STATE OF TASMANIA v JAMIE DEAN SHARMAN 9 OCTOBER 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Mr Sharman, a jury has found you guilty of one count of persistent family violence. In addition to being sentenced for that crime, the prosecution has made application to have you declared a dangerous criminal, pursuant to s 4 of the Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021. I shall return to that application in due course. As to sentence for the crime of persistent family violence, the determination of the factual basis for sentence is a matter for me. However, there are several necessary implications that flow from the jury’s verdict. Firstly, the jury could only have returned a verdict of guilty of this crime if satisfied that your relationship with the complainant constituted a significant relationship. This was a matter that was in issue in the trial.
You and the complainant met in January 2022. Within a few days, you were living at the complainant’s residence at least three to four days per week. In February 2022, there was a break in the relationship for a period of about three weeks. During that time, the complainant obtained a restraining order in respect to you, but by late February, the relationship had resumed. Between then and 9 April 2022, you and the complainant essentially lived together, spent most of your time together, except when the complainant was at work, shared a sexual relationship and were seen as a couple.
It is also clear from the jury’s verdict that the jury accepted the evidence of the complainant, that during the life of the relationship, you perpetrated a course of serious family violence upon her. The violence seems to have stemmed from your severely disturbed personality functioning (a subject I shall return to) which manifests in you displaying highly jealous behaviours, being extremely controlling and domineering, with a propensity to use threats of violence and actual violence to coerce, frighten and punish your intimate partners. During the life of the relationship with the complainant, you regularly utilised threatening conduct and unrestrained violence – both physical and sexual – to control and punish her. The threatening conduct included the deliberate destruction or damage of the complainant’s property in front of her, and the deliberate isolation of her from friends and family. The jury clearly accepted the accuracy and honesty of the complainant’s testimony and I also accept her testimony. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you perpetrated each of the unlawful family violence acts as described by her.
There were six separate occasions of family violence perpetrated by you during a relatively short period within the relationship. The first act of violence occurred on 5 April 2022. On this occasion, you and the complainant were in bed together. You woke her up at approximately 2.00am by shaking her foot. You then began to yell at her and placed her phone in front of her face, questioning her as to why she had certain people as friends on a social media platform. You accused her of infidelity. You drew your fist back and threatened to punch her and break her jaw. You took her phone and broke it by throwing it and twisting it, before placing it into the microwave. The phone was destroyed. I am satisfied you did this not only to frighten and control the complainant but also to ensure she was unable to contact family or friends. The complainant followed you to the kitchen area. You continued to yell at her. She was sitting on the couch at one point. You approached her and punched her several times to the head and body. She gave evidence of being punched twice in the head and three times to the leg. You also took hold of a pair of scissors and held them up to her ear. You threatened to cut her ear off. You took hold of her hair and pulled her head back, forcefully. The punches to the head were hard and the complainant felt dazed. The complainant was petrified. Whilst this was occurring, the complainant’s young autistic son was in bed, in the house. The son was aged seven. There is no suggestion the son witnessed this violence but the fact you were willing to take the chance he may awaken and be exposed to it, speaks to the intensity of your anger and jealousy and your moral culpability.
The second incident of family violence occurred the following day. You and the complainant were in a motor vehicle, driving. You grabbed hold of the steering wheel and tried to steer the car into oncoming traffic, whilst saying to her that she should, “get into a car accident”. The complainant was able to apply the brakes and stop the vehicle before there was any collision, but she was genuinely concerned that you were going to cause a serious motor vehicle accident.
Later that same day, the complainant purchased a new mobile phone. Soon after, you destroyed the phone by throwing it onto the front steps at the residence and stomping on it. You did this because the complainant had downloaded social media platforms onto the phone and in an act of jealousy and control, you did not want her communicating with anyone via social media.
The following day, Thursday, 7 April 2022, you and the complainant were at home. A neighbour, who was also a friend of the complainant’s, visited. You insisted the complainant tell the neighbour that she had slept with her partner. This was not true. The complainant told the neighbour this in any event because she feared you would assault her if she did not. I am satisfied the reason you insisted the complainant tell the neighbour this lie is because it would inevitably have the effect of ending the friendship and isolating her from her neighbour. Part of your controlling behaviour was to isolate the complainant from her family and friends. In this way, there was less prospect that she would complain to others about what you were doing to her, and your violence would remain undetected.
That evening, you were smoking cannabis in the shed at the house. You insisted the complainant smoke some also. You told her it would relax her. She was reluctant to consume it. You told her if she smoked it, you would not insist on having sex with her. Later that evening, however, you told the complainant you wanted to have sex. She did not want to do so. You told her that she was your puppet and she had to do what you wanted her to. You made her get naked and lay on the bed. You put your teeth near the complainant’s clitoris and nipples and told her that you could bite them off. You were squeezing her around the ribs. You made the complainant have penile vaginal sexual intercourse with you. She did not want to but feared what would happen if she did not, given you had threatened to bite her body parts and squeezed her ribs. This was an act of rape.
The next incident occurred the following day, on 8 April 2022. On this occasion, the complainant’s young son was again at the home. He was in the lounge room. You insisted the complainant go to the bedroom. You took with you a baseball bat. When you got to the bedroom, you took your shirt off and started hitting yourself with the baseball bat. You then gave the complainant the bat and told her she had to hit you with it so that you could take photos of yourself and then show the police and tell them that she had caused those injuries to you. The complainant tried to comply with your demands but could not hold the bat properly. You took the bat from her and then used it to hit her on either side of the ribs. You also punched her to the ribs and punched her to the head twice. You punched her to each foot and used your palm to push the end of her toes down forcefully whilst they were hanging over the edge of a wooden bed frame. Later that day, you insisted the complainant kiss the marks that were on your body to make them feel better.
The following day, Saturday 9 April, you told the complainant to go to the bedroom and remove her nipple piercings or you would cut them out. She went to the bedroom, and you followed her. You had with you a pair of pliers. The complainant removed her nipple piercings, and you used the pliers to cut them up. You then held the pliers to her ear and told her that if she made a noise, you would cut her ear off. You told her to remove her clothing and get onto the bed. She did so. You placed the blade of the pliers either side of her clitoris and threatened to cut it off. You then placed the blades of the pliers onto her nipple and again threatened to cut it off. The complainant’s son, who was at home, knocked on the bedroom door twice. The complainant kept telling him to wait and that she would be out in a minute. This must have added to her distress. You took some sex toys belonging to the complainant and cut them up. This incident came to an end when there was a knock on the door and it was the complainant’s mother.
The complainant’s mother had attended the house to invite the complainant to go to lunch with her. You told her not to go. The complainant, under the pretence of getting some clothes for her son, was able to go to the child’s bedroom with her mother and was able to write triple zero in the felt material which was on top of the dresser. She told her mother not to say anything out loud in case you heard it, but fortunately her mother understood the danger and insisted the complainant accompany her for lunch. Obviously concerned that your abhorrent behaviour would be exposed, you continued to plead with the complainant not to leave. She did leave and disclosed to her family what had been occurring. The matter was reported to police later that day.
There is no question that your behaviour towards the complainant was appalling. Not only did you cause her physical harm, but you treated her in a degrading, humiliating and belittling fashion. You sexually assaulted her and subjugated her right to be treated with decency and respect for your own sexual gratification. Your behaviour was cruel and callous and directed towards controlling and isolating the complaint. The complainant has been terribly affected by your crimes. I have carefully considered the impact statement she provided. It is a detailed description of the devastating effects your crimes have had upon her and her child.
Her life has been deeply, and perhaps permanently, damaged. She still experiences some pain from her physical injuries. She is constantly scared and worried that you will return and cause further harm. She is fearful of leaving the house. She experiences vivid flashbacks and nightmares and is beset by anxiety and self doubt. She is hypervigilant and no longer trusts others. Her self-esteem has been profoundly affected and she blames herself for what happened because she went back to you. She feels a great sense of guilt at exposing her son to your violence. Her son has required counselling because he too was badly affected by what he heard in the house.
It is an aggravating feature of your crime that much of the violence occurred whilst a young, child was in the house. Whilst there is no evidence that he saw any of the violence, he obviously heard it, and he heard his mother yelling for you to stop. It is now well understood that exposing young children to family violence during their formative years can, and often does, have a significant adverse impact upon their development and psychological well-being.
You are now 26 years of age having been born on 2 August 1998. You were 23 when these crimes were committed. You have a significant criminal history. You were first before the courts in 2010, when you were 11 years of age, for matters of dishonesty. Then, in December 2014, you were dealt with in the Youth Justice Court for two matters of common assault. These related to assaults upon a female with whom you were in a relationship. You were released without conviction on conditions.
On 19 May 2016, when you were 17 years of age, you were convicted of wounding and common assault. You were made the subject of a probation order for a 12-month period. This matter involved you intervening in a fight in which your father was involved. You struck your father’s assailant on the head with a meat cleaver.
Most significantly, on 1 December 2017, you were sentenced by this Court for 11 counts of assault and nine counts of wounding. The victims of those crimes were two young females, aged 15 and 16, with whom, at separate times, you were in an intimate relationship. I have had regard to the Comments on Passing Sentence of Porter AJ. There are some disturbing similarities between those crimes and the matters for which I am sentencing you.
In late 2016 and early 2017, you were in an intimate relationship with each of the females for a few months. The victims stayed in a shed in which you were living at your parents’ property. You inflicted injuries upon each of them, using various implements and weapons, including knives, nails, hammer, a pen and a wire brush. You also threatened to burn one of your victims after pouring methylated spirits onto her. You prevented your victims from leaving the residence and would resort to dragging them back if they did try to leave. You threatened to kill them. You cut them with knives. Your abuse of your victims was almost daily. You stabbed one of your victims with a pair of scissors to the leg. You also threatened to cut one of your victim’s clitoris with a pair of scissors.
It is trite to say that you are not to be re-sentenced for your prior convictions but they are, of course, relevant to the question of specific deterrence, and also relevant to the application that is before me.
In the Comments on Passing Sentence of Porter AJ, there is reference to a forensic psychological report from Dr Rouse, dated 22 November 2017. I have read and considered that report. I have also read and considered a more recent forensic psychiatric report from Dr Rajan Darjee, dated 25 April 2024.
The two reports clearly set out a very deprived and violent childhood. The defendant was raised by his biological parents and has two older brothers. One of those brothers sexually abused the defendant when he was about three or four years of age. When this was reported to his parents, they “brushed it off”, but later when his father confronted the brother about it, it was punished by the infliction of violence upon the brother. It seems violence within the family home was relatively common and was the primary means used to settle issues within the family. Both parents drank a lot, used drugs and had mental health difficulties. It led to constant fights, verbal abuse and property damage. In short, the defendant’s upbringing was chaotic, dysfunctional, and devoid of appropriate guidance or support.
The defendant rarely attended school and when he did, he struggled. He was unable to complete the schoolwork and had few friends. He always felt incapable and like an outsider, which lead to bullying and fights. The defendant stopped going to school at all part way through year eight. At one point, when he was on a Youth Justice order, he attended some classes at TAFE but by and large he has had a minimal education. By the time the defendant was 12, he was using cannabis. Within a couple of years, his drug use escalated to many different forms of illicit substances and such use has continued into adulthood.
When the defendant was 12, he formed a relationship with a female who was a couple of years older than him and who was a half-cousin. A child was born of the relationship when the defendant was aged 14. That child was taken into care. The relationship lasted for about three years. There was aggression and violence within the relationship.
I turn now to consider the material relevant to the defendant’s personality contained in the two reports I have referenced. The 2017 report of Dr Rouse notes the defendant has traits of both anti-social and borderline personality disorder. The problematic personality traits display themselves as the defendant being distrustful of people and misperceiving their criticism as attacks on his character. He is prone to become angry and retaliates easily. He questions the loyalty of his acquaintances and friends, and the fidelity of his romantic partners. He is callous and unconcerned about the feelings and rights of others and is likely to be highly impulsive and reckless. Typically, he does not experience guilt, lacks remorse and is likely to lie and rationalise his behaviour. His mood is unstable and is prone to displaying inappropriate anger, and he has difficulty in controlling his emotions. The 2017 report assessed, accurately as it turns out, that the defendant’s risk of future violence is very high and there is a high risk that his behaviour could lead to serious, permanent injury or death of an intimate partner.
The 2024 report of Dr Darjee confirmed the diagnosis of personality disorder. That assessment indicates that the defendant meets the criteria for paranoid, borderline, anti-social and narcistic personality disorders. Additionally, Dr Darjee notes he has significant, obsessive, compulsive and histrionic traits. He also has some traits of avoidant and dependant personality disorders.
The various personality disorder criteria that the defendant meets, leads to a conclusion that the defendant suffers with a severe personality disorder, with significant negative effectivity, dis-sociality, antagonism and disinhibition. Problematic personality traits regularly displayed include suspiciousness, jealousy, being easily triggered to anger, aggressiveness, emotional instability, callousness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, separation insecurity, shallow emotional expression, and a need to be in control.
The psychiatric report of Dr Darjee also considered whether the defendant met the criteria for a paraphilic disorder, such as sexual sadism. The conclusion was that the defendant does not have sexual sadism disorder as there was no evidence he found the acts he committed sexually arousing. Rather, the defendant’s threats to mutilate the complainant’s genitals, nipples and his act of biting and threatening to bite parts of her body, was a manifestation of coercive control.
The opinion of Dr Darjee was “his cruel, controlling and violent behaviour towards intimate partners is not due to a paraphilic disorder, such as sexual sadism, but indicates a severe level of coercive control of his partners, which has its roots in his severely disturbed personality functioning”.
In terms of future risk considerations, Dr Darjee opined as follows: “In relation to both general violence and intimate partner violence, he is assessed as possessing a high risk. He has many historic risk factors, and his pattern of intimate partner violence is highly concerning across multiple relationships. If he was to get into another intimate relationship, it is highly likely that the patterns of behaviour with his last three victims would be repeated. So, there would be a serious risk of harm towards any future intimate partner”.
Further, Dr Darjee was of the opinion that if the defendant was in the community, he would require a high degree of monitoring and supervision so that professionals were aware of any intimate relationship that he had formed, and services could be put into place to prevent future harm to any intimate partner. Moreover, Dr Darjee is of the view that given the defendant’s severe personality disorder, and the high level of risk that he poses, treatment will need to be specialised and delivered in a manner that takes into account his severe personality disorder. The type of long term individualised intensive treatment the defendant requires, is unlikely to be available either within the prison service, or within the broader community in Tasmania. Even with intensive integrated and long-term interventions, there is no guarantee that they would be successful or effective, given the unusually high level of psychopathy and severe personality disorder displayed by the defendant.
The defendant has been in custody since 10 April 2022. To his credit, whilst he has been in custody he has undertaken a number of courses. He has successfully completed the resilience programme, known as Strong Not Tough. He has also been engaged as a peer mentor and has completed the Red Cross Peer Mentoring programme. I have a report from the operations manager of the Peer Support programme at Risdon Prison. It indicates the defendant is a very effective peer support worker and is well regarded in that role. Whilst in custody the defendant, who is an indigenous man, has been regularly engaging with the aboriginal liaison officer. I have a report from that officer. It indicates the defendant has engaged well in that process, and it confirms that he is also engaging well in the peer mentoring programme, and that his contributions to helping other prisoners are valued.
As noted, because of the seriousness of this offending and the defendant’s prior criminal history of committing violence against intimate partners, the prosecution have made application to have the defendant declared a dangerous criminal. Section 7 of the Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021 sets out the criteria relevant to such an application. I will not stay at this point to read the section, but it will appear in the published comments of this sentence.
“7 Declaration of dangerous criminal
(1) The Supreme Court may declare an offender to be a dangerous criminal if –
(a) an application under section 4(1) is made in relation to the offender; and
(b) the offender has been convicted of a crime, involving violence or an element of violence, that is specified in the application; and
(c) the offender –
(i) has not been sentenced for the crime specified in the application; or
(ii) is brought up for sentence for the crime specified in the application; or
(iii) is serving, or has been sentenced to serve, a custodial sentence in relation to the crime specified in the application (whether or not the sentence is being, or is to be, served concurrently with, or cumulatively on, another custodial sentence for another crime or offence); or
(iv) is serving, or has been sentenced to serve, a custodial sentence being served cumulatively on a custodial sentence for the crime to which subparagraph (iii) applies (whether or not the sentence is being served concurrently with, or cumulatively on, another custodial sentence for another crime or offence); and
(d) one of the following applies in relation to the offender:
(i) the offender has at least one conviction, for a crime involving violence or an element of violence, in addition to the conviction for the crime specified in the application;
(ii) the crime specified in the application comprises multiple unlawful acts involving violence or an element of violence; and
(e) the offender has apparently attained the age of 17 years; and
(f) the Court is satisfied that the offender is, at the time when the declaration is made, a serious danger to the community; and
(g) the Court has sentenced, or intends to sentence, the offender to a term of imprisonment for the crime to which the application relates.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the Supreme Court must, in determining whether it is satisfied that an offender is a serious danger to the community, consider –
(a) whether the nature and circumstances of each offence, involving violence or an element of violence, for which the offender has been convicted are such as to warrant the indefinite detention of the offender in accordance with this Part; and
(b) the offender’s antecedents, age and character; and
(c) the need to protect the community from the offender; and
(d) each report, in relation to the offender, that is before the Court, including any report by a psychiatrist, psychologist or medical practitioner or under the Corrections Act 1997; and
(e) the risk of the offender being a serious danger to the community if the offender is not imprisoned; and
(f) any other matters that the Supreme Court considers relevant.
(3) The DPP has the onus of proving that an offender is a serious danger to the community.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the Supreme Court may only be satisfied that an offender is a serious danger to the community if it is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender is a serious danger to the community.
(5) A reference in this section to an offender being a serious danger to the community includes a reference to the offender being a serious danger only to some members of the community.
(6) A reference in subsection (1)(d) to a conviction for a crime involving violence or an element of violence includes a reference to –
(a) any conviction for an offence, involving violence or an element of violence, against a law of this State, another State, a Territory or the Commonwealth; or
(b) any conviction for an offence, involving violence or an element of violence, against a law of this State, another State, a Territory or the Commonwealth, as a consequence of which a sentence is imposed by a court, on the committal of the accused to that court for sentence.”
The effect of a declaration is that the defendant will not be eligible for release from custody until the declaration is discharged (s 9(1)). That period may, of course, be beyond the expiry of any sentence. The making of a declaration also means the defendant cannot be released on parole until the declaration is discharged because of the operation of s 69 of the Corrections Act. This restriction on parole eligibility is relevant to the determination of an appropriate head sentence, and I intend to moderate the sentence I impose to some extent because of this. I also note the Director of Public Prosecutions must make an application for review of a Dangerous Criminal declaration within 12 months before the day in which all relevant custodial sentences in relation to the defendant have expired (s 10(2)(a)). Conversely, a defendant, who is a dangerous criminal, may only make an application to the Supreme Court for a review of the declaration if the review application is made after the determination of a review application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Supreme Court grants leave to the defendant to make the review application (s 10(3)(a)&(b)). As to the discharge or continuation of the declaration, the Court must make an order discharging the declaration if it is not satisfied to a high degree of probability, that the offender is still, at the time when the order is made, a serious danger to the community, or must refuse to make an order discharging the declaration if it is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender is still, at the time of refusing to make the order, a serious danger to the community. (s 15(1)(a)&(b)).
The approach to be taken to statutory provisions governing indeterminate sentences, is well established. The considerations which should inform the exercise of the discretion include that the power to authorise indefinite detention should be confined to “very exceptional cases, where the exercise of the power is demonstrably necessary to protect society from physical harm and there is a need for the court to be ‘clearly satisfied by cogent evidence that the convicted person is a constant danger of physical harm to the community'”. The power is to be exercised only in very exceptional cases. Proof of the commission of further crimes of violence does not need to be a certainty. The Court is required to assess the risk posed to the community by the offender being at large, and if there is a real likelihood the defendant will commit further offences of violence of a grave nature, a declaration may be appropriate. (see Director of Public Prosecutions v McIntosh [2013] TASSC 21).
In respect to this application there is no dispute that the criteria set out in ss 7(1)(a) – (e) of the Act are met. The issue is whether on the material, the Court is satisfied the defendant is a “serious danger” to the community. Of note, in the 2017 report of Dr Rouse, it was noted that the defendant had four out of the possible five risk management factors present and there were no suitable services available to the defendant within the community to manage such risks. Dr Rouse was of the view that the defendant would require an intensive level of monitoring and supervision within the community, given the entrenched and severe nature of his personality disorder, and his high risk of future violence. Such concerns were shown to be correct as within a relatively short period of time after being released from custody following the December 2017 sentence, the defendant committed the current offending, involving similar violent and controlling conduct against an intimate partner.
The 2024 report of Dr Darjee is very thorough and instructive. I also have had the benefit of hearing evidence from Dr Darjee on the dangerous criminal declaration application. His evidence was confirmatory of the material outlined in the report. Dr Darjee utilised both the DSM-5 model for personality disorders, and the new ICD-11 approach, in assessing the defendant. Based on the DSM-5 model, the defendant is assessed as having an extreme personality disorder where the available scale is mild, moderate, severe or extreme. Using the ICD-11 approach, the defendant is assessed as having a severe personality disorder where the scale is difficulty, mild disorder, moderate disorder or severe disorder. On either approach, the defendant has the most intense and entrenched form of personality disorder.
Further, Dr Darjee administered the psychopathy check list revised instrument during the assessment. This is an instrument used to assess specific aspects of personality dysfunction, which are considered to be characteristics of a proto-typical individual with psychopathy. The instrument tests across 20 items. Based on all of the available information, Dr Darjee assessed the defendant as having a total score of 30 out of 40, which he notes is a very high score for an offender in Australia.
Additionally, Dr Darjee administered two structured professional judgment risk assessment instruments, being the historical, clinical risk management-20 version 3, to assess the risk of violence generally and the spousal assault risk assessment version 3, to assess the risk of intimate partner assault. The results of the application of those risk assessment instruments led Dr Darjee to conclude:
“Overall, considering the risk he poses of general violence, if he was unsupervised in the community, there would be a high likelihood of him committing a violent offence, he would pose a moderate to high risk of causing serious physical harm, and violence would be considered moderately imminent. He would require a high degree of case prioritisation to prevent violence in the community. Non-intimate partner violence would likely be reactive in the context of him, or someone close to him, being threatened and he could use a weapon under such circumstances”.
As to the spousal assessment risk assessment, Dr Darjee concluded:
“Overall, if he was back in the community unsupervised, he would be highly likely to commit further intimate partner violence if he was in a relationship, as has been the case so far. This would have the potential to cause serious physical and psychological harm, and intimate partner violence would have to be considered imminent if he was in a relationship. He would require a high degree of case prioritisation to manage the risk he posed. In any future relationship, he is likely to act in a similar way as he has acted towards his last three victims”.
In summary then, Dr Darjee concluded:
“His personality disorder is rooted in the traits he inherited from his parents and his highly traumatic and dysfunctional childhood. His personality disorder underpins many of his relevant dynamic risk factors (such as emotional instability, violent attitudes, attitude towards partners, problems with insight, problems in intimate and non-intimate relationships, being jealous and controlling). He is predisposed towards offending, violence and intimate partner violence by these personality traits…
Jamie Sharman is assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm towards any female he forms an intimate relationship with. This risk is unlikely to diminish in the short to medium term. He has shown a concerning pattern of coercive control and intimate partner violence across at least three intimate relationships.
The risk he poses is underpinned by his severe personality disorder, meeting criteria for paranoid, borderline, anti-social and narcistic disorders, along with significant histrionic and obsessive, compulsive features. So, unsurprisingly he displays an unusually high level of psychopathy. He has also had a significant substance misuse disorder.
Psychological interventions may be of benefit in terms of improving his psychological functioning, reducing his risk of intimate partner violence and addressing his substance misuse. But these will need to be intensive, integrated and long-term interventions in Prison and in the community. However, there is no guarantee that appropriate interventions will be available or effective.
If he was back in the community soon there would need to be a high level of monitoring, supervision and restrictions, in the context of an inter-agency risk management plan, to prevent further similar behaviour towards an intimate partner”.
There is nothing before me to suggest the defendant has developed any insight into his offending. Indeed, he continues to minimise his behaviour and blame the complainant for what he has done. There is also nothing before me to suggest the defendant has any real insight or understanding into the nature and effect of his psychological functioning and behaviour. The theme of blaming others was present in the 2017 assessment and it remains present in the 2024 assessment.
I acknowledge that whilst the defendant has been in custody he has undertaken courses that are available to him and has obtained a position of responsibility but based on the comments on passing sentence of Porter AJ, it also appears that in 2017 when he was sentenced, he had done similar, and such did not result in any long term rehabilitative change. That is not surprising given the severe and entrenched nature of the defendant’s personality disorder and the intense and individualised treatment programme that Dr Darjee speaks of being required if the defendant is to make any improvement.
It is unlikely such a specific programme will be available to the defendant in the community, but equally it is unlikely such a programme will be available within the prison environment. This has troubled me as if I make the declaration, I am concerned as to what opportunity the defendant will have for treatment and therefore what opportunity he will have to satisfy the court into the future that he is no longer a serious danger to the community and therefore the declaration is no longer warranted. Of course, the concern as to the availability of appropriate treatment exists both within and outside of a custodial setting, and the need for such specialised treatment really highlights the intense and entrenched nature of the defendant’s personality disorder. The enduring, static and intractable nature of his personality disorder weigh heavily on the question of the risk the defendant will pose to the community, and particularly any future intimate partner, if he was to be released.
The defendant’s history of offending is also a significant consideration. His history reveals a propensity to commit serious crimes of violence against intimate partners. There has also been, in my assessment, an escalation in his offending. During the relationship with this complainant, he raped her. An increase in his want to blame others, and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions, is also apparent. That suggests the defendant has not yet developed the insight, maturity or desire to embark upon a process of reform.
I bear in mind the defendant’s age and the fact I am about to impose upon him a substantial period of imprisonment. The potential for that sentence to operate as a deterrent from committing further acts of violence in the future must be considered in assessing the need for the declaration. The defendant has not previously received such a lengthy period of imprisonment but given the complexities of the defendant’s personality disorder and his serious violent offending, I do not consider that factor alone sufficiently guards against future community risk.
In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant is a serious danger to the community, and I should take the extraordinary step of making the declaration sought.
I make the following orders:
Jamie Dean Sharman, you are convicted of the crime of persistent family violence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 7 years commencing 10 April 2022. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 4 years of that sentence, although I note eligibility for parole cannot arise whilst the dangerous criminal declaration is operative.
Pursuant to s 13A of the Family Violence Act I direct this crime be recorded on your criminal record as a family violence offence. Pursuant to s 29A of the same Act, I declare you to be a serial family violence perpetrator. This declaration will remain in effect for a period of 5 years. That is the maximum time permitted under the legislation.
Pursuant to s 36 of the Family Violence Act, I make a Family Violence Order in favour of [name suppressed]. The order will remain in force until it is varied or revoked by a court of competent jurisdiction. The order will be in the following terms:
- You must not stalk [name suppressed].
- You must not directly or indirectly threaten, abuse or assault [name suppressed].
- You must not be within 50 metres of, or contact, directly or indirectly, including by any form of electronic or other communication, including any social media platform, [name suppressed].
- You must not knowingly go within 1000 metres of any premises where [name suppressed] is presently living, or any other place where [name suppressed] may from time to time be living or staying.
- You must not damage any personal or other property owned or possessed by [name suppressed].
- I order that the usual firearms conditions will apply to this order.
I make an order under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, directing that the Registrar cause your name to be placed on the register and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period of 10 years following your ultimate release from custody.
Pursuant to s 7 of the Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021, I declare Jamie Dean Sharman is a dangerous criminal.