Brain damage cuts court fine

By Michelle Herbison
A WOMAN’S brain damage lessened her punishment for possession of methamphetamine and stolen goods, a Geelong magistrate ruled this week.
Magistrate Michael Coghlan told Julie Hickleton, 31, of Jabone Tce, Bell Park, her $400 aggregate fine for possessing .1 grams of methamphetamine and a stolen trailer and air-conditioner would be “substantially different” from the penalty for co-accused Francois Dominique due to her mental capacity.
Hickleton had 40 per cent of her brain removed after a motor accident in 2000, the court heard.
“I’m satisfied there’s evidence you have little capacity to assess right from wrong. If I believed you’d taken steps to bring those (illegal items) to your possession I’d consider significant penalty,” Mr Coghlan said.
Police prosecutor Leading Senior Constable Geoff Lamb told the court police issued a search warrant at Hickleton’s Bell Park address on 26 August, finding a snap-lock bag containing the methamphetamine wedged in a couch.
“The accused was present at the address along with the co-accused, her boyfriend. She said ‘The amphetamine must’ve been left here by a previous housemate’,” Snr Const Lamb told the court.
Hickelton gave no explanation for possessing a white LG inverter split-system air-conditioner also found during the search, he said.
Hickelton’s mother and carer, Karen Hickelton, told the court from the witness box of her daughter’s brain injury and its change to her behaviour.
“Before the accident Julie had a career ahead of her. She was a hairdresser and an A-grade netballer,” Ms Hickleton said.
“She had a fine life and she knew the fine things in life.”
The accident “totally destroyed” her and she was now “very much alone”, Ms Hickleton said.
She told the court all of her daughter’s prior convictions followed the accident and were always in the company of men, including Mr Dominique.
“I think he’s a bad influence on Julie. I’ve asked both of them not to have the relationship.”
Mr Dominique was due to appear in court on similar charges at a later date.
Mr Coghlan stressed the co-accused had a “substantially different matter”, negating “any argument in relation to parity”.