BRIDLE v Gomravi - [2005] SASC 295

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
BRIDLE v GOMRAVI
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
9 August 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - ESCAPE - SENTENCING
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CHARACTER OF OFFENCE
CITIZENSHIP, IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION - IMMIGRATION STATUS - NON-CITIZENS - DETENTION AND REMOVAL FROM AUSTRALIA
Crown appeal against sentence imposed by magistrate - respondent pleaded guilty to escaping immigration detention, section 197A Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - magistrate convicted the respondent and imposed a penalty of a recognizance in the sum of $100 to be of good behaviour for two years - Crown appealed on grounds that magistrate: failed to give effect to the policy and purpose of section 197A of the Migration Act; paid insufficient regard to the seriousness of the offence; paid insufficient regard to the need for deterrence; and that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.
Consideration of principles discussed in Morrison v Behrooz [2005] SASC 142 - consideration of legislative scheme of Migration Act and seriousness of offence of escape immigration detention - consideration of personal antecedents, including mental health, of respondent - consideration of significant period spent at large - consideration of sections 16A and 20 of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Held - appeal against sentence allowed - magistrate erred in sentencing process - magistrate obliged to consider the legislative scheme of the Migration Act; seriousness of the offence of escaping immigration detention, the significance of period spent at large and the public interest in effective general deterrence - sentence imposed by magistrate set aside - appropriate to re-sentence respondent - consideration of further material relevant to sentence - regard had to scheme of Migration Act, seriousness of the offending, significant period spent at large, need for general deterrence and personal antecedents of the respondent - consideration of respondent's poor mental health - merciful approach warranted in circumstances - appropriate to proceed pursuant to section 20 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - respondent convicted and released pursuant to his entry into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for 3 years pursuant to section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 4, s 189, s 197A; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 4J, s 16A, s 19B, referred to.
Morrison v Behrooz [2005] SASC 142; Shillabeer v Hussain [2005] SASC 198; Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; Police v Cadd (1997) 69 SASR 150; R v Knight (1986) 40 SASR 479; R v Shepperbottom (2001) 212 LSJS 486; R v Stokes [2001] NSWCCA 82; Bailey v Kupsch [1966] Tas R (NC 20); Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky (2001) 192 ALR 92; Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257; R v Briese [1998] 1 Qd R 487; Newcombe v Police [2004] SASC 26, considered.

BRIDLE v GOMRAVI
[2005] SASC 295
Magistrates Appeal
GRAY J:
Introduction

This is a Crown appeal against sentence.
Hadi Gomravi was charged and pleaded guilty to escaping immigration detention contrary to section 197A of the Migration Act 1958. On 1 December 2004 Mr Gomravi was sentenced pursuant to section 20 of the Crimes Act1914 (Cth). He was convicted and discharged upon the entering into a recognizance in the sum of $100 to be of good behaviour for 12 months.
Circumstances of the Offending
The offending occurred on 29 March 2002 at Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, South Australia. An agreed summary of facts recounted the circumstances of Mr Gomravi’s offending:
Prior to and on 29 March 2002 a group of demonstrators arrived at Woomera and made a campsite in an open paddock approximately 450 metres from the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre.
About 6pm on 29 March approximately 250 protestors breached the restricted area of WIRPC. Protestors pulled down cyclone wire fences and flares were discharged which attracted the attention of detainees inside the Centre. Detainees in one part of the centre climbed onto the rooftops waving banners and chanting. Others breached internal fences and approached the outer palisade fence. Protestors pushed up against the palisade fence and handed wire cutters, pliers, a spanner and a pocket knife were thrown over the fence to detainees.
Subsequently the palisade fence was breached and 54 palings were damaged or removed. Detainees had removed volleyball posts and shade cloth supports and used these as levers to damage the fence. Detainees then escaped through the holes made with the assistance of the protestors and decamped the area. Detainees within WIRPC threw rocks at AMC staff and advanced towards staff using the palings as weapons.
A total of 50 detainees escaped during the incident including Mr Gomravi.
Australian Protective Services staff and SAPOL officers patrolled the vicinity of Woomera searching for escapees and set up road blocks but failed to locate Mr Gomravi. He remained at large until 4 February 2003 when he was located by DIMIA officers in Sydney. He was asked if he was Hadi Gomravi and he said that he was.
No record of interview was conducted with Mr Gomravi.
Mr Gomravi provided an account of the incident to Dr Craig Raeside. That account is summarised in a psychiatric report dated 12 March 2005. Mr Gomravi reported that it was never his intention to escape immigration detention, but when he saw a large number of people outside the centre, he thought it was a “revolution or something”. He said the protestors encouraged him to escape. Mr Gomravi said the escape was completely unplanned, stating that he “wasn’t even wearing shoes”. Mr Gomravi was taken by car to Adelaide. He later travelled to Sydney and resided with a female friend for over a year. He said that although he was “illegal” he was very happy and enjoyed living with his friend.
Personal Antecedents
No psychiatric or psychological report regarding Mr Gomravi was before the magistrate at the time of sentencing. However, medical records complied by the Department for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs were tendered. Counsel informed the magistrate of Mr Gomravi’s personal circumstances and his poor mental health. In particular, attention was drawn to Mr Gomravi’s depressive mental condition and his previous attempts at self -harm. One attempt at self-harm was said to have occurred three days before the hearing of sentencing submissions. Much of this information, and details of Mr Gomravi’s personal antecedents, has been recounted in the medical report now before this Court.
Mr Gomravi is a 28-year-old Iranian man. He was born in Iraq to a Shia Muslim family. He described a good family life and was educated to the equivalent of Year 9. After leaving school, Mr Gomravi helped his father on the family farm.
Mr Gomravi’s family was deported in 1980 from Iraq to Iran, where his father farmed lands purchased in Ahwaz. Mr Gomravi explained that his reason for leaving Iran was connected to the Iranian government’s attempt to confiscate his family’s farm holdings and the death of his brothers arsing from a conflict with Iranian officials. It was said that Mr Gomravi witnessed the deaths of his brothers and was incarcerated for a period by Iranian officials. It was claimed that Mr Gomravi was at risk of persecution if returned to Iran. He arrived in Australia by boat on 31 December 2000.
Since arriving at Woomera Detention Centre, Mr Gomravi described feeling depressed, but not suicidal. He experienced difficulties sleeping and was treated with antidepressants. In April 2003 Mr Gomravi participated in a hunger strike. There are indications within the medical notes that Mr Gomravi was involved in a number of altercations leading to injuries.
Mr Gomravi’s initial application for a visa was rejected. He then applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal on 24 August 2001. The Tribunal affirmed the rejection on 30 January 2002. Mr Gomravi appealed to the Federal Court on 21 February 2002. His appeal was dismissed on 17 September 2004. He appealed to the Full Federal Court on 7 October 2004. At the time of sentencing by the learned Chief Magistrate, his appeal had yet to be determined.
When at large for a period of over a year, Mr Gomravi resided with a female friend in Sydney. This friend later become Mr Gomravi’s partner and supported him emotionally and financially while he remained an escapee. The two married following Mr Gomravi’s return to immigration detention. Mr Gomravi’s wife died in August 2004 as a result of a diabetic-related illness. Mr Gomravi is currently residing at Glenside Campus Mental Health Service.
Proceedings before the Magistrate
As earlier observed, on 1 December 2004 Mr Gomravi was convicted and discharged on a good behaviour bond. Both parties had consented to proceedings being dealt with summarily pursuant to section 4J of the Crimes Act.[1] As a result, Mr Gomravi was exposed to a maximum sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.
[1] Section 4J of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) relevantly provides:
Mr Gomravi was sentenced with others charged with escaping immigration detention during the same incident at Woomera on 29 March 2002. With respect to Mr Gomravi, the learned Chief Magistrate observed:
Yesterday I received a great deal of material relating to matters at Woomera, and I was aware previously of remarks made by Justice Kirby in the High Court. I am particularly familiar with a report from Lyn Bender and some remarks from Glenda Koutroulis that relate particularly to conditions at Woomera. I made some remarks yesterday that also included comment about the use of numbers to describe people, the practice that has been criticised elsewhere. …
Mr Gormravi [sic] you have been at large from March of 2002 until February 2003 where you have been assisted particularly by a woman living in Sydney who has unfortunately now died.
…
In each of the cases for you Mr Gormravi [sic], Ghorban and Shajaee [sic] you have pleaded guilty and it is my view particularly in connection with you Mr Ghorban and you Mr Shajaee [sic] that given the material before me that relates particularly to your heath issues material that is accepted by the prosecutor, that in your cases it is appropriate to deal with you pursuant to Section 19B of the Crimes Act.
…
Mr Gormravi [sic] your case in my assessment is a little different from MrGhorban and Mr Shajaee [sic]. That is so because of the extensive period that you spent at large. In your case there is a further distinction which should properly be drawn difficult though these matters are. That distinction is to be found in the absence of any material that is directed at an adverse mental condition within the meaning of Section 19B. In your case in my opinion it is appropriate to proceed pursuant Section 20 of the Crimes Act. Accordingly I direct that you stand convicted and upon that conviction being recorded that you be discharged upon entering into a bond in the sum of $100 to be of good behaviour for 12 months.
The magistrate’s remarks suggest that he took into account material tendered by counsel for Mr Gomravi relating to general conditions of detention within Australia. However, no further reference was made to the content of that material or its relevance to determining an appropriate sentence.
Legislative Scheme
Recently, this Court handed down reasons for its decision in the matter of Morrison v Behrooz.[2] That matter involved very similar factual and legal circumstances. Behrooz concerned a Crown appeal against a sentence imposed by a magistrate for an offence of escaping immigration detention. In Behrooz the Court considered in detail the legislative scheme of the Migration Act. Those observations are relevant to the present case.[3]
[2] [2005] SASC 142.
[3] Morrison v Behrooz [2005] SASC 142 at [17] - [23]. See also Shilabeer v Hussain [2005] SASC 198.
Behrooz also considered the seriousness of the offence contained in section 197A of the Migration Act, noting that its gravity was clear both from the legislative scheme of the Migration Act and the maximum penalty attached to the offence. It was observed that the legislation was amended in 2001, increasing the maximum penalty for escaping immigration detention from two to five years’ imprisonment. The explanatory memorandum suggests that the increased penalty was designed to increase the deterrent effect of the sentence to be imposed. The equating of an offence of escaping from migration detention with escaping from lawful custody is an indication of the seriousness with which the legislature viewed the offence. In Behrooz the Court considered the case law dealing with escaping lawful custody.[4] The seriousness of an escape depends upon the circumstances of the escape as well as the type of custody or detention. The maximum penalty that can be imposed for offending of this nature reflects the need to deter others. [5]
[4] R v Knight (1986) 40 SASR 479; R v Shepperbottom (2001) 212 LSJS 486.
[5] See for example R v Stokes [2001] NSWCCA 82; Bailey v Kupsch [1966] Tas R (NC 20).
The Appeal
The grounds of appeal advanced by counsel for the Crown were that: the sentence was manifestly inadequate; the magistrate failed to give effect to the policy and purpose of section 197A of the Migration Act; the magistrate paid insufficient regard to the seriousness of the offence; and the magistrate paid insufficient regard to the need for deterrence.
It was said that a term of imprisonment should have been imposed. An immediate release or recognisance was not opposed.
Preliminary Matters
A prosecution appeal against sentence may only be justified in the rare and exceptional case. It puts in jeopardy the liberty of an offender for a second time. As observed in Everett v The Queen[6] and Police v Cadd,[7] an appellate court should only intervene to correct an error of sentencing principle or in circumstances where it is necessary to maintain an appropriate degree of uniformity of sentencing and adequate sentences.
[6] (1994) 181 CLR 295.
[7] Police v Cadd (1997) 69 SASR 150.
As earlier observed, the learned Chief Magistrate proceeded pursuant to section 20 of the Crimes Act and convicted Mr Gomravi, discharging him upon entry into a bond in the sum of $100 to be of good behaviour for 12 months. Section 20 empowers the court to order the conditional release of an offender after conviction. One of the sentencing options open to the court in that circumstance is to release a defendant upon the giving of security by recognisance to comply with the specified conditions.
Section 16A of the Crimes Act provides that when sentencing, a court must impose a sentence that reflects the gravity of the circumstances of the offence. As discussed in Behrooz, such matters may include whether the defendant has shown contrition for the offence, whether the defendant cooperated with law enforcement agencies, the defendant’s good character and prospects of rehabilitation.
Did the Magistrate Err?
When sentencing Mr Gomravi, the learned Chief Magistrate was obliged to consider the legislative scheme of the Migration Act, including the seriousness of the offence of escaping immigration detention and the public interest in effective general deterrence. Of particular relevance to Mr Gomravi’s case was the considerable period Mr Gomravi spent at large. There was a need for the sentence imposed to address general and personal deterrence.
Counsel for the Crown contended that general deterrence should be a prominent sentencing consideration with respect to offending of this type. As earlier observed, the scheme of the Migration Act and the penalty imposed for escaping immigration detention make it clear that the offence is regarded as serious and the legislature intends deterrence as a key objective when sentencing.
In the present case, because of the failure to pay due regard to, or even mention the need to address the principle of deterrence or the seriousness of the offence, the sentencing process miscarried. As observed by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in Wall[8] and more recently by this Court in Behrooz, the failure to mention the seriousness of offending or the need for deterrence allows the inference to be drawn that these matters were overlooked. The magistrate’s approach led to a situation where he failed to have adequate regard to the seriousness of the offending.
[8] [2002] NSWCCA 42 at [83]-[86].
Mr Gomravi’s escape was in the company of a group of other detainees. The escape occurred in the context of a mass demonstration. Protestors encouraged detainees to leave the Centre. Significantly, having escaped from immigration detention, Mr Gomravi was at large for around 12 months. He participated in the Australian community without his immigration status confirmed and in clear breach of the provisions of the Migration Act.
It may be contended that at the time of Mr Gomravi’s escape from immigration detention he was caught up in the excitement of the protest and encouraged by others to engage in criminal conduct. However, the considerable period that Mr Gomravi spent at large is indicative of a deliberate and continuing disregard for his legal obligations. Having escaped immigration detention, Mr Gomravi was no doubt aware of his illegal status in the community. At no time did he attempt to contact DIMIA or return to immigration detention. He remained at large until February 2003 when he was located by DIMIA officers in Sydney. This behaviour suggests that Mr Gomravi’s criminal culpability for his offending cannot be materially mitigated by the suggestion that his escape was unplanned or that it occurred in the context of a large-scale demonstration.
The magistrate failed to have adequate regard to the seriousness of the offending. The magistrate failed to have regard to the policy considerations underlying the legislation on the important question of general deterrence. Even if there were compelling health reasons to proceed without imposing an immediate custodial sentence it was important for the magistrate to explain why those issues outweighed other important sentencing considerations. He did not do so.
Section 20
As earlier observed, the magistrate proceeded to sentence Mr Gomravi pursuant to section 20 of the Crimes Act. Section 20 relevantly provides:
(1) Where a person is convicted of a federal offence or federal offences, the court before which he is convicted may, if it thinks fit:
(a) by order, release the person, without passing sentence on him, upon his giving security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the court, that he will comply with the following conditions:
(i) that he will be of good behaviour for such period, not exceeding 5 years, as the court specifies in the order;
(ii) that he will make such reparation or restitution, or pay such compensation, in respect of the offence or offences (if any), or pay such costs in respect of his prosecution for the offence or offences (if any), as the court specifies in the order (being reparation, restitution, compensation or costs that the court is empowered to require the person to make or pay):
(A) on or before a date specified in the order; or
(B) in the case of reparation or restitution by way of money payment or in the case of the payment of compensation or an amount of costs—by specified instalments as provided in the order;
(iii) that he will pay to the Commonwealth such pecuniary penalty (if any) as the court specifies in the order (being a penalty not exceeding the maximum amount of the penalty that, in accordance with subsection (5), the court may specify in respect of the offence or offences) on or before a date specified in the order or by specified instalments as provided in the order; and
(iv) that he will, during a period, not exceeding 2 years, that is specified in the order, comply with such other conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit to specify in the order, which conditions may include the condition that the person will, during the period so specified, be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order and obey all reasonable directions of a probation officer so appointed; …
(b) sentence the person to imprisonment in respect of the offence or each offence but direct, by order, that the person be released, upon giving security of the kind referred to in paragraph (a) either forthwith or after he or she has served a specified period of imprisonment in respect of that offence or those offences that is calculated in accordance with subsection 19AF(1).

It was accepted by counsel for the Crown that it was appropriate for the magistrate to proceed to sentence pursuant to section 20 by virtue of the medical evidence relating to Mr Gomravi’s poor mental health.
Counsel for Mr Gomravi submitted that it was appropriate for the magistrate to have regard to his client’s personal circumstances, including the conditions of his detention at Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, and in particular of his poor mental condition and his distressing experiences prior to arriving in Australia. It was said that given Mr Gomravi’s poor mental health, the need for a sentence to address concerns of general and personal deterrence was diluted. Counsel contended that in the circumstances it was appropriate for the magistrate to have taken a merciful approach when sentencing Mr Gomravi.
Counsel for Mr Gomravi submitted that at the time of sentencing Mr Gomravi's personal circumstances were such that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was appropriate. There was evidence before the magistrate that the respondent’s application for a protection visa was under consideration by DIMIA. It was claimed that DIMIA was awaiting Mr Gomravi’s sentence in relation to the present offending before it was to issue a visa. A custodial sentence, it was claimed, could well jeopardise Mr Gomravi’s chance of obtaining a visa, which could result in his deportation to a country in which he was liable to be executed. This was said to be a relevant matter when considering the appropriate sentence to impose.
Conclusion
The legislative scheme of the Migration Act makes it clear that unlawfully escaping from immigration detention is contrary to the policy and purpose of the Act. It is a serious offence, which attracts a penalty reflecting the need for general deterrence.
Mr Gomravi committed an offence forming part of a legislative scheme aiming to regulate and control the entry and detention of illegal immigrants. The magistrate failed to pay due regard to this material factor and the need for general deterrence. Nor did he articulate his reasons for taking what can be described as a merciful or lenient approach to sentencing Mr Gomravi.
In addition, the magistrate failed to pay adequate regard to the considerable period during which Mr Gomravi was at large. Mr Gomravi’s continuing and deliberate disregard for the law, even if explained by his mental health problems and perceptions of conditions of detention, was a material matter to be considered when sentencing. Although reference was made to this distinguishing feature by the sentencing magistrate, the serious nature of Mr Gomravi’s offending was not adequately addressed in the sentencing remarks or the penalty imposed.
The sentencing magistrate erred in the process of sentencing. As a result, it is necessary for this Court to re-sentence Mr Gomravi.
Re-sentence
Further Facts
Further material relevant to Mr Gomravi’s mental health and personal antecedents was before this Court during the hearing of this appeal. No objection was taken to this material being received. In the event that error occurred in the sentencing process, it was accepted that this Court should re-sentence having regard to all relevant material available at the time of re-sentencing.
In a psychiatric report dated 30 December 2004 Dr Newman reported that Mr Gomravi had engaged in two suicide attempts during a period of one month and displayed symptoms of depression and anxiety with suicidal preoccupation. Dr Newman diagnosed Mr Gomravi with post-traumatic stress disorder and was of the view that he posed a high risk of further suicide attempts. It was said his condition was exacerbated by his partner’s death. Dr Newman reported that:
Mr Gomravi has multiple somatic symptoms and symptoms of anxiety including episodes of intense anxiety with associated shortness of breath.
…
On mental state examination, Mr Gomravi presented as agitated and depressed with suicidal preoccupation. There were no psychotic symptoms.
Mr Gomravi meets DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depression and poses a high risk of further suicide attempts. His condition has been exacerbated by the death of his partner six months ago and his ongoing detention. He has now developed a significant Major Depression and is in need of psychiatric treatment and hospitalisation.
A report dated 6 January 2005 was compiled by Dr T M Richards. When interviewed by Dr Richards, Mr Gomravi described low mood, poor sleep, constant suicidal ideation and recent involvement in a hunger strike. It was reported that Mr Gomravi currently feels “overcome by stress” as a result of the uncertainty of his situation. Dr Richards described suicide attempts resulting in unconsciousness.
In a psychiatric report dated 12 March 2005, Dr Raeside formed the view that Mr Gomravi was suffering from a major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr Gomravi described feeling stressed, having difficulty sleeping, experiencing nightmares and feeling depressed. Dr Raside was of the view that Mr Gomravi’s condition had worsened since his return to detention. He engaged in two acts of self-harm towards the end of 2004.
Seriousness of the Offending
As observed in Behrooz, regard must be had to the strong public interest in the need to deter others from this type of offending. The policy of the Migration Act makes it clear that the detention of unlawful immigrants and the orderly operation of immigration detention centres constitutes a material consideration when sentencing offending under section 197A of the Migration Act.
Mr Gomravi’s offending cannot be described as trivial. He engaged in an intentional and deliberate act of leaving immigration detention and was at large in the community for some 12 months before being discovered by DIMIA officers. Whilst at large Mr Gomravi travelled to Sydney where he was residing in the community illegally with the assistance of an Australian family. The significant period Mr Gomravi spent at large is a material matter to be considered when sentencing and distinguishes this case from that of many other escapees.
When re-sentencing Mr Gomravi I have had regard to the seriousness of the offending and the need to recognise the importance of deterrence in sentencing offending of this kind. The sentence imposed must address the seriousness of the offending and provide a disincentive for Mr Gomravi to attempt to escape in the future.
However, Mr Gomravi’s personal circumstances give rise to the need to take a merciful approach to re-sentencing. The inherent jurisdiction of the court to grant leniency is well established[9] and was discussed in Behrooz where it was observed that:[10]
The discretion to adopt a merciful approach to sentencing should only be used in circumstances where weight should be given to factors which are ordinarily not regarded as relevant mitigating circumstances.[11] For example, the principle of mercy is often sought to relieve or compensate for hardship which resulted either from the offence or from the sentence that would be imposed. In order to demonstrate sufficient hardship in this context, there is a need to identify a significant burden to be borne in addition to punishment - for example, a substantial economic, social or other disability. As will be discussed later in these reasons, the personal circumstances to Mr Behrooz give rise to a consideration of a merciful approach to sentencing.
[9] For example see R vLowery (1992) 14 Cr App R 485.
[10] [2005] SASC 142 at [49]
[11] R vLowery (1992) 14 Cr App R 485.
Counsel submitted that the conditions of Mr Gomravi’s detention were relevant to sentencing. Counsel abandoned the contention that it had been established that the detention conditions were inhumane. However, Mr Gomravi’s perception of his plight raises different considerations. Mr Gomravi described these conditions as being “very bad” and his experience of indeterminate detention in such conditions has been referred to in the medical evidence as a cause of poor mental health and suicidal tendencies.
Material describing Mr Gomravi’s perception of the conditions of his detention is relevant to his mental health history. From the evidence before the Court it is clear that Mr Gomravi perceived his situation in detention to be intolerable. While Mr Gomravi’s mental health history does not excuse his behaviour, it is a relevant matter to consider when re-sentencing.
Other than the offending the subject of the present appeal, Mr Gomravi appears to be of good character. When at large, Mr Gomravi’s mental illness problems appeared to subside and he was able to reside in the community with the support of his partner. He was able to form a close bond with members of the community and it is clear that his relationship with his wife was a source of much happiness and impacted positively upon his mental health.
Mr Gomravi’s poor mental health, in particular his mental disorders and suicidal preoccupation, his personal circumstances and his prior good behaviour are matters relevant to sentencing. There is a public interest in offenders, particularly offenders of otherwise good character, being successfully rehabilitated. Having regard to Mr Gomravi’s character, his antecedents, cultural background, age and mental health it is appropriate to proceed to sentence Mr Gomravi pursuant to section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act.
Conclusion on Sentence
The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set aside. Mr Gomravi is convicted of escaping immigration detention contrary to section 197A of the Migration Act and is sentenced to a term of three months imprisonment. Mr Gomravi is to be released immediately upon his entry into to a recognisance in the amount of $500 to be of good behaviour for three years pursuant to section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act.

(1) Subject to subsection (2), an indictable offence (other than an offence referred to in subsection (4)) against a law of the Commonwealth, being an offence punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years, may, unless the contrary intention appears, be heard and determined, with the consent of the prosecutor and the defendant, by a court of summary jurisdiction.
…
(3) Subject to subsection (6), where an offence is dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction under subsection (1), the court may impose:
(a) where the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years—a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding 60 penalty units, or both; or
(b) where the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 5 years but not exceeding 10 years—a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding 120 penalty units, or both.