Boase v Roberts - [2018] WASC 45

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: BOASE -v- ROBERTS [2018] WASC 45

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 12 DECEMBER 2017

DELIVERED : 12 DECEMBER 2017

PUBLISHED : 9 FEBRUARY 2018

FILE NO/S: SJA 1048 of 2017

BETWEEN: MARK CHRISTOPHER BOASE
Appellant
AND
ALYCE ROBERTS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE S DE MAIO
File No  :FR 2032 of 2017, FR 2035 of 2017, FR 2039 - 2040 of 2017, FR 2042 of 2017, FR 2889 of 2017, FR 2892 of 2017, FR 2894 - 2896 of 2017, FR 2898 of 2017, FR 2902 of 2017, FR 2904 of 2017, FR 2906 of 2017, FR 2908 of 2017, FR 2910 of 2017, FR 2912 of 2017, FR 2914 of 2017, FR 2916 of 2017, FR 2918 of 2017, FR 2920 - 2921 of 2017, FR 2923 of 2017, FR 2925 - 2927 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Multiple burglary offences - Commercial premises - Stealing of cars - Aggravated reckless driving to escape police pursuit - Totality principle -Whether total aggregate sentence of 4 years' imprisonment infringed totality principle

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms K C Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Anderson v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 167
BWE v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 197
Closter v Humphreys [2012] WASC 145
Fraser v The Queen [2003] WASCA 99
Hume v The Queen [2000] WASCA 306; (2000) 33 MVR 203
Kolek v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 180
Nolan v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 235
Pennetta v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 234
Ridley v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 45
Rodenburg‑Hill v WA Police [2009] WASC 330
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Tela v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 103
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82

HALL J: This application for leave to appeal against sentence was heard by me on 12 December 2017. At the conclusion of the hearing I refused leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal and gave brief oral reasons. I said that more detailed written reasons would be provided at a later date.
On 21 July 2017, the appellant was sentenced in the Fremantle Magistrates Court to a total effective sentence of 4 years' imprisonment in respect of 46 offences. The nature of those offences and the individual sentences imposed are set out in the table which is annexed to these reasons.
By an appeal notice filed on 22 August 2017, the appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The appeal notice was filed four days late. The appellant was unable to obtain legal aid and represented himself in the appeal. In the circumstances the delay was not great and an extension of time was granted.
There was a single ground of appeal, which in essence is that the total effective sentence of 4 years infringed the totality principle. The appellant relied on both limbs of the totality principle, that is he said that the total sentence was disproportionate to his offending and was also crushing.

The facts

The appellant pleaded guilty to all of the charges and the facts were admitted. The offences took place over an approximately six‑week period between 14 January 2017 and 23 February 2017.
On 14 January 2017, the appellant went to commercial premises in Henderson. He cut the chain from a gate in order to enter a yard and then forced entry to a donga containing various tools and work items. He stole property to the value of $6,600 and left the scene.
On 10 February 2017, police executed a search warrant and located various items in the possession of the appellant that were reasonably suspected to have been stolen. The property included tools and equipment stolen from two different premises at an earlier time. The two groups of property had a value of $8,991 and $43,573.74 respectively.
In the early hours of the morning of 15 February 2017, the appellant drove a vehicle to an automatic carwash facility. He used a grinder to grind the locks off a coin machine. He then forced the machine open with a crowbar and stole approximately $14. He was charged with criminal damage and stealing in respect of this incident.
In the early hours of the morning of 17 February 2017, the appellant went to a delicatessen in Baldivis. He smashed the front glass panel, reached inside and unlocked the door. Once inside, he used a grinder to remove a lock securing a cabinet containing cigarettes. He stole cigarettes to the value of $300.
In the early hours of the morning of 18 February 2017, the appellant, in company with another, attended a commercial premises in Jandakot. He used a grinder to remove the lock from the front gate and gained entry to a yard. He then forced open a rear loading door to gain access to a shop. He stole items including two laptops and cash to a total value of $1,300. There was also an unsuccessful attempt to grind off the hinges of a safe.
In the early hours of the morning of 20 February 2017, the appellant was again in company with another when he attended a shopping complex in North Coogee. He smashed the front glass window of a fish and chip shop, reached inside and unlocked the door. Once inside he stole a till containing approximately $300 in cash. He then moved on to another shop in the same shopping centre and again smashed glass in order to obtain entry. At the second premises he also stole a till containing cash, on this occasion approximately $250. He then moved to a third shop, which he entered by the same means and stole a further $250 in cash. Shortly after, he moved on to a Domino's Pizza store in Baldivis. He again smashed the front window, reached inside and unlocked the door. Once inside he stole cash to the value of $30. He then moved on to a curtain shop in Yangebup. After obtaining entry to the premises, he stole an air compressor, a vacuum and measuring tape to the total value of $430. He then went to another business premises in Yangebup and smashed a hole in the front window in order to gain entry. Once inside, he stole items to a total value of $7,000.
On the evening of 21 February 2017, the appellant was driving a stolen vehicle on a dirt track in Yangebup. He had earlier been sighted by police at the scene of the last two burglaries referred to. Officers in a police vehicle saw the appellant driving the stolen car and activated their emergency lights and sirens. He failed to stop and travelled at approximately 100 km per hour in a westerly direction on Beeliar Drive in Yangebup. He then turned onto Rockingham Road and reached speeds of up to 80 km per hour before turning onto Stock Road. Police continued the pursuit and a 'stinger' device was deployed. The appellant then drove the vehicle into bushland near Wattleup Road and police lost sight of him. The vehicle he was driving was later found burnt out.
Just after midnight on 22 February 2017, the appellant attended a store in George Street, East Fremantle. He smashed a hole in the front glass window, reached inside and unlocked the door. He was seen by a member of the public who called out. He left the premises, got into a vehicle and drove away without stealing any property. In then drove to commercial premises in South Fremantle and smashed a window to gain entry. Once inside, he stole the cash till containing approximately $400 in cash. He then drove to a coffee merchant store in O'Connor. He forced the bolt locks of a side door of the premises to gain entry to a warehouse. Inside he stole cash and a laptop computer to a total value of $1,011. Approximately two to three hours later, the appellant attended at a car servicing business in Canning Vale. He forced entry to the premises through a roller door and cut through a padlock. Once inside, he stole items including tyres, tools and helmets and other items to a total value of $6,647.
On 23 February 2017, the appellant was apprehended and found in possession of various items of property that had been stolen as a result of burglaries conducted at an earlier time. They included a compressor, a drill and a blower than had been stolen from the South Fremantle High School, power tools and computer equipment that were reasonably believed to have been stolen and six vehicle registration plates that had also been stolen. The circumstances of his apprehension will be referred to shortly.
In the six‑week period between 14 January 2017 and 23 February 2017, the appellant had stolen a number of motor vehicles. This included a Honda motorcycle stolen on 16 January 2017, a Kawasaki motorcycle stolen on 10 February 2017 and a Holden Colorado utility stolen on 18 February 2017. He also stole registration plates from a number of vehicles.
At about 4.00 pm on 23 February 2017, the appellant was driving the stolen white Holden utility on Forrest Road in Hamilton Hill. The vehicle was displaying false plates. Police attempted to stop the appellant's vehicle by activating their emergency lights and sirens. He began to slow and appeared to be stopping. However, he continued along Forrest Road for approximately 150 m and turned left into Blackwood Avenue. He mounted the kerb and drove into bushland, proceeding in a westerly direction. Police de‑activated their lights and sirens and continued to patrol the area. The appellant was then observed driving north along Hamilton Road in Spearwood. Police again attempted to stop him by activating their lights and sirens. He immediately crossed the centre line markings on the road, thereby crossing in front of oncoming traffic. He mounted the kerb on the opposite side of the road before heading east along Spearwood Avenue towards an intersection. The intersection was busy with other cars, who were put at risk. He then drove along the footpath on the wrong side of Spearwood Avenue before crossing oncoming traffic lanes and back to the correct side of the road. He accelerated to a high speed, estimated to be approximately 100 km per hour, in a 60 km per hour zone. A short time later he was traced to his home address in Spearwood. When police arrived the appellant fled the scene, jumping over a number of fences as he did so.

Defence submissions in the Magistrates Court

It was conceded by the appellant's lawyer in the proceedings before the magistrate that the only appropriate disposition was an immediate term of imprisonment. That submission took into account that there were two offences of aggravated reckless driving for which mandatory terms of imprisonment applied. It was submitted that the principal considerations in sentencing were totality and eligibility for parole.
It was submitted that financial difficulties were the cause of the appellant's offending. Some time before these events, he had been involved in a car accident which had resulted in significant injuries to his leg. As a result, he is unable to stand for long periods and this makes it difficult for him to obtain employment. Prior to the offending commencing, his Centrelink benefits had been terminated (for reasons that were not explained). He was trying to find work but was unsuccessful. He has a partner and three children to support and fell into debt. He stole property, sold it and used the money to support his family. However, he admitted using some of the money to purchase illicit drugs. He claimed that drug use was not the predominant reason for his offending.
As at the date of sentencing, the appellant was aged 30 years old and was unemployed, although he had an offer of employment from a past employer. He has generally had good mental health, however it was said that some depression had recurred since he had been remanded in custody following his arrest. He had availed himself of medication to address that condition.
It was submitted on the appellant's behalf that his prospects of rehabilitation were good and that he had taken full responsibility for his offending. He had originally entered pleas of not guilty to some charges. However, following negotiations with the State there were some amendments and it was suggested that his pleas to these charges should be considered to have been entered at the earliest opportunity.
Although the appellant had a record of prior offending, it did not contain offences of the same level of seriousness. The magistrate was also urged to take into account the fact that the appellant had another three charges which had been committed for sentence to the Supreme Court. He had not been sentenced in respect of those matters as at the date he was dealt with in the Magistrates Court.

The magistrate's sentencing remarks

The magistrate described the appellant's offending as a 'spree' that continued between 14 January 2017 to 23 February 2017. During that spree, the appellant committed 10 burglaries, five aggravated burglaries, three stealing motor vehicles, two offences of reckless driving to escape police pursuit, five offences of possession of stolen and unlawfully obtained property, one fraud, one failure to stop, one criminal damage and numerous stealing offences.
Her Honour noted that one of the stolen vehicles was altered in its appearance to remove highly identifying characteristics and that stolen number plates were placed on it. She found that that vehicle was stolen because it could carry a considerable load which made the appellant more mobile when committing offences. She said that the appellant carefully selected the places where he chose to commit burglary offences. Whilst the method was not sophisticated, the burglaries were clearly planned, systematic and effective. Her Honour noted that many of the burglaries resulted in considerable reward. The property stolen by the appellant was selected for its value and its ability to be easily on‑sold. Most of the burglaries were carried out in the early hours of the morning to minimise the chance of detection.
In regard to the police pursuits, her Honour said that the more serious was that that occurred on 23 February 2017. She said that the driving on this occasion placed the public at considerable risk.
Her Honour referred to the needs to impose penalties that were commensurate with the seriousness of the offending, but also took into account matters personal to the appellant. In regard to the statutory penalties, her Honour took into account the maximum penalties, and not merely the jurisdictional limits on her ability to impose penalties.
Her Honour made specific reference to the totality principle and the importance of not imposing a penalty that has a crushing effect. She noted that the appellant was to be dealt with for other offences in the Supreme Court but said that the vast majority of the offences which formed part of the spree were to be dealt with by her and must result in a 'significant penalty'.
Her Honour took into account that the pleas of guilty were entered at different times. She allowed a 25% discount in respect of some of the charges and 20% in respect of others. As it is not suggested that her Honour made any error in this regard, I will not provide further details as to the discounts for specific charges.
Her Honour referred to the plea of mitigation and some character references that were provided on the appellant's behalf. She then said:
I do acknowledge that you were struggling to provide for your family. But you turned crime into an income‑generating business, and I have already noted the systematic and deliberate and planned aspects of your offending, which in my view clearly demonstrates that point.
These offences should not be regarded as victimless because they're on companies or commercial premises, and because insurance would or should provide a buffer. But these types of offences put businesses at great inconvenience, and that generates a loss of income, and it exposes them to the extra expense of increased insurance premiums. For smaller businesses, to lose their cash on hand has a greater impact, simply because they're smaller.
I also have regard to your criminal record, which has repeated convictions for property and dishonesty type offences, though I do note that there are significant gaps in your offending behaviour, and your record certainly doesn't make these offences worse, but it is something that I have to take into account in the general scheme of things.
I must also have regard to the fact that the offences took place over the course of one month, which is a significant period of time, and that you only ceased to offend because you were caught. I take into account, though, that you have expressed genuine remorse in that letter, your letter to the court, which I have read.
At the end of the day, it's clear to me, as it must be to you, that the only sentencing option open to me is a term of imprisonment to be immediately served. I have had regard to the principles outlined in Dinsdale's case, and in my view the offences are too serious for me to contemplate suspending that term of imprisonment.
Bearing all that in mind, the sentence I have arrived at totals four years. I take one last look to ensure that the sentence is fair, given the gravamen of the offending behaviour. Given the number of charges, that has resulted in some charges being concurrent which would otherwise have been cumulative, and some reduction in their individual terms.
I have made cumulative and a head sentence on only four of the charges: on 2289, because it was the first burglary and it's of a significant amount; on 2916, because it was towards the end of the spree, and because that burglary is also of the greatest amount taken in one go; on 2042, which was the more serious of the pursuits; and on 2039, the theft of one of the motor vehicles used in the course of the burglaries.
The individual sentences imposed are reflected in the annexure to these reasons. An order was made that the appellant be eligible for parole and the sentence was backdated to commence on 23 February 2017, when the appellant was first arrested and placed into custody.

General principles

The principles applicable on an appeal against sentence are well established and were outlined by the Court of Appeal in Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82 [2]. Those principles apply equally to appeals from magistrates under pt 2 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA): Closter v Humphreys [2012] WASC 145 [21].
An appeal against sentence depends on finding error, either express or implied. If an implied error is alleged, the question is not what sentence the appeal court would impose if it were the primary court, but whether the discretion of the primary court miscarried. That is, was it open in the proper exercise of that discretion for the primary court to impose the sentence that was imposed?
A ground of appeal that relies on the totality principle is an allegation of implied error. The totality principle requires that a judicial officer sentencing an offender for a number of offences must ensure that the aggregate sentence bears a proper relationship to the total criminality involved in all of the offences viewed in their entirety and having regard to all the circumstances including those referable to the offender personally: Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 [24]. The second limb of the totality principle requires that a sentence not be crushing, that is that it not destroy any reasonable expectation of a useful life after release: Roffey [25].
The practical effect of the totality principle is ordinarily to arrive at an aggregate sentence that is less than that to be arrived at by simply adding up all the terms appropriate for the individual offences. Where the principle of totality is an issue, it is of relatively little importance how the aggregate is made up: Roffey [26]. The important factor is the practical significance of the total effective sentence.

Where offences occur on separate occasions and involve separate transactions, cumulative sentences will generally be called for unless the totality principle requires another approach. Where the aggregate sentence is appropriate and does no more than reflect the crimes committed, the totality principle will not be breached.

Merits of the appeal

The appellant's offending was clearly serious. It included 10 burglaries and five aggravated burglaries on business premises, three offences of stealing motor vehicles and two offences of stealing motor vehicles and driving recklessly to escape police pursuit. The magistrate was undoubtedly correct in characterising the offending as a spree that involved systematic and planned conduct engaged in for significant reward.
The primary sentencing considerations in relation to burglary are personal and general deterrence: Ridley v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 45 [13]. Deterrence is an important principle in sentencing for burglaries, whether they are of residential or commercial premises: Fraser v The Queen [2003] WASCA 99 [26] ‑ [28]. When determining the applicable sentencing standards for an offence, it is necessary to consider comparable cases. However, such cases can only provide general guidance due to the very diverse circumstances in which burglaries are committed by offenders, whose personal circumstances may also widely differ.
Aggravated reckless driving is also an offence which can occur in a wide range of circumstances. However, offences like those committed by the appellant which involve deliberately dangerous driving to evade police represent 'a calculated disregard for the lives, safety and property of others, the authority of the police and the public concern as to the prevalence and demonstrated dangers of so driving': Hume v The Queen [2000] WASCA 306; (2000) 33 MVR 203 [14].
I have considered a number of cases involving multiple offences of burglary on commercial premises (though some cases also include home burglaries). Those cases include Kolek v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 180; BWE v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 197; Anderson v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 167; Pennetta v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 234; Nolan v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 235 and Rodenburg‑Hill v WA Police [2009] WASC 330. I have also considered the case of Tela v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 103 which involved offences of aggravated burglary, burglary and aggravated reckless driving. Those cases do not suggest that either the individual sentences or the total effective sentence imposed on the appellant were inappropriate. The total sentence is not inconsistent with sentences imposed in comparable cases.
Having regard to the appellant's personal circumstances, there was very little by way of mitigation other than his pleas of guilty. He was given an appropriate discount to reflect those pleas. He was a mature man at the time of the offending who made a deliberate decision to engage in the offences and persisted in them over a six‑week period. The most weighty factors in this case were personal and general deterrence. Factors personal to the appellant, such as the impact on his family, could not be given great weight.
In my view, the sentencing magistrate properly took into account the need to arrive at a just and appropriate aggregate sentence. She was clearly conscious of the objective seriousness of the offending conduct. The total effective sentence is an appropriate reflection of the total criminality and is not one that can be said to be outside the sound range of discretionary judgment.
As to whether the sentence was crushing, a crushing sentence is one that deprives a person being sentenced of any reasonable expectation of a useful life after release. As I have mentioned, the appellant was 30 years old at the time of the offending. He will still be a relatively young man when he becomes eligible for parole. Without underestimating the effect that imprisonment will have upon him, it could not be said that at the time he becomes eligible for parole he could not have any reasonable expectation of a useful life. The sentence cannot properly be described as one that is crushing in the proper sense.
At the hearing of the appeal the appellant said that his real complaint was that he had received an additional 18 months' imprisonment when sentenced for related offences in the Supreme Court. I explained to him that the appropriateness of that additional sentence was not something that fell for consideration in this appeal.

Conclusion

In all of the circumstances, on the hearing of this appeal I was not satisfied that the ground had any reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused. Unless leave is granted in respect of a ground of appeal, the appeal is taken to have been dismissed: s 9(3) Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA). Accordingly, I made an order that the appeal was dismissed.

Charge	Date	Offence and details	(Max Penalty) Summary conviction penalty	Penalty imposed
1.	FR 2889/17	14.01.17	Burglary and commit offence - (Stiker Australia business premises; stole tools and equipment valued at $6,600)	(14 years) 2 years/$24K fine	12 months' (Head sentence)
2.	FR 2890/17	14.01.17	Associated Stealing	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	No Penalty
3.	FR 2892/17	10.02.17	Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - ($8,991 worth of tools/equipment)	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	3 months' concurrent
4.	FR 2894/17	10.02.17	Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - ($43,573.74 worth of work tools/equipment)	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	3 months' concurrent
5.	FR 2895/17	13.02.17	Gains benefit by fraud - (gained $350 cash)	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	1 month concurrent
6.	FR 2896/17	12.02.17	Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Boom Logistics business premises; stole tools and equipment valued at $4,500)	(20 years) 3 years/$36K fine	12 months' concurrent
7.	FR 2897/17	12.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [2]	No Penalty
8.	FR 2898/17	12.02.17	Burglary and commit offence - (All Type Engineering business premises; stole tools and equipment valued at $3,750)	Above at [1]	12 months' concurrent
9.	FR 2899/17	12.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [2]	No Penalty
10.	FR 2900/17	15.02.17	Criminal damage - (coin machine at Rhino Carwash)	(10 years) 3 years/$36K fine	Fine $1,200 (Global)
11.	FR 2901/17	15.02.17	Stealing (Stole $14 cash from Rhino Carwash)	(7 years) $6K fine	No Penalty
12.	FR 2902/17	17.02.17	Burglary and commit offence - (Fifty Road Deli business premises; stole cigarettes valued at $300)	Above at [1]	12 months' concurrent
13.	FR 2903/17	17.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [11]	No Penalty
14.	FR 2904/17	18.02.17	Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Ryan's Quality Meats business premises; stole laptops, cash valued at $1,300)	(20 years) 3 years/$36K fine	12 months' Concurrent
15.	FR 2905/17	18.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [2]	No Penalty
16.	FR 2906/17	20.02.17	Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Coogee Fish and Chips business premises; stole $300 cash)	(20 years) 3 years/$36K fine	12 months' concurrent
17.	FR 2907/17	20.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [11]	No Penalty
18.	FR 2908/17	20.02.17	Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Happy Nails business premises - stole $250 cash)	(20 years) 3 years/$36K fine	11 months' concurrent
19.	FR 2909/17	20.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [11]	No Penalty
20.	FR 2910/17	20.02.17	Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Roti Burrito business premises - stole $250 cash)	(20 years) 3 years/$36K fine	11 months' concurrent
21.	FR 2911/17	20.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [11]	No Penalty
22.	FR 2912/17	20.02.17	Burglary and commit offence - (Domino's Baldivis business premises - stole $30 cash)	Above at [1]	11 months' Concurrent
23.	FR 2913/17	20.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [2]	No Penalty
24.	FR 2914/17	20.02.17	Burglary and commit offence - (Eiffel Curtains business premises - stole items worth $430)	Above at [1]	12 months' Concurrent
25.	FR 2915/17	20.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [11]	No Penalty
26.	FR 2916/17	20.02.17	Burglary and commit offence (North West Finance business premises - stole items worth $7,000)	Above at [1]	15 months' Cumulative
27.	FR 2917/17	20.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [2]	No Penalty
28.	FR 2918/17	Steal motor vehicle and drive recklessly to escape police pursuit	Mandatory min: 6 months' imp Max: 2 years' imp	6 months' concurrent
29.	FR 2920/17	22.02.17	Burglary with intent - (George Street Merchants business premises)	(14 years) 2 years/$24K fine	11 months' concurrent
30.	FR 2921/17	22.02.17	Burglary and commit offence - (Rubra Coffee; stole cash and items worth $1,011)	Above at [1]	11 months' concurrent
31.	FR 2922/17	22.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [2]	No Penalty
32.	FR 2923/17	22.02.17	Burglary and commit offence - (TT Auto Services; stole tools and items worth $6,647)	Above at [1]	12 months' concurrent
33.	FR 2924/17	22.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [2]	No Penalty
34.	FR 2925/17	23.02.17	Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - (Rockworth Compressor, Ryobi Drill, Echo blower)	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	3 months' concurrent
35.	FR 2926/17	23.02.17	Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - (power tools and computer equipment)	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	3 months' concurrent
36.	FR 2927/17	23.02.17	Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - (6 licence plates)	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	3 months' concurrent
37.	FR 2928/17	20.02.17	Failure to stop	$200 fine	(Global fine)
38.	FR 2032/17	16.01.17	Steal motor vehicle (Honda Motorcycle)	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	5 months' concurrent
39.	FR 2035/17	10.02.17	Steal motor vehicle (Kawasaki Motorcycle)	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	5 months' concurrent
40.	FR 2036/17	10.02.17	Stealing (registration plates)	Above at [11]	(Global fine)
41.	FR 2037/17	13.02.17	Stealing (registration plates)	Above at [11]	(Global fine)
42.	FR 2038/17	14.02.17	Stealing ($79.53 diesel fuel)	Above at [11]	(Global fine)
43.	FR 2039/17	18.02.17	Steal motor vehicle (Holden Colorado Utility)	(7 years) 2 years/$24K fine	12 months' cumulative
44.	FR 2040/17	22.02.17	Burglary and commit offence (Dolce and Salato business premises; stole $400 cash)	Above at [1]	11 months' concurrent
45.	FR 2041/17	22.02.17	Associated Stealing	Above at [11]	No Penalty
46.	FR 2042/17 s 60(1A)(b) RTA	23.02.17	Steal motor vehicle and drive recklessly to escape police pursuit	Mandatory min: 6 months' imp Max: 2 years' imp	9 months' cumulative