Director of Public Prosecutions v Bowman (No 2)
[2024] ACTSC 415
•20 December 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Bowman (No 2) |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 415 |
Hearing Date: | 5 December 2024 |
Decision Date: | 20 December 2024 |
Before: | Christensen AJ |
Decision: | See [13] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – review – s 80ZE cancellation of drug and alcohol treatment order –material change in circumstances – continuation not likely to achieve objects – imposition or resentence – poor level of compliance with treatment order – motivation to rehabilitate – sentence imposed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 80ZE, 80ZH, 80W |
Cases Cited: | Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) William James Bowman ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel J Churchill ( Crown) T Jackson ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Bevan & Co ( Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 304 of 2022 |
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
Introduction
1․William Bowman comes before the Court for finalisation of a review process during which his drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order) has been cancelled: s 80ZH Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act).
2․The cancellation of Mr Bowman’s treatment order occurred on 27 August 2024, and was a cancellation pursuant to s 80ZE(1)(b) and (1)(d) of the Sentencing Act. That is, he was not able to comply with the order because his circumstances had materially changed, and the continuation of the order was not likely to achieve the objects of the order.
3․The Court is to now determine whether to impose the sentence of imprisonment that was suspended under the custodial part of the treatment order, or resentence Mr Bowman: s 80ZE(2) Sentencing Act. It is not pressed that there be resentence. That is, it is accepted that Mr Bowman’s engagement with the treatment order was at such a poor level of compliance that plainly, imposition is the only appropriate order. The real issue for determination is at what time Mr Bowman becomes eligible for parole: s 80W(4) Sentencing Act.
Resentence
4․Mr Bowman was sentenced on 16 October 2023 to a treatment order for offences of attempted aggravated robbery and wounding. Those offences occurred on 19 July 2022 and involved an attempted carjacking and stabbing of the victim. The total effective term of imprisonment imposed was one of 3 years and 3 months: DPP v Bowman (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge AJ, 16 October 2023). That unpublished decision is incorporated as a schedule to these reasons
5․The treatment and supervision part of Mr Bowman’s treatment order was for a period of two years. From the outset of the order, Mr Bowman had difficulty complying. He engaged in substance use, but he was honest about this, and he did attend his rehabilitation program and court reviews.
6․However, it was alleged that on 20 November 2023 he committed further offences and his order was provisionally cancelled, such that Mr Bowman was returned to custody. Arrangements were made for him to attend a residential rehabilitation program and cancellation of his order was not pressed in the circumstances. Mr Bowman initially did well with this program, however, within a fortnight of this, he was exited for alleged substance use. His treatment order was again provisionally cancelled, and Mr Bowman was returned to custody.
7․Cancellation of Mr Bowman’s order was again not pressed, and he was again afforded an opportunity to engage with rehabilitation. He returned to a residential program on 24 June 2024. Mr Bowman’s initial engagement was again positive, however, on 13 August 2024 he absconded from the residential program in circumstances of alleged substance use. Thereafter, the treatment team advised that there were no treatment options available for Mr Bowman. He consented to a cancellation of his treatment order on that basis.
8․Mr Bowman sought that the review proceeding not be finalised immediately. He sought instead to engage with the Solaris Therapeutic Community program (Solaris program) while in custody. The finalisation of the review was delayed to enable this to occur, with Mr Bowman remanded in custody. At the continued hearing of the review, the Court was informed that Mr Bowman has not yet had an opportunity to complete the Solaris program, but he remains committed to engage in that form of rehabilitation. He intends to complete the program before any release on parole.
9․It follows from this that Mr Bowman has spent a total of 585 days in presentence custody for the offences the subject of imposition. His initial period in custody prior to the original sentence proceeding was 165 days (19 July 2022 – 11 October 2022; 28 April 2023 – 9 October 2023), a period of 219 days was spent in custody during the treatment order (24 November 2023 – 4 March 2024; 14 March 2024 – 24 June 2024; 13 August 2024 – 26 August 2024), and since cancellation, a period of 116 days has been spent in custody (27 August 2024 – 20 December 2024).
10․In addition, he has spent some short periods in residential rehabilitation. This is, as a matter of discretion, capable of being a form of quasi custody. In this matter, I consider it appropriate to take this into account, as there were some short periods of compliance with the residential requirements. I will slightly moderate the nonparole period that I would otherwise have set.
11․It was submitted on Mr Bowman’s behalf that the Court recognise the principles from Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 when determining the appropriate non parole period. These principles were applied in the determination of the original terms of imprisonment. That is not to say that they become irrelevant considerations at this time. But it is to say that the weight has already been given to the reduced moral culpability that Mr Bowman has for this offending, and the role of such principles in the determination of the nonparole period is not the only consideration at this stage: R v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18 (Ruwhiu) at [100].
12․The Court is to set a period that reflects the minimum period that justice requires to be served, with the prospects of rehabilitation an important consideration: Ruwhiu at [20]. Mr Bowman has clearly struggled to engage with the rehabilitation opportunities that have been afforded to him, but his motivation to rehabilitate has remained. This motivation to rehabilitate continues, and it is appropriate to set a nonparole period at a stage that will encourage Mr Bowman to maintain that commitment to rehabilitate. This will also increase the period that Mr Bowman will be supervised, with the deterrent effect of a return to custody, which will facilitate community protection upon his return to the community.
Orders
13․For those reasons the following orders are made:
(1)The cancellation of the drug and alcohol treatment order is confirmed.
(2)Under s 80ZE(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), the sentence of imprisonment suspended under the custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be imposed.
(3)The conviction of William James Bowman of attempted aggravated robbery (CAN 2022/6983) is confirmed and the sentence of 2 years and 5 months imprisonment is imposed, to commence on 15 May 2023 and end on 14 October 2025.
(4)The conviction of William James Bowman of wounding (CAN 2022/6985) is confirmed and the sentence of 13 months imprisonment is imposed, to commence on 15 July 2025 and end on 14 August 2026.
(5)The total period of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months will commence on 15 May 2023 and end on 14 August 2026.
(6)A nonparole period is imposed to commence on 15 May 2023 and end on 1 May 2025.
| I certify that the preceding thirteen [13] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence Judgment of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: 20 January 2025 |
Schedule: Transcript of reasons of Refshauge AJ dated 16 October 2023
It is a serious aspect of family violence when it is committed in the home of the victim; see, for example, R v Pakula. While clearly true, it is also serious when members of the community cannot go about their ordinary business in the community without being safe in public places. Thus, William James Bowman has now to be sentenced for offences of attempted aggravated robbery and wounding, both committed in a public place against persons who were just going about their affairs. He has pleaded guilty to both offences.
A third count on the indictment presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions is not proceeding and a notice declining to proceed on that count has been filed. A transferred offence was also dismissed.
On sentence, the prosecution, ably represented by Mr M Howe, tendered without objection the prescribed prosecution tender bundle. Behind the required and helpful cover sheet were a copy of the indictment, an agreed statement of facts, Mr Bowman's criminal record and a court duty report dated 3 July 2023.
Mr Bowman had sought that any sentence of imprisonment be served by a drug and alcohol treatment order, 'treatment order', under section 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), 'Sentencing Act'. Accordingly, the court had directed that a drug and alcohol treatment assessment, 'suitability assessment', be prepared under section 46J of the Sentencing Act. They were prepared and copies also included in the prosecution tender bundle. They were the drug and alcohol sentencing list suitability assessment report dated 19 September 2023 of Alcohol and Drug Services, with a case plan and a drug and alcohol treatment assessment dated 29 September 2023 of ACT Corrective Services.
Mr Howe also tendered without objection a victim impact statement of the victim of the wounding which Mr Howe read to the court, and two photographs of a wound inflicted on that victim. In addition, a universal serial bus, USB, stick on which were stored a copy of some CCTV video footage of the incident of the attempted aggravated robbery was tendered without objection. It was played to the court. Mr Howe provided written submissions and he and Ms C Duffy, who helpfully appeared for Mr Bowman, made oral submissions, respectfully engaging in debate with the court and answering its questions. From this material, the following findings are made.
The Facts
On 19 July 2022, Mr Bowman was driven in a motor vehicle to a hotel in Bowes Street, Phillip, ACT, arriving shortly before 7.00 pm. About a minute later, the first victim, an Uber driver, drove up to the hotel on the opposite side of Bowes Street, having made a U-turn to stop immediately outside the hotel. An Uber driver is a person who uses their own motor vehicle to transport people, rather like a taxi service but through a software application, an app, managed by the Uber Corporation which receives the payment and dispenses part of it to the driver.
As the first victim drove up, the rider, a woman staying at the hotel, walked out and put a suitcase in the boot and got into the rear passenger side seat of the vehicle. Mr Bowman got out of the vehicle in which he had been driven to the hotel, walked to the front passenger door of the other vehicle and got into the front passenger seat. The first victim said:
THE FIRST VICTIM: Mate, this is not your ride. I was already with a ride. I'm going.
MR BOWMAN: Whose ride is this? Whose ride is this?
THE FIRST VICTIM: This is not your ride. She is with me.
Mr Bowman demanded that the victim hand over the keys of the car and yelled at him to get out of the car. He grabbed the first victim by the arm and tried to punch him several times.
At this time, the passenger in the back seat got out of the vehicle and went back into the hotel. At some stage, the first victim turned off the engine of the car. He then undid his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle, walked around the rear of the vehicle and towards the hotel.
Mr Bowman got out of the car and pulled a knife from the back of his pants. He ran towards the first victim with the knife readily visible in his right hand. The first victim ran across Bowes Street into the car park and towards the Hellenic Club, yelling words to the effect of, 'Help me, that guy has a knife.' Mr Bowman chased him but could not catch him before he went inside the Hellenic Club to seek assistance.
Several members of the public were in the vicinity and saw the incident. It was also captured, as noted, on CCTV, the footage of which was played to the court. These were the events that were the basis for the charge of attempted aggravated robbery.
When the first victim went into the Hellenic Club, Mr Bowman stopped chasing him. Instead, he approached another motor vehicle which had parked in the car park. The driver, the second victim, was sitting in the driver's seat when Mr Bowman opened the driver's side door. He was described by the second victim as appearing 'very intoxicated,' 'agitated and yelling.'
The second victim could not understand what Mr Bowman was saying and tried to calm him down by telling him, 'I haven't done anything to you.' Mr Bowman then stabbed at the second victim's chest several times. The second victim sustained a small stab wound to the right side of his chest just above his nipple. These were the facts that led to the charge of intentional wounding.
The second victim pushed Mr Bowman away and locked the doors of the vehicle. Mr Bowman then ran away.
A duty manager of the Hellenic Club, Mr O'Neill, presumably as a result of what the first victim had told him when he sought assistance from the club, went outside at about this time and located Mr Bowman lying in the bushes at the front of the club. He was lying on the ground in a state consistent with his level of intoxication. Mr O'Neill briefly spoke to him and returned to the club. There, he was informed of the stabbing incident and returned to ensure that no one went near Mr Bowman.
Police arrived a short time later and arrested Mr Bowman. He asked police to search him to see if he had a knife on him. They did so and there was no knife on him, though there was a gap in some camouflage pattern material which they seized. They soon found, however, a knife with a brown handle with a scabbard which was dislodged from a leg of Mr Bowman's pants. They seized it also.
A photograph of the knife included in the statement of facts showed that it was a fairly small knife with a blade that seemed to be about 10 centimetres long, although that was not entirely clear from the photograph.
Mr Bowman was taken by police to Woden police station where he was breath tested, which showed a result of 0.197 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath, a very high reading. He told police that he had been drinking vodka. He was taken to The Canberra Hospital as he was experiencing seizures.
The Proceedings
As noted, Mr Bowman was arrested on 19 July 2022. He was refused police bail and appeared in the ACT Magistrates Court the next day and was remanded in custody. At the time, he was subject to a good behaviour order when the balance of imprisonment for a sentence of common assault which involved family violence had been suspended.
On 11 January 2023, the good behaviour order was cancelled for a breach of the order and he was imprisoned for the period of the suspended sentence of imprisonment of three months. Interestingly, however, he was initially only charged with a common assault of the first victim and attempted aggravated robbery of the second victim, as well as the offence of intentional wounding. After that, he remained in custody. After two further adjournments, he entered a plea of not guilty on 1 September 2022 to all the counts he then faced. He was on 10 November 2022 committed for trial to this court. He remained in custody.
On 22 December 2022, an indictment was filed, including two counts of attempted aggravated robbery on the first and second victim, and one of intentional wounding on the second victim. On 12 January 2023, he was granted bail by this court. On 4 April 2023, he failed to appear and his bail was revoked and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was arrested on 29 April 2023 and remanded in custody. A pretrial application was made on 28 April 2023 but did not proceed.
On 19 July 2023, a criminal case conference was held. An agreement was made as to the resolution of the proceedings. On 20 July 2023, Mr Bowman entered pleas of guilty to the two offences for which he now is to be sentenced. As noted above, the third count on the indictment did not proceed following the filing of a notice declining to proceed. On 4 August 2023, the court directed that suitability assessments be prepared and a date for sentence was set. Until today, he has spent 257 days in presentence custody which will need to be addressed on sentence.
The Offences.
As has been explained in other cases, the common law of sentencing required a court sentencing an offender to take into account the objective seriousness of the offence and the subjective circumstances of the offender (see R v Killick.) This has been incorporated into the obligations of courts sentencing an offender set out in section 33 of the Sentencing Act. The objective seriousness is incorporated in section 33(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act, namely the nature and circumstances of the offence or offences committed.
There are three matters that need to be addressed in this consideration. The first consideration is the factual basis of the offences. Here, these facts have been found above. The second is the maximum penalty of offence. This is of course Legislature's mandate for the penalty for the worst category of the offence. It is also a means of comparison with other offences, and together with all the other relevant factors a yardstick. Finally, most offences, and the current ones to which Mr Bowman has pleaded guilty are no exception, can be committed in a variety of ways with various levels of seriousness. The court sentencing offenders and determining appeals from sentences have identified various factors which aggravate or mitigate the seriousness of an offence. This is also part of the current sentencing practice required to be considered under section 33(1)(z)(a) of the Sentencing Act.
Attempted aggravated robbery is an offence contrary to section 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 of the ACT and attracts a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment, or a fine of $400,000, or both. It is, thus, a very serious offence. Indeed, it is one of the most serious of offences for which a lengthy term of imprisonment is almost inevitable.
As this was an attempt rather than an actually completed aggravated robbery, it is subject to some particular provisions. Under section 44 of the Criminal Code, a person convicted of attempting to commit a crime is, on conviction, punishable as if the crime attempted had been committed. Hence, Mr Bowman faces the same penalty as if he had committed the actual aggravated robbery.
The sentencing of an attempt is, however, subject to a somewhat different approach that the courts have articulated. The relevant factors have been summarised in R v BI (No 4). In general, the attempt to commit an offence will attract a lesser penalty than the completed offence, especially where the attempt could not have physically succeeded or was doomed to fail. This will not invariably apply, and most commonly not, in respect of drug offences, not relevant here.
The offences, however, remain serious, especially where a grave offence committed with sophistication, and likely to succeed. It is, however, relevant that the offence is not completed and the harm caused will not have been completely effected. There is also an analysis of relevant factors, relevant to the offence of aggravated robbery in R v Bell. So far as relevant here, the factors are that Mr Bowman had a knife. Courts have accepted that a knife is a very serious weapon. As has been said, it is always loaded (R v Griggs).
On the other hand, it was a relatively small knife but still one that could inflict serious physical injury, but it was not produced at the beginning of the crime, but only when Mr Bowman chased the first victim who appeared to be able to escape without great difficulty. In this sense, while there is always a degree of vulnerability of an Uber taxi driver in the evening, it was not late at night and he could escape. Mr Bowman was alone and appears to have been relatively unsophisticated and there does not appear to have been much planning or premeditation, although it is unclear how Mr Bowman appeared to be at the particular location. There is simply on evidence about this.
There was some minimal violence inflicted, though the threat with a knife was, at the end, clearly a serious threat. There is no evidence of any actual injury or other damage caused. Unfortunately there is no victim impact statement, and so no indication of the effect of the crime on the victim. The court knows that, even though, as here, there was no physical injury, such an incident can have an emotional and psychological effect. This may be of quite some intensity or longevity, but without evidence such as a victim impact statement the court cannot find, other than it would, of course, have some effect. Thus, it was a serious offence with some aggravating features, but by no means the most serious, of even an attempted aggravated robbery offence.
Intentional wounding is prohibited by section 21 of the Crimes Act 1900 of the ACT, and this provides for a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. It is, thus, a serious offence but not nearly as serious as the other offence committed by Mr Bowman. As pointed out in R v Barker, the offence requires the breach of the interior layer of the skin of the victim, the dermis, thus it can be constituted by a split lip, or of course a much more serious injury that could require surgery or significant hospitalisation.
The courts have identified a number of factors. They are generally, one, the nature of the injuries actually inflicted and the extent of the wound (R v Bloxham; R v Gordon (No 2)); two, the medical consequences which is perhaps the consequence of the nature and extent of the injury and shows it (R v Vimahi; R v Grech (No 2)); three, the purpose of or reason for the conduct (R v Bloxham; R v Gordon (No 2)). This may well include that it was effected in the course of excessive self-defence (R v Vu); four, any level of premeditation would also aggravate the offence (R v Campbell (No 4)).
In this case, the injury was not especially serious, though any stab wound in the chest is serious. It was, however, not on the left side which can be more serious. It was, and accepted by Mr Howe, for a stab wound 'minor'. It was an opportunistic offence with no premeditation, and indeed was described by Mr Howe as 'inexplicable'.
The effect on the victim, the second victim, as described in the recital of the facts was relatively serious. He clearly felt that a stab wound with a knife would likely lead to a mortal wound and this was relevant. He was, however, more terrified by the prospect of pain and death. He did, however, have to experience the distress of his 12-year-old daughter at the possible death of her father. There was no evidence of particular medical treatment required. It was, thus, a serious offence, but not a very serious version of the offence of wounding.
Subjective Circumstances.
As noted above, the other common law consideration is the personal circumstances of Mr Bowman as the offender. This is also to be found in various paragraphs of section 33(1) of the Sentencing Act, especially section 33(1)(m). Mr Bowman was born 23 years ago today in Sydney, the youngest of his parents' five children, his four older siblings being sisters. He described his childhood as 'terrible', as he was exposed to neglect, family violence and drug and alcohol use. Indeed, he explained that his father and he consumed cannabis together a lot, and for five or six years also used methamphetamine together. This led to a serious disrupted schooling.
He would get into fights at primary school leading to him being required to attend only half each day. He was also frequently a truant. He would return home and use drugs. [Redacted]. His father died earlier this year. This has had a severe effect on him, but he remains close to his mother and his sisters.
Mr Bowman completed his schooling in Year 10 at the Woden School, apparently because of his childhood diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, combined with an obsessive compulsive disorder, OCD, though the presentence report suggests that this was actually diagnosed as 'oppositional defiance disorder, ODD'. He has, however, had no treatment, nor any medication, for either of these for about four years.
After leaving high school, he attended college for about two months, but dropped out, mainly it appears because of difficulty with reading and writing. He then obtained work, but only for short periods of three or four months at a time. His work included as a roof tiler, a bricklayer's labourer and a fencer. He also dug footings with his father. He has a White card, a Working with Asbestos card and a Certificate II in Horticulture. He is currently unemployed, receiving Centrelink benefits.
Mr Bowman has been in a relationship for some months. They have, he reports, a generally positive relationship and he wishes to take it further. There have been some issues around trust and his partner has a history of substance misuse, but has been in recovery for about five years. Mr Bowman has had previous partners. [Redacted].
Apart from the ADHD and OCD referred to above, Mr Bowman has no physical or other mental health issues or challenges. Mr Bowman began using drugs at about 12 years of age when he started drinking alcohol, smoking cannabis and consuming methamphetamine. This was quite a young age and certainly before he could make an informed choice. His consumption of alcohol was daily almost immediately when he would steal a bottle of whiskey for himself and one for his father. He would share his bottle with his sisters or a friend.
By the age of 14 or 15 he was sharing at least three 1 litre bottles of various alcoholic drinks with friends on a daily basis. This has continued and he said that he had shared a one and a half litre bottle of alcohol with a friend, used 'shot for shot' with his sister, and drank another 1 litre bottle and at least part of another for himself on the day of the offences. He has not consumed any alcohol while in custody.
His cannabis use was, as noted above, with his father and later his mother, and he cannot recall the exact quantities he used. He says that he ceased using the drug about two years ago, though that was very hard for him. He has used, however, about 10 or 12 times since, but the cost has limited that to occasional use.
As to methamphetamine, he was using regularly from the age of 14 years and progressed to daily use by age 18 years, leading to daily injecting. He would use anything from a couple of points, about 0.2 grams, to half a gram at a time, up to a gram or more each day. He says that on the day of his offending he had used three points. He has used in the Alexander Maconochie Centre while on remand on three occasions.
He has used heroin, which he first consumed at age 18 years, and when he could not obtain methamphetamine, and especially after his father died he used heroin. He has been injecting about 10 grams or more every two or three days. He has also used steroids since age 18 years, but not since about 2022. He is not using it currently. He has also used buprenorphine, which he has been regularly using, and has used so-called magic mushrooms, that is psilocybin, but not currently. He has used GHB once, but said he overdosed and said he does not like the substance.
Mr Bowman has not identified any significant alcohol, tobacco or other drug treatment, though he has had some limited engagement with the Alcohol and Drug Services of Canberra Health Services. He did make an application for courses in the Alexander Maconochie Centre, but when he was offered the possibility of the Solaris program declined because it was only a month before he was to be sentenced by this court.
Mr Bowman has a significant criminal record. [Redacted]. He also has numerous offences of violence recorded against him, especially possession of offensive weapons, one of which was a meat cleaver, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and damaging property.
[Redacted]. [Redacted] Mr Bowman shows on his criminal record a total of 11 offences for which he has been sentenced. These include a family violence offence and five other offences of violence, especially assault occasioning actual bodily harm, weapons possession and damaging property.
Mr Bowman has breached good behaviour orders made for him on a number of occasions. He was, in 2019, sentenced to an intensive corrections order which he breached a number of times by failing to provide a urinalysis sample, failing to report for appointments and failing to complete community service work. The order was ultimately cancelled. This year he was released on bail on 12 January 2023 and breached the conditions on two occasions by using illicit drugs and failing to provide a urinalysis sample. He failed to attend court and was ultimately arrested and remanded in custody.
In custody he has had a mixed record. He was sanctioned for dealing with prohibited things and when he threw a buprenorphine strip into another yard; being in possession of contraband; and allegedly being involved in the serious assault of another detainee. He also refused to attend scheduled health appointments four times. On the other hand, he has been commended for compliance and for politeness towards custodial officers.
Mr Bowman participated in interviews with officers from ACT Corrective Services and Alcohol and Drug Services for the suitability assessments. He engaged well. He was described as ‘cooperative’ and he ‘demonstrated a willingness to engage openly’. He was said to have ‘presented as very forthcoming and responsive to questions and was future-focused towards engaging with treatment’.
The two assessments were a little at odds, for the suitability assessment of Alcohol and Drug Services reported that he ‘displayed some insight to some of the contributing factors for his substance abuse’, while that of ACT Corrective Services reported that he ‘often struggles to demonstrate insight and expand beyond simple one-word answers. He did express motivation to attend all of the requirements of a treatment order, should one be made for him’.
Mr Bowman said that he could not recall any of the facts of the offences. He was shocked when he awoke in hospital but when, later, he found the details, he was further shocked. He said he had suffered an overdose on the day before his being taken into hospital from the Woden Police Station. He denies having any intention to commit the offences and that it had been ‘a wake-up call’. It also deterred him from drinking alcohol, which he has not done. He did struggle to show insight into the effect of his conduct on the victims.
Victim impact statement. The second victim has made a victim impact statement, which is noted above, was read to the court by Mr Howe. That can be important, as it’s likely to ensure that Mr Bowman does appreciate the effect of his actions on other people. As is not infrequently encountered with victims, the second victim stated clearly that he does not ‘feel at all vindictive against Mr Bowman’. He clearly felt the incident could have led to him being killed. Nevertheless, he said that he did not ‘feel that I’m worried or scared by the prospect of death, regardless of how soon or late it will inevitably occur.’
He is, however, ‘terrified about the prospect of pain’. Clearly, he would have experienced some pain from the injury. Curiously, he did not comment on that pain, however. His major concern was to experience his 12-year-old daughter’s significant distress at the sudden realisation that ‘she could have lost her daddy that evening’. She was ‘really scared and quite angry’ and ‘feels it today’. Fortunately, she is recovering with appropriate help but it is ‘rather a lengthy process’. He did describe an incident where, overseas, he was at a restaurant when he saw a violent assault. He felt it necessary to pick up an empty water bottle, thinking about breaking the end of it to use as a weapon if the violent persons were to come his way. He conceded ‘it seems I became quite, quite jumpy since last year’.
He concludes that ‘Mr Bowman will realise how extensively one’s action can affect the ones around him and maybe inquire how an event like this would have affected him if their roles had been reversed’. That is certainly something to be hoped of Mr Bowman, that he will give this some thought.
Conditional liberty. At the time of the offences, Mr Bowman was in the community on conditional liberty. That is to say, on 20 April 2022 he had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for an offence of common assault on his then partner. The sentence had been suspended and then, as required, a good behaviour order was made for 12 months. That is to say, Mr Bowman was released from custody but on the condition that he not commit any further offences and other matters such as probation conditions.
Thus, on 19 July 2022, when the current offences were committed, he was in the community under these conditions. The commission of these offences breached the condition to be of good behaviour in the good behaviour order. The good behaviour order, however, was cancelled on 11 January 2023 and he served the sentence of imprisonment originally imposed. Accordingly, it’s not required that this court deal with that issue. Nevertheless, that he was at conditional liberty is relevant to the sentence to be imposed, and that this is a serious aggravating feature must be reflected in the sentence; Auld v The Queen.
Current sentencing practice. As noted above, current sentencing practice is a required consideration under section 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act, so far as the court knows it. A part of this consideration has been addressed above when the court dealt with the question of aggravating or mitigating factors in the actual version of the offences committed. In addition, however, the sentences actually being imposed by the court, while they form no mandated limit nor set boundaries, do help the court to maintain that important sentencing principle of consistency.
There are two ways in which this can be achieved. The first is by considering the statistical record of sentences recorded in the ACT sentencing database. That records many, perhaps not most, of the sentences imposed. There are, however, serious limitations in the statistical records, especially as many of the important factors are not recorded, such as whether, in an aggravated robbery, there was more than one offender and whether there was a weapon used and, if so, what it was. Nevertheless, it can provide some helpful information which is important to sentencing, as long as dealt with carefully.
It can also provide a link to the sentencing remarks for the recorded sentencing, though, unfortunately, not as many links are provided as would seem to be desirable. Further, in this case, the records are for offences of aggravated robbery, and not for attempted aggravated robbery. And again, given the difference, this does reduce the value. Nevertheless, the recorded sentences are overwhelmingly of imprisonment, of which 67 per cent are of full‑time imprisonment for periods from four months’ to 12 years’ imprisonment. The majority are in the range of two to three years and 80 per cent are from 18 months’ imprisonment to four years and some months’ imprisonment.
For the offence of intentionally wounding, the vast majority of sentences are of imprisonment, with over 64 per cent of full-time imprisonment of between nine months and three years. The majority, however, are between nine months and 20 months’ imprisonment. It must be noted, however, that there are only nine sentences recorded in the database.
The other way in which such current sentencing practice can be assessed is by consideration of comparable cases. That is, the decisions of the court where there are objective and subjective circumstances that are similar to the current case or where the differences are not so stark that it’s actually possible for the court to compare the factors and draw a sense of consistency.
Mr Howe referred to three cases, two of attempted aggravated robbery and one of aggravated robbery where, in each case, the offender attempted to steal a car from a person in it where the offender had a knife. The decisions are: DPP v Girvan, R v Richards and R v Billington. All the offenders were relatively young. In two cases, the person from whom the vehicle was attempted to be stolen was a taxi driver. Two of the offenders had a criminal history: one long, one modest, and the third no criminal history.
The decision in R v Girvan was closest to the actual offence here, as the offender tried to get into the car before hitting the window with a knife. The victim drove away but the offender pursued him until the victim drove to a police station. In the other cases, actual violence was inflicted in one and the knife produced early and the offender made stabbing motions after directing the victim to a cul-de-sac where he was vulnerable. The last offence was of aggravated robbery where the offender actually stole money. In DPP v Girvan, the offender was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment.
For the offence of intentional wounding, Mr Howe referred to two cases: R v Lowe and R v Hakimi. There are not, perhaps fortunately, many cases of this offence coming before the courts. In the first case, the offender stabbed a taxi driver victim twice in the arm and attempted to stab him in the abdomen. The offender had a troubled background, was 22 years of age with a disadvantaged childhood and limited criminal history. The sentence was for nine months after applying a discount of three months for the plea of guilty. The offender was 22-years-old, demonstrated significant remorse and had a limited criminal history.
In the second case, the offender had a machete, where he injured two people in the neck and face area as a random attack. He was intoxicated at the time and, for the two offences, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment after applying a discount of four months, and 10 months’ imprisonment after applying a discount of three months, both discounts for plea of guilty. The offender was 32-years-old, had a criminal history but was intoxicated and expressed severe depression. Mr Howe suggested that the latter decision was most comparable but it does seem not quite as comparable as would be helpful. Ms Duffy did not make any submissions on these cases.
Consideration. It now falls to the court to sentence Mr Bowman. This is a very difficult task; it always is. There are various factors that need to be carefully considered. These can point in different directions. Nevertheless, one sentence must be imposed for each offence. Thus, the factors must be drawn together into that one sentence by an instinctive synthesis. This is made easier when the purposes for which a sentence can be imposed are identified. It’s generally held that the protection of the community is the overall purpose of sentencing; Davey.
The individual purposes can have a role to play, however, and must be considered; Veen v The Queen (No. 2). In this Territory, it’s helpful that the purposes of sentencing have been set out in section 7 of the Sentencing Act. In this case, serious offending, which severely disturbs the peace of the community by grave violence such as the offence of aggravated robbery or wounding, require a response and a consequence so that punishment must play a significant part. This, however, may also, if appropriately severe, denounce the conduct and, if know by others, may deter others from behaving in the same criminal way. It may also, if severe enough, but not greater than is just or adequate, a punishment for the offence deter Mr Bowman from acting in the same way.
It's also important that the sentence will recognise the harm done to the victims and shows that the court takes this factor serious. Nevertheless, the commitment of Mr Bowman, though currently limited, to address his drug and alcohol usage does need to be recognised as his rehabilitation is also more likely to be the surest guarantee of protection of the community.
It’s important to recognise Mr Bowman’s childhood disadvantage. This can have serious and long-term consequences which, especially if not addressed, will not abate. This disadvantage must always be borne in mind; Bugmy v The Queen. Thus, the effects of his exposure to family violence can result in behavioural and mental health problems, disrupted schooling, clearly relevant here, and intergenerational violence where there is, in this case, an attitude to violence which, when disinhibited by alcohol and drugs, clearly came to the fore.
Similarly, Mr Bowman’s early introduction to the use of drugs and alcohol is relevant. He was not at the time able to give any kind of informed agreement to the use and indeed the use by his parents of alcohol and drugs does provide a kind of role model that gives a superficial but, to a young person, clear message that such use is appropriate. By the time this can be shown to be problematic, dependence has arrived. Such matters do not change the objective seriousness of the offending or the offences but do moderate the moral culpability of Mr Bowman. That is not reduced over time, despite ongoing interaction with the criminal justice system.
As noted above, Mr Bowman pleaded guilty on 20 July 2023 for the two offences for which he now stands to be sentenced. The serious offence of aggravated robbery on the second victim was discontinued, as also noted above. The summary charge of common assault did not proceed. The plea followed the criminal case conference, thus, while not an early plea, it still had significant utilitarian value, showed some remorse and should be taken into account in accordance with the principles articulated in Blundell v The Queen.
While Mr Bowman says he has no memory of the events which, given his accepted high level of intoxication and the admitted use of drugs, can be accepted, no submission to the contrary having been made by other counsel. It’s relevant that he was shocked by the description of all the conduct he displayed. This is not yet fully an expression of remorse and he did ‘struggle to demonstrate insight into the effect of his actions on the victims and how they had been affected without prompting’. While not remorse, as properly understood, it does show the beginning of remorse, especially associated with his clearly more committed approach to rehabilitation, thought that is still mainly prospective for the most part. It’s also reinforced by his plea of guilty, though there were obviously advantages to him but also to the criminal justice system.
Mr Bowman is still, for sentencing purposes, a young man, though he is not a minor for statutory purposes. Thus, principles for the sentencing of young people, especially the importance of rehabilitation, are still highly relevant; see R v Tonna (No. 2). That he was introduced to drug use at an early stage, as noted above, is relevant to sentencing also; see R v Henry. Mr Bowman has, as noted above, been in custody, other than while serving a sentence, for 257 days. This must be taken into account. There is no reason why it should not be done in accordance with section 63 of the Sentencing Act, so that any sentence of imprisonment should be backdated to take that time fully into account.
Part of the time since he was in custody was spent serving a sentence. This was, of course, consequent upon the cancellation of the good behaviour order he had breached. That was a period of three months. While totality is relevant, the effect given to the length of that sentence and the reason for it, in the circumstances, will not require any significant effect on the period of sentence.
Accordingly, in addition to these matters, it’s necessary to take into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the personal circumstances of Mr Bowman, and the commitment he has made to rehabilitation. This latter consideration is somewhat limited. He has become abstinent from alcohol, a significant precipitation of his offending in this case, though he has still used some drugs though certainly not as frequently as prior to his period in custody. That is likely to be partly also from limited availability. His other steps towards rehabilitation have been limited, though he has gained a place in the day program at the Canberra Recovery Hub, as shown in the letter dated 9 October 2023 from The Salvation Army which conducts the Canberra Recovery Hub.
Nevertheless, having regard to the seriousness of his offending and after considering all the available alternatives, it’s clear that no other sentence than a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate; section 10 of the Sentencing Act. There are, of course, two offences for which a sentence must be imposed. This requires a number of matters to be considered. The Court of Appeal in O’Brien v R has summarised the principles that must be applied. Each sentence must be a proper sentence to recognise the seriousness of the offence for which it’s imposed, together with all of the other relevant factors as noted.
The court must, nevertheless, consider then whether they should be wholly or partly concurrent, because they contain some common elements of criminality, to ensure that Mr Bowman is not punished twice, or the offending was part of a course of conduct. Here, the latter is relevant, for both offences were committed as part of a course of conduct which, while it justifies a level of concurrency between the sentences, must not leave Mr Bowman or the community with the impression that he can commit multipole offences with impunity. The court must then take a final review of the total sentencing to ensure that the important sentencing principle of totality is respected. The total sentence must reflect the total criminality of the offences committed adequately but no more than that. The total sentence must not be excessive. It must also leave open the realistic prospect of reform for Mr Bowman and maintain his hope to be able to take an effective part in the community and realise his aims when he returns to it from custody.
This may result in what some might see as leniency for someone, especially with a significant criminal record and committing serious offences, in that the sentences will be partly concurrent. Nevertheless, while the total criminality is important - as is Mr Bowman’s growing, if nascent, recognition of his need for rehabilitation and the limited steps he’s taken towards this goal are important; they must be taken into account. His childhood disadvantage and, particularly, his early introduction to drug and alcohol use are particularly relevant here also.
The sentence will thus be proportionate to Mr Bowman’s culpability for his crimes, the serious effect that they have had on the victims and the community more widely, but also his subjective circumstances and the significant value to the community and its protection from his reform. Mr Bowman, please stand.
I convict you of attempted aggravated robbery and sentence you to imprisonment for two years and five months to commence on 1 February 2023 to take into account pre-sentence custody. Had you noted pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to two years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
I convict you of intentional wounding and sentence you to 13 months’ imprisonment to commence on 31 March 2025. That is to be cumulative as to 10 months on the sentence for attempted aggravated robbery. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to 16 months’ imprisonment. You may be seated.
Mr Bowman has now been sentenced to imprisonment for three years and three months, of which he is to serve, from today, 30 months and 15 days. The court must now decide how that sentence is to be spent, if not in full‑time custody. The Sentencing Act provides a number of options as discussed in various decisions. Since this sentence is longer than 12 months, consideration would be required of whether a non-parole period should be set and its length if the sentence is to be spent in full-time custody.
There are two non-custodial options that must be considered. Given that the total term of imprisonment is less than four years, an intensive correction order or a treatment order could be made. The sentence could also be suspended and a good behaviour order made. Mr Bowman has sought a treatment order and it’s appropriate to consider that first. Under sections 12A and 80S of the Sentencing Act, it must be shown that Mr Bowman is eligible for such an order. The requirements under section 80S of the Sentencing Act and section 82 require also that such an order be suitable for him, that it is appropriate for him to serve a suspended sentence, and that there are appropriate arrangements for service of the treatment order. Those matters of suitability can be dealt with when the primary eligibility considerations set out in section 12A of the Sentencing Act have been addressed.
Mr Bowman pleaded guilty to the two offences of which he’s been convicted and for which he’s been sentenced. The two offences are eligible offences. The term of imprisonment for the primary offence of attempted aggravated robbery is for two years and five months, which his greater than the minimum eligible period of 12 months’ imprisonment and the total term with the associated offence of intentional wounding is three years and three months, which is less than the maximum eligible period of four years’ imprisonment.
The suitability assessment of Alcohol and Drug Services assesses Mr Bowman as likely having a severe substance use disorder at the time of offending. There was no challenge to this evidence and it is confirmed by the evidence of both suitability assessments of his drug and alcohol use history, as well as his admission into the Canberra Recovery Hub. The court accepts that he has a drug dependence.
Similarly, the suitability assessments report a significant level of use of drugs and alcohol prior to the offending, both of which were not challenged and has been corroborated in the statement of facts by the alcohol breath test conducted by police after his arrest, the way he was discovered prior to his arrest and his hospitalisation. The court finds that his use of drugs and alcohol substantially contributed to the offending.
Mr Bowman has lived in Canberra all his life and his family are here, as is his current partner. He is, accordingly, likely, to the requisite degree, to remain in Canberra for the period of his sentence. He is not subject to any other sentencing order within the meaning of section 12A of the Sentencing Act. He has signed the prescribed form consenting to the making of a treatment order.
The suitability assessments record that he has had the obligations he will have under the treatment order explained to him and that he has had an opportunity to ask any questions about it. Any questions have been answered in terms that he’s likely to understand. This is confirmed by his signing of the consent form. He has, thus, given informed consent. No concerns that any victim has is in evidence. None of the matters set out in section 80O of the Sentencing Act suggest that a treatment order is inappropriate. Mr Bowman is, therefore, eligible for a treatment order to be made.
The suitability assessment of the Alcohol and Drug Service recommends that he is suitable for the making of a treatment order to serve his sentence of imprisonment, as is confirmed by the letter from The Salvation Army, and ACT Corrective Services has assessed his proposed place of residence as suitable, so there are suitable arrangements for the service of the treatment order.
The suitability assessment of ACT Corrective Services, however, assesses that he is unsuitable because of his criminal record and response to previous court orders, especially his recent and repeated history of breaching court orders. Mr Howe did not oppose the making of a treatment order but did submit that these matters required careful consideration.
Mr Bowman has breached a number of court orders: most recently, the interim correction order in 2019, which was cancelled, and the good behaviour order in 2022, which was also cancelled. He was granted bail in January 2023 but breached that. He did not commit further offences, however, while on bail. He has attracted sanctions while in custody but has had commendations as well.
Nevertheless, he is still a relatively young man. He’s been in custody now for over 11 months, including a period serving a sentence, which is the longest period of custody he has served. He has remained abstinent from alcohol while in custody, though he has used other drugs but not frequently. He’s taken some steps to address his rehabilitation. While he has expressed a wish to reform, that has yet, largely, to be translated into action. His lack of recent offending while on bail is also relevant.
It's not possible to guarantee that Mr Bowman will be successful in completing a treatment order but the recent efforts and commitment do justify the making of a treatment order. There is nothing else in table 46K of the Sentencing Act that would render him unsuitable. Accordingly, the court is satisfied that it’s suitable that a treatment order be made, that it is suitable for the sentence of imprisonment to be suspended, and that there are suitable arrangements for the service of a treatment order.
That the sentence of imprisonment commenced on 1 February 2023 and so has been partially served, and the sentence cannot be fully suspended under section 80(w) of the Sentencing Act, does not prevent a treatment order from being made for the reasons set out in R v Crawford (No. 1). Mr Bowman, please stand again. I make a drug and alcohol treatment order under section 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 of the ACT for you in respect of the primary offence of attempted aggravated robbery, of which you have been convicted, of which you have been sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment. The order is extended to the offence of intentional wounding, of which you’ve been convicted and for which you’ve been sentenced and which is an associated offence of the primary offence.
It's noted that the convictions and sentences imposed for the primary and associated offences have been recorded and are hereby incorporated into the drug and alcohol treatment order and the custodial part of the order. The drug and alcohol treatment order will be for three years and three months from today, 16 October 2023, to 30 April 2026. The treatment and supervision part of the drug and alcohol treatment order will be for two years from today, 16 October 2023, until 15 October 2025.
The custodial part of the drug and alcohol treatment order for the primary and associated offences are hereby suspended under section 80(w) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act from today, 16 October 2023, until 30 April 2026. Under section 80(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 of the ACT, you will be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under section 85 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 of the ACT from the day after the treatment and supervision part of the drug and alcohol treatment order - that is, 16 October 2025 - until the end of the total sentence - that is, 30 April 2026 - with a probation condition that you accept supervision by the commission of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising you considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising you, including as to alcohol and drug testing, counselling and treatment.
For the treatment and supervision part of the drug and alcohol treatment order, the core conditions of the order are set out in section 80(y) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 of the ACT are hereby imposed. You are directed to complete the drug rehabilitation day program at Canberra Recovery Hub, Braddon, ACT; not to leave the program until you’ve completed the course; and to comply with all directions of the person in charge of the program and the rules of the program and the facility.
Should you leave or be discharged from the program before completing it, you’re to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4pm on the next business day with a view to having your drug and alcohol treatment order reviewed. You are to undertake any program, treatment or counselling, alcohol and drug testing, or case management that may be required by any member of the treatment and supervision team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that team about where you reside, with whom you associate and your attendance from time to time.
You are not to return a positive test sample under alcohol and drug testing and you are to comply with any directions of the court from time to time about attendance at court in person or by electronic means. You are directed to sign a sealed copy of this order and an undertaking to comply with the order and any obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 of the ACT for the period that this order is in force before you leave the court precincts. And you are directed to appear in court on Friday, 22 October 2023 at 11.30 am.
Mr Bowman, that’s a lot of words. You probably understand most of it because it’s about you and what you did. The bottom line is these were very bad offences. They were a serious attack on the community but also on individuals who didn’t deserve it, who were just going about their ordinary business. I’m heartened by the fact that when you heard about this, having been so out of it by drinking far too much and using drugs, you were shocked. So hopefully you realise that these serious offences are not what you want to be seen as doing in the community.
And I hope it’s a wake-up call to say this is the time that you need to address the causes of those, and that’s primarily your drug and alcohol use. There are other things also, and those will need to be addressed, but primarily your drug and alcohol use. You’ve shown some effort towards that to date and I’ve been satisfied that that’s sufficient to give you this chance. This is a big privilege. Ordinarily, someone who commits those offences would go back to custody and spend a long time - years - in custody. You have the opportunity to get out but the condition of that is that you engage in rehabilitation.
At the moment, that’s primarily the Canberra Recovery Hub but there may well be other things that you’ll be required to do over time. The order is for two years for treatment and supervision and then a little more on a good behaviour order. It’s really important that you commit yourself to this. Don’t take the option, that you’re now no longer in custody, to run away. If you do that, almost certainly you will serve the rest of the sentence and we do generally find you. You will almost certainly be arrested. It may be some time but that’s even worse because then you’ve got this sentence of imprisonment hanging over your head for a long time and will have to serve a sentence.
If it’s getting difficult, come back to the court. You will have case managers who will assist you: one from Corrective Services; one from Health, the Alcohol and Drug Services. They will help you and they’re very experienced people who can assist you in working through some of the difficulties. It will be hard, though. It’s not easy. You’ve been subject, for more than a decade, to the use of drugs and alcohol and you’re certainly dependent on those and changing that will be hard. But as you work through, as you overcome some of those challenges - if you’re committed - and you will be able to, then you will become stronger and it will become easier over time. But you need to commit yourself to that.
It is really important to be abstinent. This is a program for people who don’t use. You won’t necessarily go back to jail if you do slip up but it is a bad thing and you probably will go back to jail, at least for some period of time. That will be tough for you but you will get support, both at the hub and the program that you’ll go through, and through your case managers. You will be required to provide urinalysis initially three times a week. You’ve not been very good at that; this has got to change. If you don’t provide urinalysis, you will be penalised and almost certainly go back to custody at some stage, all right?
If you don’t comply with the terms of the order, an that includes being abstinent, attending urinalysis and attending case management and keeping in contact with your case managers, you will have their telephone numbers, you can ring them and certainly even after hours you can leave a message and they will get back to you. If you don’t keep in contact with them, tell them what is happening. If you are in trouble, ring them so that they can assist you.
Then I can impose sanctions. Those sanctions are generally what we call a ‘point.’ Each one point is a day in custody but we don’t send you back to custody until you have generally accumulated seven points and then we send you back for seven days. Hopefully, that is a reset and you can come back into the order, but if it really doesn’t work then I have to cancel the order and the balance of the three years and three months has to go, and you have to serve that.
So this is a real opportunity. Know your obligations. You will hear that from your case managers. You will get a letter in a moment from my associate which explains that, give you some details and so on. Contact, attending appointments, attending urinalysis, attending the Canberra Recovery Hub, not committing further offences and being sensible in the community.
There are a couple of really important things. The first is don’t abscond. I have said that. The second is be honest. Be honest to me. If you don’t that is a crime. It’s called perjury and that is usually a crime that requires punishment of a jail term. Don’t tell lies to your case managers. They can only help you if you really say what is going on and what happens. But also really importantly is be honest with yourself, all right.
It is really easy to say, ‘Oh, it’s just a quick shot.’ Or, ‘I’ve pinched something small.’ That kind of gives you a sense of ‘it doesn’t matter.’ Part of the reason for that may be because if you admitted that what you did was wrong, you would feel shame and being ashamed is not a good feeling, often. But it actually can be helpful because it gives you a line that you shouldn’t cross. You don’t want to keep feeling ashamed and if you feel ashamed because you have been honest that what you did was wrong and badly wrong, then you know you don’t want to go t here in the future. So be honest with yourself as well as others.
You will come back to see me on Friday week, and every Friday after that. You can talk to me then about anything you need to. If there is anything difficult, I do have as a judge quite a lot of power. I can’t solve everything but I can solve somethings and sometimes we can amend the order or change it so that it meets your needs appropriately. But this is not your choice. You must complete the program that we determine. You don’t have to do that, but the alternative is to go back to jail.
Because the only basis for the privilege of going through this program is that you undertake the program, and all its obligations. You have not been very good at that in the past. You have breached many of your orders, perhaps most. I have not been able to check each one of them. But you need to understand that you are now in the big league. This is really serious.
If you do this, the life that is before you will be a very fulfilling one. You will enjoy that life. You will have a family. You will get work. You will be able to participate in the community in the way that you and your talents, which are probably being hidden at the moment, can blossom and show. That is the opportunity. You take that. That is really important.
At the end of the day, I hope this works. It is probably important, if I understand it, that today is your birthday. So hopefully it is a happy birthday for you and this will be an opportunity for you to draw a line in the sand, move forward and really be the person that I am sure your family want you to be and that you can be and not to be a blight on the community.
You may be seated.
0
2
1