has involved himself in crime, serious crime. He will need help, but he must be further punished. I will take into account his early plea of guilty; I will take into account my finding of special circumstances. Had it not been for the plea of guilty a sentence in the range of three and a half years would have been imposed.
[2]
Orders
There will be a sentence in this matter of two years and seven months. The formal orders of the Court are that there will be a conviction. The minimum term will be one year and seven months. It will date from 11 May 2021. Munn will be eligible for consideration for release to parole on 10 December 2022. There will be a parole period of one year from that date. The sentence will expire on 10 December 2023
AUDIO VISUAL LINK CONCLUDED AT 11.37AM
[3]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 14 July 2022