Director of Public Prosecutions v Celik
[2020] VCC 441
•17 April 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-19-00969
Indictment No. K10403160
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| V |
| KEMAL CELIK |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARRISH | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 17 March 2020 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 17 April 2020 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Celik | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 441 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – one charge of aggravated burglary – one uplifted summary charge of assault – pleas of guilty
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958, s77; Summary Offences Act 1966, s23 and s24; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:Phillips v R [2012] VSCA 140; R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269; Boulton v R; Clements v R; Fitzgerald v R (2014) 46 VR 308; Bradshaw v R [2017] VSCA 273; R v Hogarth v R (2012) 37 VR 658; R v Dalgliesh (2017) 349 ALR 37; Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Meyers (2014) 44 VR 486; Collier v R [2018] VSCA 47; Azzopardi v R; Baltatzis v R; Gabriel v R (2011) 35 VR 43
Sentence: 2 year Community Correction Order with 100 hours of community work and various conditions; 6AAA declaration – 2 years 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms E Johnson | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Ms N Spicer | Stary Norton Halphen |
HIS HONOUR:
1
Kemal Celik, on 17 March 2020, you pleaded guilty to the following offence on Indictment No.610403160, that you, at Cranbourne North in Victoria on
21 February 2019 entered as a trespasser, a building with intent to commit an offence involving an assault to a person therein, and at the time of entering a person was then present in the building and you knew that a person was then so present, or was reckless as to whether or not a person was then so present.
The offence of aggravated burglary is contrary to s77 of the Crimes Act 1958 and carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, you consented to Summary Charge 2 being uplifted to this Court. Such charge alleges that you at Cranbourne North in Victoria on 21 February 2019, did unlawfully assault Gloria Azure[1] with a golf club. On 17 March 2020, you also pleaded guilty to such offence. Such offence is contrary to s23 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 and carries a maximum penalty of 15 penalty units or imprisonment for three months. Section 24(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 provides, in part:
“Where a person is convicted before the Magistrates’ Court of an assault … upon any female, if in the opinion of the court the assault … is of such an aggravated nature that it cannot sufficiently be punished under the last preceding section, the person offending shall be liable on conviction to a penalty of 25 penalty units or to imprisonment for six months …”.
[1] A pseudonym
Circumstances of the offending
3 Counsel for the prosecution tendered a document headed “Summary of Prosecution Plea Opening” dated 3 September 2019 (exhibit 1) and I was informed by your counsel that you agree with the contents of such document. In particular, I note the following:
·You are now 19 years of age, having been born on 31 December 2000. You were aged 18 at the time of the offending.
·Ms Gloria Azure is the complainant and was your former girlfriend.
·You met at high school and worked together at Coles Supermarket - and I shall refer to that as Coles” - and were in a relationship for approximately two years prior to you ending the relationship in about December 2018.
·On Thursday, 21 February 2019 at approximately 10.00pm, you were working at Coles when the complainant and a male friend entered the supermarket to buy some groceries.
·You made eye contact with the complainant and her male friend as they entered the store and began to stare at them as they moved throughout the store. You continued to stare at the complainant and her male friend while they put their items through the self-serve checkout and made deliberate attempts to be close to the pair by wiping the register right next to the pair and staring at them without speaking.
·The complainant and her male friend left the store feeling very uncomfortable and after the complainant dropped her friend at his home, she went home herself and texted you, asking you not to be jealous, that it was being unfair to her.
·
You left work at approximately 10.55pm and drove to the address of the complainant at approximately 11.00pm. You sat out the front of her address for approximately five to ten minutes, after which you called the complainant, asking her to let you come in so you could talk.
The complainant told you that she did not want you to come inside, but you could talk on the phone. You kept persisting, so the complainant agreed to open the front door so you could talk.
·You retrieved a golf club out of the boot of your vehicle and placed it out of view, to the right of the front door, while waiting for the complainant to open the door.
·
The complainant opened the door halfway so that she could see your face and you looked at her and told her to “wait there”.
The complainant had to open the door in order to see you and you stepped to the right of the door, out of sight.
·You returned a few seconds later with your chest puffed out and a golf club raised in your right hand, and demanded that you be let into the house in a quiet but aggressive tone. The complainant initially refused.
·You then entered the house through the front door, into the entrance hall, with the complainant frozen with fear and you asked, “where is he, where is he?” with the golf club raised.
·The complainant, believing she was about to be assaulted, did not answer at first, but followed you to the kitchen and told you that he was not there, referring to her male friend.
·After a few minutes, the complainant asked you to leave, and you began to walk to the front door with the complainant before stopping and stating “I’ll find him”.
·You then went back out the front door and began to punch a tree on the front nature strip, during which time the complainant was on the phone to the Triple Zero operator, and although the front door had been shut, it had failed to lock.
·
You re-entered the house without the golf club and cornered the complainant in her bedroom while she was on the phone to the Triple Zero operator and pleaded with her not to give your name.
The complainant gave the call-taker your name and you responded with “You’re going to regret doing that”.
·You then left the house after being asked to leave by the complainant.
·Police arrived at the complainant’s house and took a statement from her at the scene. At approximately 12.25am on 22 February 2019, police attended your address where you answered the door, after which you were arrested and cautioned.
·You were interviewed at the Narre Warren Police Station and you were cooperative with police throughout the investigation, displaying remorse whilst making full admissions in committing the aggravated burglary.
·You stated that your original intention was to just go to the address and speak to the complainant. However, as you sat outside the front of the house, “dark thoughts” began to enter your mind.
·You stated to the police that you placed the golf club out of view of that door because you knew the complainant would not open the door if she saw the golf club. You stated that your intention for entering the home with the golf club was to express your dominance over the complainant and her male friend.
Other matters
4 Counsel for the prosecution informed the Court:
(a)that it was accepted that your plea of guilty, which occurred at a further committal mention on 21 May 2019, was at “the earliest opportunity”. Furthermore, it was confirmed that you have no prior convictions and nothing pending;
(b)counsel for the prosecution did inform the Court that a forensic sample pursuant to s464ZF or s464ZF(b) of the Crimes Act would be sought. Such an order was not opposed;
(c)there is no pre-sentence detention;
(d)as a result of the subject offending, a Final Family Violence Order was obtained with full conditions, which was served on you on 25 February 2019 and will remain in place until 25 February 2021. There have been no violations of such order.
Victim Impact Statement
5 The complainant, Ms Gloria Azure, made a Victim Impact Statement, declared on 5 March 2020 (exhibit 2). Such exhibit was read by the prosecutor during the plea hearing.
6 In her statement, the complainant described how she has been “distant and extra cautious around people who are really only here to help and support me”. In particular, she finds that she is distancing herself and has trouble gaining trust in the people around her.
7 She has had trouble sleeping as a result of dreams that would replay the subject offending. She notes that for a while after the offending she was emotionally hurt, but also had a lot of disappointment and anger in herself – fear that it was all her fault as to the occurrence of the incident.
8 Ultimately, she asserts it has “caused a lot of fear to just even be out in public alone as I was worried that something was going to happen to me”.
Your education, employment and social background
9 Your counsel tendered the following material:
(a) Outline of Plea Submissions, dated 12 March 2020 (exhibit “A”);
(b)a report from your treating psychologist, Ms Semra Durmaz, dated
14 March 2020, and a report from the clinical and forensic psychologist, Mr Patrick Newton, dated 1 March 2020 (exhibit “B”);
(c) references from the following:
(i)a former teacher, Ms Emine Cetinkaya, dated 3 May 2019.
In that reference, she describes herself as being one of your former teachers and a family friend for around 10 years.
In particular, she notes that over time she has come to see you as a “tirelessly hardworking, often staying at … [your] … job for long hours in order to provide in helping … [your] … parents with the financial strain that they are enduring”. In particular, she describes your offending to be “out of character”, given that over the time that she has known you, you have shown “nothing but respect for all teachers and students as well as the friendships [you] have kept”. Ms Cetinkaya updated her reference by a further reference dated 13 March 2020, wherein she confirms her earlier comments;
(ii)a former teacher, William David Frantz, who, in a Statutory Declaration declared on 6 May 2019, describes how, for the past four years, he had taught you systems engineering at the Alkira Secondary School. In particular, he notes that during this time you displayed exemplary behaviour in all situations and developed a very strong work ethic and possessed a willingness to learn at every opportunity. He also notes that not only were you polite and well behaved but went out of your way to develop and maintain good working relationships with your teachers and fellow students. He describes you as a person of “upstanding character”;
(iii)again, a teacher, Ms Rame Shirvann, who in a Statutory Declaration declared on 6 May 2019 describes having known you for the past two years, being the teacher in your physics class. She found you polite, well behaved and honest. In particular, she noted that you generally maintained good relationships with all the teachers and fellow colleagues;
(iv)Umul Yurtesever, a family friend, who in a Statutory Declaration declared on 5 May 2019 notes that he has known you for six years, and over that time you have helped him and his family, and that in no way are you a person with bad intentions and are always willing to help;
(v)Ms Hanan Chazbek, who in a Statutory Declaration declared on 16 May 2019 describes how she has known you for two years, playing soccer with her son and coached by her husband. Furthermore, being the customer service manager at Coles she has worked with you for the last 14 months, and that you have always acted in a professional manner, are punctual and polite, and have exceptional customer service skills. She notes that the subject offending is “completely out of character”.
Ms Chazbek, in a further reference dated 16 March 2020, notes that she has seen you at work for the past year and, again, reiterates what she says in her earlier Statutory Declaration;
(vi)From Ms Tabitha Schubert, wherein she notes that over the past year you have continued to display a great work ethic within the work environment and is “especially great at managing and delegating within a professional proficient manner”;
(vii)Mr Leighton Thompson, dated 16 March 2020. Mr Thompson states that he is the grocery manager at the Coles where you work and has known you for more than a year and a half.
He notes that over the years he has known you, you have displayed a great deal of professionalism and “an incredible work ethic”, which has been recognised by the company having made you a duty manager. He further notes that although your enthusiastic and energetic attitude has not dropped over the years, he is convinced that you are “remorseful and feels guilty of [your] actions not only because [you] are aware it was out of character, but also because of the impacts that [your] actions would have had on Leticia”;
(viii)Mr Duygu Soliman, dated 13 March 2020. Mr Soliman is a friend of the family and notes that you come from a very caring, loving and supportive family, who have “great values”.
In particular, he notes that over the past year he has observed you juggling studying at RMIT University and working hard at Coles supermarket, during which time you have been a law-abiding citizen, and he has not observed you getting into any trouble whatsoever;
(d)various documents from the RMIT University, confirming your enrolment in an Advanced Diploma of Engineering Technology – Electrical and in particular, your 2020 Statement of Enrolment (exhibit “D”).
10 Partly based on various submissions made by your counsel and the various materials which have been tendered, I note the following:
·You were born in Turkey and are the only son of your biological parents. Your parents separated when you were about two and your mother developed a relationship with an Australian citizen (who was then resident in Turkey) and they came to Australia in 2006. Although that relationship was short-lived, and despite your own desire to return to Turkey, you and your mother remained in Australia.
·After arriving in Australia, your mother engaged in a relationship with another Australian man, who you described to Mr Newton as “controlling”, and ultimately “ripped off” from your mother a sizeable amount of money, causing you and your mother to reside in emergency accommodation for some time after the end of that relationship.
·Your biological parents divorced in 2006 but reconciled in 2009 or 2010 (during a return to Turkey) and thereafter your biological father joined you and your mother in Australia in 2010. You now have a younger sister (aged 8), who was born in 2011.
·You informed Mr Newton that you had always been close to your mother and expressed gratitude for the hard work she had invested to providing a nurturing environment for you. In relation to your father, you described him as having difficulties with his anger and that your parents quarrelled often.
·You found such situation distressing but noted that the arguments never got to violence and you had never been fearful of your father’s behaviour.
·You informed Mr Newton that discipline within the family was consistent and fair and you continue to remain a resident in the family house and have never lived elsewhere.
·Your first language is Turkish, and you did not speak any English when you arrived in Australia, although you learnt that language relatively quickly once you attended and commenced primary school. You are now fluent in both languages.
·Again, you told Mr Newton that you had acquired functional literacy in both languages and that your numeracy skills are good.
·During your early years in Australia your mother had moved frequently as she sought better work opportunities, and such repeated moves made it difficult for you to establish yourself with a stable peer network. Over the years you had been subject to some ethnically-based teasing and ostracism, but it had not become extreme.
·You commenced your secondary schooling at Sirius College, which you described to Mr Newton as “a super strict, private Turkish school where you learnt the language and culture as well as the usual classes”. You did not enjoy your time there, and left that school at the end of Year 8 and completed your secondary schooling at Alkira College (a government school) in Cranbourne North and, in particular, reported no significant academic, behavioural, disciplinary or social problems while there.
·You obtained good marks and found you had enjoyed a supportive friendship circle, and during your time at that school you were neither suspended nor expelled from school and passed through the grades without repeating, and completed Year 12, obtaining a good result.
·You then progressed to commence studies towards an Advanced Diploma of Electrical Engineering at RMIT and your plan is to articulate to a Bachelor’s degree upon completion of the relevant prerequisites. Again, you told Mr Newton that you are enjoying your course and that you have obtained many “high distinction” grades in your exams.
·Since the age of 16, you have worked part time in the Coles supermarket, where you have progressed from being “part of the regular team” to working as “duty manager”.
·
The only significant relationship has been with the complainant in this matter, who you met at secondary school and became friends.
You informed Mr Newton that you began dating in Year 11 and you were together for the past two years, and that you had experienced a strong bond with the complainant during that relationship.
·However, towards the end of the relationship you had found it increasingly difficult to communicate and you felt more and more distant from her, causing you to bring the relationship to an end in November 2018.
·
When aged 10 or 11, you had been asked to consult with a psychologist in the context of family upheaval, but you informed
Mr Newton that you had seen “no need for it” and had discontinued treatment quickly.
·You informed Mr Newton that you had experienced significant distress in relation to being charged with these matters.
·
You informed Mr Newton that you had consulted a psychologist,
Ms Semra Durmaz, for counselling, primarily focusing on helping you to develop communication skills, with a particular emphasis on assisting you to develop better conflict management skills.
·You also informed Mr Newton that you only rarely drink alcohol and that you never drink to excess, and alcohol played no role in your offending conduct. Furthermore, you informed Mr Newton you had never experimented with any type of illicit substance.
The evidence of the psychologist, Ms Semra Durmaz
11 Ms Durmaz reports that you were referred to her by your general practitioner, Dr Zakir Hossain, who was concerned about your stress and anxiety symptoms, and also concerned about your well-being following the subject offending.
12 Ms Durmaz obtained a detailed history from you and in particular notes that you developed a relationship with the complainant when at high school, and also the complainant worked at Coles with you since 2017. Consistent with the history given by you to Mr Newton, you told your treating psychologist that towards the end of the relationship with the complainant you found it difficult to communicate with her and ultimately felt that you had to distance yourself from her, and later decided to end the relationship in November 2018.
13 You told Ms Durmaz that you cared a lot about the complainant but did not want to be in an intimate relationship with her. Furthermore, that even after you had distanced yourself, you still felt you had to talk to her and support her. You continued to communicate and keep in touch despite the separation.
14 In particular, the following history was obtained by Ms Durmaz:
“Mr. Celik stated that he had noticed that her girlfriend was getting closer to another man. Mr. Celik said that he asked her, two days prior to the incident, if she was dating anyone. Mr. Celik said that she told him she would not care for anyone at that stage and not ready for another relationship. On the 21st of February 2019 around 10:00 pm she and her boyfriend went to the Coles supermarket to buy some groceries.
Mr. Celik had noticed them and looked at her and her boyfriend. He thought she had lied to him two nights ago when she said she would not have any relationship. Mr. Celik completed his work at 11:00 pm and sent a message to her suggesting they should talk. He drove to her house and sat outside in front of her door. He rang her to open the door but she insisted that they talk on the phone. Mr. Celik stated that he was angry thinking that her boyfriend was inside with her. He said that although he had ended the relationship with her he could not cope with the idea that she had started having another relationship in such a short time. He expressed that he was not thinking clearly and he was angry. He grabbed one of the golf clubs from his car and knocked the door asking where her boyfriend was. He said that he entered in her house looking for her boyfriend after she opened the door. He said that she told him to leave the house. He went outside, put the gold club on the nature strip and started to punch one of the trees. Mr. Celik said that she rang the police as he pleaded her not to call the police, and not to give his name and asked to talk and resolve the issue together. He felt angry, upset, and disappointed because she rang the police and gave them his name.Mr. Celik left her house. He went home and told his mother what had happened. He said that 40 minutes later police came to his house and arrested him. He said that during the interview with police he was apologetic and remorseful. He said he had answered all questions honestly. He was released on bail and with no restrictions. He and his family went to Turkey on the 29th of June 2019 and stayed there until the 18th of August 2019. He continued to work and attended his school after he returned.” (sic)
15 Ms Durmaz initially saw you on 14 May 2019 and notes that you presented as a cooperative person who was overwhelmed by the consequences and impact of the incident to your life. You have always come to your appointments on time and have presented as polite, respectful and cooperative, and answered questions honestly. Ms Durmaz noted that you discussed your difficulties logically and:
“[t]here are no formal abnormalities of perception such as evidence of illusions or hallucinations, there were no delusions. I would describe his insight as partial. He has demonstrated good orientation in time and space.”
16 In particular, you told your treating psychologist that you had been anxious about your situation and the consequences of your actions upon your future. You expressed your regret about your actions towards the complainant and also expressed how disappointed you were with yourself. You accepted that your ego had played a significant role for not being able to think clearly and not being able to calculate the consequences of your act. You said that you did not expect your girlfriend to come to Coles with her boyfriend and you took this as an offence to you. You regret you acted impulsively without thinking your decision through.
17 Over the period of your treatment with your treating psychologist, you have undergone a variety of tests. Ms Durmaz notes that the results of psychometric assessments indicated that you are currently experiencing significant levels of anxiety and depression, which continue to have a significant impact on your daily life.
18 By way of diagnosis, Ms Durmaz notes that you currently fulfil the criteria for Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood (Chronic). Your treatment has involved Cognitive Behavioural Therapy strategies, utilised for reducing your anxiety and depression level and also dealing with your symptoms.
19 In her report, Ms Durmaz expresses her opinion and recommendations as follows:
“I am of the opinion that Mr. Celik had a difficult childhood experiences and in his mind he took a lot of responsibilities to support his mother as a young child. He also has been negatively affected by his father’s sudden burst of anger during arguments with his mother. He experienced bullying at the primary school where he tried to deal on his own. He did not recognise his difficulties as problematic and thought he could deal by himself. He did not share most of it with his mother in order not to be a burden to his mother. He said that he had internalised most of his emotions and did not share or express with anyone. He has been practising to share some of his thoughts and difficulties with his mother and exchanging opinions with her. He has started to change his behaviour since last year. He is now more aware of his negative thoughts and insecurities. He has shown some improvement to reduce his anxiety and depressive symptoms. He is ready to put a significant effort to overcome the problems of his past experiences. He states that he is ready to confront his difficulties and receive help to resolve them. He expressed his regrets and remorse that he acted by his emotions rather than calculating the consequences of his act. Mr. Celik is aware and mindful that he cannot overcome his difficulties through willpower alone and the steps he has taken to receive help are constructive and effective in meeting these challenges.
I am of the opinion that he is ready to commit and attend further psychological treatments. I am also of the opinion that he may benefit from an anger management program in a group setting. He needs a long term psychological treatment to reduce and eventually eliminate his anxiety and depression and also learn problem solving strategies and calculate positives and negatives before he decides on his acts. I am of the opinion that he can benefit from an intensive anger management and psychological treatments in community setting as this would provide a positive outcome for his future without too much disruption from his education and career. I am of the opinion that Mr. Celik has already been suffering the consequences of his actions. I believe if he is given another chance he will continue contributing to society in a positive way and achieve his goals … .” (sic)
The evidence of the clinical forensic psychologist, Mr Patrick Newton
20
The clinical and forensic psychologist, Mr Patrick Newton, assessed you on
3 February 2020. At that time, he obtained a history and performed various psychological testing. He did note that you impressed as a relatively immature man for your age and had difficulty discussing subjective and emotional issues in general.
21 Mr Newton ultimately opined that although you were mildly anxious about your impending plea hearing and the potential consequences for your future, such symptoms were within normal limits and did not warrant the diagnosis of a mental disorder. Furthermore, you would not meet the criteria for any Mood Disorder or anxiety-related disorder, or Adjustment Disorder, at the time of your consultation with Mr Newton.
22 Mr Newton estimated you to be of high-average intelligence. He considered your anger-management skills and your capacity to manage conflict are generally positive and that you are not ordinarily a hostile man. He notes that in most situations your anger escalates slowly, that you have benefited from your recent participation in counselling and could identify the processes connected to your anger, and were able to discuss a range of positive strategies for managing conflict. Mr Newton notes that you have a clear understanding that your offending conduct was unacceptable and a strong motivation to institute effective change.
23 However, and in particular, Mr Newton did note that there are several concerns identified with regard to your anger-management skills. Firstly, he was of the opinion that you could be rather rigid in your views and at times express this in an overly assertive manner and secondly, you experience little anxiety in situations of conflict, and thirdly, you endorse “traditional” gender roles. Mr Newton considered that while you have generally good behaviour control, and while you have benefitted from your participation in counselling, you would further benefit from intervention to consolidate these changes and improve your conflict management.
24 In particular, Mr Newton states, and I quote:
“Mr Celik presents with a number of rehabilitative needs which require ongoing attention. In particular, notwithstanding good progress in counselling he continues to show several areas where his conflict-management skills could be improved and his empathy for the Complainant could also be deepened. While these challenges are not extreme, it is important that they receive appropriate intervention now to prevent the development of more serious problems in the future.
Specifically, Mr Celik would benefit from a rehabilitative program which included:
·Anger-management training to address the gaps in his conflict-management skills and insight. Such intervention will be most likely to be beneficial if it is offered in a group setting with other young men and incorporates a focus on cultural issues as well as communication skills.
·Continued mental-health care to ensure that any nascent issues are expeditiously addressed.”
Matters in mitigation of your sentence
25 Your counsel submits that despite the “inherent seriousness of the offending”, that is, the aggravated burglary, there is a combination of significant mitigating factors which mean that a sentence other than one of imprisonment is open and appropriate. Indeed, it was submitted that you have, since the offending, progressed along consistently with reformation and demonstrate a willingness to accept responsibility and make use of the resources and supports available to you.
26 In those circumstances, it was submitted on your behalf that because of these matters in particular, the guideline Court of Appeal judgment of Boulton v R; Clements v R; Fitzgerald v R (2014) 46 VR 308 has relevance. Reference was made to paragraph [114] of such judgment, where the court states:
“… the ability to impose a sentence which demands of the offender that he/she take personal responsibility for self-management and self-control and (depending on the conditions) that he/she pursue treatment and rehabilitation, refrain from undesirable activities and associations and/or avoid undesirable persons and places. The CCO also enables the offender to maintain the continuity of personal and family relationships, and to benefit from the support they provide.”
27 Ultimately, it was submitted that the appropriate disposition in relation to the aggravated burglary would be a Community Correction Order. In this respect, your counsel referred to Bradshaw v R [2017] VSCA 273, which held that the sentencing judge in that matter had erred in finding that the offending there
(a pre-planned confrontation or aggravated burglary, in company, with weapons) was so serious that it could only be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment.
28 It was submitted that the approach required by the Court in Bradshaw means that the Court should not commence the sentencing task from the starting position of the sentencing practices suggested in cases such as Hogarth v R (2012) 37 VR 658. Furthermore, it was submitted that such an approach is consistent with the High Court’s decision in R v Dalgliesh (2017) 349 ALR 37.
29 In particular, your counsel referred to the following matters in mitigation in relation to the indictable offence of aggravated burglary:
(a)your plea of guilty to such offending was at the earliest practicable time, and it was submitted that you ought to receive the full benefit of your early plea of guilty – both in respect to the objective and subjective aspects of the plea, as referred to in Phillips v R [2012] VSCA 140.
In particular, it was submitted that not only did the plea have the utilitarian benefit of saving the Court time and expense, but more particularly obviated the necessity for the complainant to give evidence in a trial;
(b)that you have shown remorse, initially by volunteering detailed admissions to the police Record of Interview which was conducted only hours after the subject offending occurred, and later, your plea of guilty. Furthermore, there were further indications of remorse to both your treating psychologist and the consultant psychologist, Mr Newton;
(c)at the time of the offending you were 18 years of age and even now are only 19 years old. You were assessed by the forensic psychologist,
Dr Newton as being “a relatively immature man for [your] age”. It was submitted that the principles applicable to the sentencing of youthful offenders should extend to you. By this, it was submitted that general deterrence should give some weight to rehabilitation, and assessment of your moral culpability ought to be seen through the prism of your age and immaturity;
(d)your counsel did accept that your appreciation of the true significance of your actions on the night is still at an early age, consistent with your lack of maturity;
(e)you have no prior convictions and your counsel submits that this is the first time you have become before a court. Your references speak of a person of good character, who has generally got on well with people, been hardworking, and generally polite and decent with those who you come in gcontact with;
(f)your counsel also points to you having maintained your bail conditions and there has been no breach of the Intervention Orders in favour of the complainant, to which you entered into voluntarily following the offending;
(g)since the offending, you have commenced counselling with a psychologist, Ms Durmaz, and cooperated in the process of obtaining a forensic psychological report identifying specific areas of rehabilitative needs for your attention;
(h)you continue to have family support and, in particular, a strong supportive relationship between you and your mother, which is ongoing and significant;
(i)throughout this period of time you have continued to work for Coles and have risen up to the rank of a duty manager;
(j)your counsel submits that your prospects for rehabilitation should be seen as “very positive”. Dr Newton has identified that while you present with a number of rehabilitative needs requiring ongoing attention, “[your] intrinsic level of motivation to address [your] challenges is positive and is considered likely to result in good treatment compliance”.
30 Your counsel notes that Mr Newton, in particular, has identified that you would benefit from an ongoing rehabilitative program which included anger-management training to address the gaps in your conflict-management skills and insight, and that such intervention would most likely be beneficial if offered in a setting with other men which incorporates a focus on cultural issues, as well as communications and continued mental-health care, to ensure that any nascent issues are expeditiously addressed.
The response of the Prosecution
31 Counsel for the prosecution highlighted the nature and gravity of the offending which did involve holding a golf club in circumstances where the complainant would not have known what was intended. Counsel for the prosecution also noted that considering you were aged 18 at the time of your offending, that your youth is a very significant factor in this case, with emphasis being on rehabilitation factors.
32 Counsel for the prosecution considered that any Community Correction Order should be at least for 12 months’ duration and there should clearly be an anger-management course as part of any treatment to be undertaken.
Community Correction Order
33 On 20 March 2020, you were assessed to determine your suitability for a Community Correction Order. In a report of the same date, the Community Corrections officer, Ms Monica Dankoff, during a telephone conference with you on that day, noted you engaged appropriately with her for the duration of the assessment, answering all questions put to you in a forthcoming manner.
34 In particular, Ms Dankoff noted that when you were invited to discuss the offending, you described your behaviour as “stupid and impulsive” and expressed remorse for the complainant and identified the harm that your actions may have caused her. Ms Dankoff also noted that since the offending you have voluntarily entered into mental-health assistance by engaging a psychologist. You were assessed as being low risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Risk Assessment Tool. Ultimately, you have been assessed as a suitable candidate for a Community Correction Order.
35 Ms Dankoff noted that you can reside in the family home with both parents and your sister. Furthermore, she noted that the protective factors identified during the assessment included your employment/educational status, and significant familial support.
36 During the assessment, you voiced concerns in relation to completing unpaid community work hours in light of full-time study and work commitments. Ms Dankoff did note that you could perform unpaid hours on a fortnightly basis, but it was a matter for the Court.
37 Ms Dankoff also noted that because you were assessed as being a low risk of reoffending, it is recommended that the “minimum optional conditions” be appropriate. Such a recommendation is due to the specific cohort of offenders requiring minimal intervention in order to reduce their likelihood of general reoffending.
38 Ms Dankoff goes on to say, however, that as your offending is within the scope of family violence, that the following conditions were recommended:
(a)subject to your concerns about performing unpaid employment given your work duties and study, Ms Dankoff noted there was no physical ailments that would prevent you from complying with the conditions of unpaid work. She also noted that s48CA of the Sentencing Act 1991 provides that if a court attaches both an unpaid community work condition and a treatment and rehabilitation condition to the order, the court may determine that some or all of the required hours satisfactorily undertaken may be credited as hours of unpaid community work;
(b)the condition of supervision was also recommended, but not that of “judicial monitoring”, as you have no history with Community Corrections and also no history of non-compliance with any court orders.
Conclusion
39 The offence of aggravated burglary is a very serious offence, as is made plain by its maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. Your counsel has, in my view, correctly identified the nature of the offence as being a “confrontational” aggravated burglary. Such offending generally results in an immediate term of imprisonment. In Hogarth v R (2012) 37 VR 658, the Victorian Court of Appeal concluded that the sentences generally imposed for “confrontational” aggravated burglary were too low, and that sentencing practices needed to change to reflect the objective gravity of this type of offending.
40 In the later Court of Appeal decision of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Meyers (2014) 44 VR 486, the Court of Appeal stated, at paragraphs [47-[49]:
“Determining the sentence to be imposed for any particular offence of aggravated burglary will in large part depend on a careful assessment of the (relative) seriousness of the offence. There was argument on the appeal about how the gravity of this particular instance of aggravated burglary should be assessed.
In our view, the following considerations will ordinarily be relevant to such an assessment:
·the offender’s intent at the point of entry (whether to steal or commit assault or cause damage);37
·the mode of entry (for example, by forcing a door or breaking a window);
·whether the offender was carrying a weapon;
·whether the offender was alone or in company;
·the time of day at which the burglary took place;
·what the offender knew or believed about who would be inside and/or about where the person(s) would be; and
·whether the offender was someone of whom the victim was particularly frightened.
The particular purpose which the offender has in mind at the point of entry is a significant feature going to the gravity of the offence.
Of course, the intent on entry is conceptually distinct from what occurs after entry, but the offender’s conduct once inside the premises will usually enable inferences to be drawn about the intent on entry.”
41 I also refer to the more recent Court of Appeal decision of Collier v R [2018] VSCA 47, wherein the Court of Appeal stated at paragraphs [38]-[40]:
“In Hogarth v The Queen, this Court concluded that the sentences generally imposed for ‘confrontational aggravated burglary’ were too low, and that sentencing practices needed to change to reflect the objective gravity of this kind of offending.
In Director of Public Prosecutions v Meyers, this Court explained that:
‘… the task of applying Hogarth does not require the classification of offences into categories. Put simply, Hogarth established that current sentencing practices (‘CSP’) for serious forms of aggravated burglary needed to change, as they did not reflect the objective seriousness of such offending. Aggravated burglaries which involve confrontation and violence, or threats of violence, should be viewed very seriously, whether the target of the attack is a former domestic partner or a person against whom some other grievance is held.’
As these and other statements in Meyers make clear, each case will depend on its own facts and the seriousness of the offending must be viewed in the context of those facts. Classification or labels are of marginal significance and may distract from the instinctive synthesis of the sentencing task.”
(Footnotes omitted.)
42 I also make reference to one of the decisions to which your counsel referred to – Bradshaw v R [2017] VSCA 273. That matter involved an appeal by the offender in respect to a sentence of 2 years’ and 6 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre in respect of one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of common assault. The appellant, who was 18 years old at the time of the offending, was a member of the “South West Bloods”. The incident involved the appellant and two other members of that group attending a unit where was situated a member of the South West Bloods, aged 16, who was trying to leave the group and had been hiding at the unit.
43 The appellant’s face was covered, and he was holding a large knife as he approached the unit, and one of his co-offenders had armed himself with an axe and brought a Pitbull Cross Terrier on a lead.
44 On entering the unit, the appellant confronted a woman inside the unit with a knife, demanding to know where the defecting member was situated. One of the people in the unit swung a baseball bat around, causing the appellant to yell at him and trying to stab him (such behaviour constituting the charge of common assault). During the incident, a number of people, including the person they came to confront, barricaded themselves in a bedroom beyond the reach of the appellant and his co-offender. The appellant and his co-offender followed them and banged on the door, with the co-offender striking the door with an axe. Threats were yelled to the terrified people inside and after 000 had been called and one of those inside the unit had a panic attack, the appellant and his co-offender left the unit.
45 In part, the appeal involved whether the sentencing judge was in error when having found that the objective gravity of the aggravated burglary prevented him from considering a Community Correction Order in circumstances where the offender had demonstrated excellent rehabilitation by the time of sentence. The Court of Appeal considered that the sentencing judge was in error and, in particular, stated at paragraphs [49]-[51] that:
“Parsimony requires sentencing judges to give proper consideration to non-custodial options. As this Court stated in Boulton, a CCO provides a flexible mechanism for imposing a sentence that is both punitive and rehabilitative, which can be fashioned to address the particular circumstances of the offender and the causes of the offending and to minimise the risk of re-offending by promoting the offender’s rehabilitation. As the order of seriousness of offending conduct increases, so the likelihood that such a disposition will be appropriate diminishes, but it may remain an option that is open, even in cases of very serious offending. The error which his Honour made, with respect, was to view the gravity of the offending to be of such an order that the sentencing range could only include an order that involved confinement of the appellant.
There were factors present that could have led the judge to conclude that the purposes of sentencing could be met without an order of confinement. It is rare to encounter an offender with such strong prospects for rehabilitation. The judge, who recognised this, characterised them in his sentencing reasons as ‘excellent’. Further, as a youthful offender, promotion of rehabilitation became a primary purpose of sentencing. It follows that in cases where rehabilitation is of paramount importance consideration of a CCO will take on greater significance.
It is evident, however, that his Honour treated offending of this gravity as precluding the possibility that a CCO could be imposed for this category of the offence of aggravated burglary. His Honour also dismissed the possibility that the principles discussed in Boulton, that a CCO could be appropriately punitive whilst achieving the broader purposes of sentencing, could extend to the appellant’s circumstances.”
(Footnotes omitted.)
46 In the circumstances of this matter, you had had a relationship with the complainant for a number of years, which you chose to end in about November 2018. I accept that after the cessation of the relationship you and the complainant had continued to be in regular telephone and social media contact, as well as having incidental contact at the Coles supermarket where you both worked. Furthermore, I also accept that, consistent with your comments to Mr Newton, you had had a discussion with the complainant some two days before the subject offending, which included whether or not the complainant was “dating anyone else”. You asserted that she had informed you that she was not, and you told her the same.
47
Again, you described to Mr Newton that on seeing the complainant with another young male at the supermarket at approximately 10.00pm on
21 February 2019, you were shocked and decided you would attend at the complainant’s house in order to discuss the matter in person. You drove to the house at approximately 11.00pm and during such drive you informed
Mr Newton that you became “more intensely distressed”.
48 You arrived at the complainant’s address at approximately 11.00pm and sat outside her address for approximately five to ten minutes, during which time you called the complainant, asking her to let you in so you could talk. Prior to this, the complainant had texted you, asking you not to be jealous, and stating it was being unfair to her.
49 When you made the telephone call, the complainant told you that she did not want you to come inside, but you could talk on the phone. You kept persisting, so ultimately the complainant agreed to open the front door so you could talk.
50 In particular, and significantly, you retrieved a golf club out of the boot of your vehicle and placed it out of view to the right of the front door while waiting for the complainant to open the door. As you told police when arrested, you placed the golf club out of view of the door because you knew that the complainant would not open the door if she saw the golf club.
51 When the complainant opened the door halfway so that she could see your face, you looked at her and told her to “wait there”. The complainant had to open the door a bit further to see you, as you stepped to the right of the door out of sight. You then returned a few seconds later with the golf club raised in your right hand, demanding that you be let into the house, in a quiet but aggressive tone. The complainant refused and you entered the house through the front door, causing the plaintiff to stand against the entrance wall, frozen with fear, as you asked her “where is he. Where is he?”.
52 The complainant, believing she was to be assaulted, did not answer you at first, but eventually followed you to the kitchen and told you that he was not there. After a few minutes, the complainant asked you to leave, causing you to begin to walk to the front door with her, before stopping and stating “I’ll find him”.
53
You went out and began to punch a tree on the front nature strip, before returning to the house and seeing the complainant ringing 000, and you pleaded with her not to give your name. On the complainant giving the call taker your name, you informed her “you’re going to regret doing that”.
You then left the house, after being asked by the complainant to leave.
54 During the course of this conduct was the assault which you committed on the complainant. Although you did not strike the complainant with either your hand or indeed the golf club, she was confronted with you holding the golf club, raised in your right hand, and as agreed in the Statement of Facts, she believed she was about to be struck and assaulted – that is to say, she had a reasonable apprehension that was going to occur.
55 One only has to read the contents of the complainant’s Victim Impact Statement to understand the fear that she had during your rampage at her house on the night of 21 February 2019. It may be that you never intended to strike the complainant, but her perception was understandable given your demeanour and attitude at her premises.
56 I do classify such offending as objectively serious and it cannot be tolerated in the community.
57 I do accept that although you planned to visit the complainant after you ceased work, the use of the golf club was, as your counsel submits, “opportunistic”, as it was located in your car for other reasons, that is, sport-related. Furthermore, again, as submitted by your counsel, your offending was not protracted, you left of your own volition, the offending was not in company, you did not wear any disguises, you were known to the victim and no injuries were sustained, nor property damaged.
58 Indeed, I consider that the driving forces on that night were immaturity coupled with jealousy in the context of you having difficulty controlling your anger. In this respect, I note that when sitting outside the complainant’s house on the night of the offending, you informed police that you had “dark thoughts” which began to enter your mind and, indeed, you told your treating psychologist, Mr Durmaz, that you were “angry thinking that her boyfriend was inside” with the complainant.
59 In mitigation of your sentence, I do accept the following:
(a)your plea of guilty to such offending was at the earliest practicable opportunity, consistent with the principles enunciated in Phillips v R (op cit). I accept that not only did your plea have the utilitarian benefit of saving the Court time and expense but, more particularly, obviated the necessity for the complainant to give evidence in a trial;
(b)I also accept that you have shown remorse, initially by volunteering detailed admissions to the police during your Record of Interview only a few hours after the subject offending, your plea of guilty and, indeed, the various indications of remorse, both to your treating psychologist, Ms Durmaz; the consultant psychologist, Mr Newton and to some of your referees;
(c)you have no prior convictions, and this is your first encounter before a court. I also have read all of your references, which speak of a person of good character, who has generally got on well with people, been hardworking and generally polite and decent with those who you have come in contact with. I have been informed that since the subject offending there has been no evidence of any other offending, and, indeed, you have maintained your bail conditions and there has been no breach of the Intervention Order made in favour of the complainant, to which you entered into voluntarily following the offending;
(d)it is of some note that you have commenced counselling with a psychologist, Ms Durmaz, and cooperated in the process of obtaining a forensic psychological report identifying specific areas of rehabilitative needs for your attention. You continue to have full family support and, in particular, a strong supportive relationship between you and your mother, which is ongoing.
You have demonstrated a strong work ethic by your continued work for Coles, rising up through the ranks to be, now, a duty manager, and indeed your ongoing tertiary education pursuits.
(e)in particular, at the time of the offending, you were a young offender – only 18 years old – and are entitled to the application of the sentencing principles concerning youth. In particular, I refer to one of the leading decisions of Azzopardi v R; Baltatzis v R; Gabriel v R (2011) 35 VR 43, a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal wherein, Redlich JA (with whom Coghlan AJA and Macaulay AJA agreed), stated at paragraphs [34]-[37]:
“There are a number of considerations which underlie the general primacy of an offender’s youth as a sentencing consideration. Firstly, young offenders being immature are therefore ‘more prone to ill-considered or rash decisions’. They ‘may lack the degree of insight, judgment and self-control that is possessed by an adult’. They may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct. As Vincent JA explained in Director of Public Prosecutions v SJK & GAS:
‘In the case of young people, to some extent, the law incorporates an acknowledgment of aspects of immaturity. By reason of the stage of development that an offender may have reached, he or she may not fully appreciate the seriousness and real consequences of the offending actions. However, it does not follow that this is always the situation or that, as teenagers, offenders cannot be held appropriately accountable for their conduct in engaging in serious criminal activity.’
Secondly, courts ‘recognize the potential for young offenders to be redeemed and rehabilitated’. This potential exists because young offenders are typically still in a stage of mental and emotional development and may be more open to influences designed to positively change their behaviour than adults who have established patterns of anti-social behaviour. No doubt because of this potential, it has been stated that the rehabilitation of young offenders, ‘is one of the great objectives of the criminal law’. The added emphasis for the purposes of sentencing on realisation of a young offender’s potential to be rehabilitated is further justified because of the community’s interest in such rehabilitation, not only at a theoretical level, but because the effective rehabilitation of a young offender protects the community from further offending. As stated in R v Lam & Ors,
‘A primary objective of the criminal justice system is to achieve crime prevention to protect the public.
The rehabilitation of an offender should not be seen as a consideration inimical to that objective. Crime prevention to protect the public and the rehabilitation of the offender are interlinked objectives. In sentencing there is thus a broad public interest in taking into account the youth of the offender.’
Thirdly, courts sentencing young offenders are cognizant that the effect of incarceration in an adult prison on a young offender will more likely impair, rather than improve, the offender’s prospects of successful rehabilitation. While in prison a youthful offender is likely to be exposed to corrupting influences which may entrench in that young person criminal behaviour, thereby defeating the very purpose for which punishment is imposed. Imprisonment for any substantial period carries with it the recognised risk that anti-social tendencies may be exacerbated. The likely detrimental effect of adult prison on a youthful offender has adverse flow-on consequences for the community. As Fox J stated in R v Dixon:
‘The reasons are obvious enough: the prisoners are kept in unnatural, isolated conditions, their every activity is so strictly regulated and supervised that they have no opportunity to develop a sense of individual responsibility, they are deprived of any real opportunity to learn to live as members of society, their only companions are other criminals…
When, therefore, a court has to consider whether to send a young person to gaol for the first time, it has to take into account the likely adverse effects of a gaol sentence. A distinct possibility, particularly if the sentence is a long one, is that the person sent to gaol will come out more vicious, and distinctly more anti-social in thoughts and deed than when he went in. His own personality may well be permanently impaired in a serious degree. If he could be kept in gaol for the rest of his life, it might be possible to ignore the consequences to society, but he will re-enter society and often while still quite young. His new-found propensities then have to be reckoned with. A substantial minority of persons who serve medium or long gaol sentences soon offend again.’
It is helpful to briefly examine how these considerations are affected where the crimes have been particularly serious or persistent. In the case of R v Mills, this Court stated the following general propositions about sentencing youthful offenders as correct:
‘i.Youth of an offender, particularly a first offender, should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court where the matter properly arises.
ii.In the case of a youthful offender rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence. That is because punishment may in fact lead to further offending. Thus, for example, individualised treatment focusing on rehabilitation is to be preferred. (Rehabilitation benefits the community as well as the offender.)
iii. A youthful offender is not to be sent to an adult prison if such a disposition can be avoided, especially if he is beginning to appreciate the effect of his past criminality. The benchmark for what is serious as justifying adult imprisonment may be quite high in the case of a youthful offender; and, where the offender has not previously been incarcerated, a shorter period of imprisonment may be justified. (This proposition is a particular application of the general principle expressed in s 5(4) of the Sentencing Act.)’
In addition Batt JA observed:
‘to say of a violent crime that it requires a sentence effecting the purpose of general and specific deterrence is not to show that the case is other than the ‘usual’ for the purpose of the above propositions.’”
(Footnotes omitted.)
60 However, I do consider that at the time of the offending you clearly had problems with controlling your anger and, indeed, both your treating psychologist and the forensic psychologist have commented that you continue to need ongoing treatment for this particular aspect of your personality.
61 I consider that the treatment you have received from your treating psychologist has been of benefit but needs to be ongoing to overcome the issues that both psychologists note. However, it is a positive step that you freely accept that treatment is needed, and you have voluntarily undertaken such treatment.
62 I consider that you have very good prospects of rehabilitation and that in all the circumstances rehabilitation should be a major consideration although, of course, such factors as general deterrence and denunciation of such crimes are relevant.
63 Bearing in mind your youth, your very good prospects of rehabilitation, your lack of relevant criminal history, strong family support, strong references and your ongoing tertiary education, I consider that rather than a custodial sentence, a Community Correction Order is appropriate in all the circumstances. In particular, a Community Correction Order will enable you to build on the strong progress that you have already made towards your rehabilitation.
64 I intend to convict you of both the indictable offence and the uplifted summary charge, and pursuant to s40 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I intend to make one Community Correction Order in respect of both offences, given that such offences are founded on the same facts.
65 Please be upstanding.
(a)in relation to the indictable offence of aggravated burglary, and the uplifted summary offence of assault, I convict you of both offences and sentence you to a Community Correction Order for a period of two years. You must attend the Cranbourne CCS at 176 Sladen Street, Cranbourne, within two days. In addition to the mandatory terms, there will be the following terms:
(i)pursuant to s48E of the Sentencing Act 1991, you are to be supervised, monitored and managed as directed by the Secretary for the Department of Justice and Regulation for the duration of the Community Correction Order;
(ii)pursuant to s48C of the Sentencing Act 1991, you are to perform 100 hours of unpaid community work during the course of the Community Correction Order;
(iii)pursuant to s48(3)(f) of the Sentencing Act 1991, you are to undertake any program which addresses factors relating to your offending behaviour, including, but not limited to, anger management courses and problem-solving strategies.
(iv)pursuant to s48D(g), that you undergo ongoing psychological treatment – preferably with your treating psychologist,
Ms Durmaz, which may include cultural and personal development programs;
(v)pursuant to s48CA of the Sentencing Act 1991, the Court determines that all the hours satisfactorily undertaken for treatment and rehabilitation are to be counted as hours of unpaid community work for the purposes of the unpaid community work condition;
(vi)pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that save for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 2½ years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 months.
(vii) I grant leave to the Prosecution to obtain a forensic sample order, which is not opposed.
66 HIS HONOUR: Mr Celik, I hope you have followed all that. No doubt it will be explained to you shortly. What it means is that you are not going to prison right now or hopefully in the near future. What it does mean, though, is that you have been given a community correction order for two years. That is a sentence of the court like any other sentence. And in particular, it contains various conditions which you must comply with.
67 You must bear in mind that if you do not comply with these conditions, it is almost certain that the corrections organisation will bring you back before me with what is called a breach of the corrections order. If I so find that there has been a breach, one of the options for me is to resentence you, and that could mean - off to prison.
68 It is very important that you comply with the conditions. Most of the conditions are for your benefit. Most of the conditions are to help you overcome the problems which probably gave rise to this offending, which seems to be essentially an issue of controlling your anger due to a lack of maturity, and jealousy issues, I think, at the time.
69 Be that as it may, you must understand the community just will not tolerate this type of activity. One can only speculate how frightening it must have been for your former girlfriend, in circumstances where clearly you must have had some concern for her in the past, and for that to occur within two months after your breaking the relationship is mind-boggling, at one stage. And I can perhaps only explain it by lack of anger management techniques.
70 So, you have got the chance to make good. You have got the chance to continue with your education. You have got the chance to continue working at Coles.
71 You must perform 100 hours of unpaid community work. You have made plain, perhaps sensibly, that with your Coles commitments and indeed your study commitments, that may be difficult.
72 I say two things about that. The first is that this is the element of real punishment in this case. You are going to have to make that work. I can assure you, if you need any assurance, that doing 100 hours community work is far better than being carted off to a gaol cell now.
73 The second thing you have to bear in mind, and this is to urge you even further - in the circumstances of your case, I have allowed any treatment that you have in relation to this order, that the hours of treatment will be counted as hours of community work. So that encourages you to have that treatment ongoing, and everything that the Corrections officer directs you to do, you do it. Do you understand?
74 OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
75 HIS HONOUR: Yes. You just have to bear in mind that one of the reasons
I have taken this course is your youth. At 18, as I have said in some detail, immaturity, silliness - these sorts of things go on. I can assure you, if you were 10 years older, you would be in the prison van going off to prison today. So you have to really overcome these matters. You will not be given a second chance next time. Do you understand that?
76 OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
77 HIS HONOUR: Yes, very well. You will have to remain there just so the documentation can be signed, but other than that, we will adjourn sine die.
- - -
0
9
0