Director of Public Prosecutions v Djerke (No 2)

[2023] ACTSC 341

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title: 

DPP v Djerke (No 2)

Citation: 

[2023] ACTSC 341

Hearing Date: 

3 November 2023

Decision Date: 

21 November 2023

Before: 

McCallum CJ

Decision: 

(1)	Ivan Djerke is convicted of the aggravated burglary in Kambah (SC CAN 193/2022) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and eight months, commencing 21 November 2023 and expiring 20 July 2027.
(2)	Ivan Djerke is convicted of the aggravated burglary in Holt (SC CAN 194/2022) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three years and eight months, commencing 21 November 2023 and expiring 20 July 2027.
(3)	I make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for Ivan Djerke in respect of the primary offence, being the aggravated burglary in Kambah (SC CAN 193/2022), of which he has been convicted and for which he has been sentenced to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment.
(4)	I order that that order extend to the second offence, being the aggravated burglary in Holt (SC CAN 194/2022), for which Ivan Djerke has been convicted and sentenced also to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment. That is an associate offence to the primary offence.
(5)	I note that convictions and sentences imposed for the primary and associated offence have been recorded and are hereby incorporated into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in the custodial part of the order.
(6)	I order that the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be for a period of 3 years and 8 months from today, that is 21 November 2023 to 20 July 2027.
(7)	The treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order will be a period of 18 months from today, that is 21 November 2023 to 20 May 2025.
(8)	The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for the primary and associated offence is hereby suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from today.
(9)	Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), I require Ivan Djerke to sign an undertaking to comply with

the offender’s good behaviour obligations under s 85 of the

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the

day after the end of the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, 21 May 2025, until the end of the total sentence, 20 July 2027, with a

probation condition that he accept supervision by the for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him including as to alcohol and drug testing, counselling and treatment.

(10) I note that the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug
and Alcohol Treatment Order is subject to the core
conditions set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act
2005 (ACT) and the additional conditions as follows:

(a)	I direct that Ivan Djerke travel directly from this Court to the CRS facility, Fyshwick, and admit himself to the residential drug rehabilitation program by 1:00pm today;
(b)	I direct that Ivan Djerke complete the residential drug rehabilitation program at CRS, not leave the facility until he has completed the course and comply with all the directions of the person in charge of the program and all the rules of the program and the facility;
(c)	Should Ivan Djerke leave or be discharged from the program before completing it, he report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00pm on the next business day with a view to having his Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order reviewed;
(d)

That Ivan Djerke undertake any program, 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 he resides, with whom he associates and his attendance from time to time;

(e)	Ivan Djerke not return a positive test sample under alcohol and drug testing; and
(f)	Ivan Djerke comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means.

(11)	I direct Ivan Djerke 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 (ACT) for the period that this Order is in force before he leaves the Court precinct today.
(12)	I direct Ivan Djerke to appear by AVL on 24 November 2023 at 12:30pm in the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List.

Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence – aggravated burglary - Bugmy principles – significant history of illicit substance use – where the offender has significant family support – where the offender has demonstrated willingness to address addiction – offender assessed as suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – where pre-sentence custody
taken into account but sentence is not backdated - Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 85 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 10, 12A, 80W, 80ZA, 80Y, 85 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 DPP v Parlov [2023] ACTSC 147 Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148; 3 ACTLR 210 R v McCallum [2020] ACTSC 15 R v Ngerengere (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 299
Texts Cited:	Professor Meredith Rossner et al, ACT Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List: Outcome Evaluation (Evaluation report, April 2022)
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions
Ivan Stephen Djerke (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
T Hickey (DPP) S Baker-Goldsmith (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Fortify Legal (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 227 of 2022
McCALLUM CJ:
1․	Ivan Djerke stands to be sentenced after pleading guilty to two offences of aggravated
robbery by joint commission, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). In each
case, the circumstance of aggravation is the fact that, at the time of the robbery, both Mr
Djerke and his co-offender were carrying weapons. Each offence carries a maximum
penalty of imprisonment for 25 years, a $400,000 fine or both. The co-offender has also
pleaded guilty but is to be sentenced separately upon the finalisation of other charges.
2․	The offences involved the invasion of two homes over consecutive evenings in April
2022. On each occasion, the occupants were home and there was actual violence.
There is no doubt that the threshold in s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
is met. That section provides:

…

(2)	The court may, by order, sentence the offender to imprisonment, for all or part of the term of the sentence, if the court is satisfied, having considered possible alternatives, that no other penalty is appropriate.
…

3․	The offences committed by Mr Djerke were of considerable seriousness and plainly
require the imposition of sentences of imprisonment. The central question in the present
sentencing exercise is to determine whether the sentences must be served by full-time
imprisonment.
4․	Mr Djerke has a lengthy history of addiction to prohibited drugs, primarily heroin and
methylamphetamine. His use of those drugs has been both the cause of, and his
perceived solution to, many of his problems. He has a significant criminal history. There
is no doubt that his use of drugs was the reason for his offending on this occasion. Mr
Djerke is now aged 47 and asks the Court to permit him to serve his sentences under a
Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO): see s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.
5․	The Prosecutor submitted that a DATO would not be appropriate in the present case for
two principal reasons. First, it was submitted that the offences are simply too serious to
warrant that course. Secondly, and as a related point, it was submitted that, to reflect
the seriousness of the offences, the total sentence would have to exceed four years,
which is the legislative maximum for the imposition of a DATO. Separately, the
Prosecutor expressed a well-founded concern as to whether Mr Djerke will be able to
comply with such an order.
Facts
6․	It is necessary to begin by making an assessment of the objective seriousness of the
offences. The facts may be summarised as follows. The first offence was committed on
14 April 2022 at about 5.00am. Both offenders entered a home in Kambah through an
unlocked door, wearing masks, gloves and hoods and with at least one knife. Mr Djerke
had previously met the occupant, who was at home and asleep at the time. The victim
awoke and the co-offender held a knife approximately 12-inches in length to her finger,
demanding any drugs and money, while Mr Djerke rifled through the house.
7․	When the victim was unable to provide anything, one of the offenders punched her in the
right side of her face. The prosecution acknowledges that they are unable to say which
offender that was and accordingly neither offender can be sentenced on the basis that it
was him that inflicted the punch.
8․	After about two minutes, Mr Djerke held a knife near the neck of the victim, demanding
that she provide her phone and laptop and their passwords. The victim wrote down a
password incorrectly and, again, an unidentified one of the two men punched her left
cheek. She then entered the passwords directly into her phone and laptop while Mr
Djerke wrote them down. The offenders instructed her to lie on her stomach in a
bedroom while they left, taking her phone, laptop, car key and three toolboxes. They
drove away in her Subaru Forrester. About $300 was subsequently transferred from her
bank account and that account was used to order food delivered to Mr Djerke’s address.
9․	The following evening at about 7:30pm, the two men entered another home in Holt by
making a hole in the back laundry door. The occupants, two 18-year-old siblings and
their mother and aunt, were home at the time. Mr Djerke had known the two women for
several years and believed one was a drug dealer. The offenders again wore masks
during the invasion. Mr Djerke kicked open a bedroom door where one of the women
was located. He was holding a machete. He swore at her and told her to get on the
ground, demanding money from her.
10․	The co-offender entered the bedroom of that victim’s daughter with a crowbar, also
demanding money and threatening her, as a result of which she gave him her phone.
Her brother entered the room and tasered the co-offender, who responded by hitting him
with the crowbar, cutting him on his arms and stomach. The co-offender also threatened
to harm the victims’ dog. Mr Djerke then pulled the co-offender away and he returned
the phone and apologised. The two men then left, taking a speaker and the closed-
circuit television system hard drive with them.
11․	Mr Djerke was arrested on 17 April 2022 and has been in custody on remand since that
date. As at today, he has spent a total of 584 days in custody. He initially pleaded not
guilty to the offences and was committed to this Court for trial. However, he entered
pleas of guilty to both offences on 28 July 2023 after a criminal case conference and
before a trial date had been set.
12․	Mr Djerke was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending, having been granted
bail in the Magistrates Court for family violence offences. Those matters have since
been finalised.

Objective seriousness

13․	In determining the seriousness of the offences, it is of course relevant to have regard to
the actual use of the weapons and the fact that the offences were committed in company.
Each of those considerations is an element of the aggravated form of the offence and it
would be wrong to regard them as aggravating the offence. However, the offences are
aggravated by a number of factors.
14․	First, there must have been some degree of planning on Mr Djerke’s part as he evidently
targeted homes of people he knew, thinking that they may have drugs or money and
attending those homes armed and masked. That said, I accept, as submitted by counsel
for Mr Djerke, that the offending was committed during the course of what might be
termed an “ice bender” when neither offender could be said to be planning in any
particularly sophisticated way. I note in that context that, having taken the possessions
they took from the second house, the offenders then ordered food multiple times using
the stolen funds and that Mr Djerke had the food delivered to his own address.
15․	A further aggravating factor is that the homes were targeted at night or early in the
morning when there was a greater likelihood that the occupants would be home and, in
the first instance, where the victims were vulnerable, being asleep at the time. I have
noted that there was actual and threatened violence involved in both offences, although
there is no evidence that Mr Djerke was the author of any of the actual violence.
16․	The second offence is aggravated by the fact that young people were at home at the
time although again I note that the offenders, once implored by the young people to have
regard to that fact, apologised and returned the phone of one of them.
17․	It is an aggravating factor that items were taken from each home. Whilst the value of
some of the items was small, they included the Subaru Forrester, although that was
recovered. As submitted by the Prosecutor, the items taken would be likely to have
caused significant inconvenience to the occupants as well as financial hardship.
18․	Finally, there was the damage to the door on the second home invasion.
19․	I have already also noted the fact that Mr Djerke was on conditional liberty at the time of
the offending.
20․	The offences must, in light of those factors, be considered to be offences of considerable
seriousness, warranting substantial terms of imprisonment.
21․	There were five victims in total. One provided a victim impact statement in which he
described the break-in as “an utterly terrifying experience”. There were threats to the
occupant and their dogs. The victim noted that the trauma of that night has extended far
beyond the physical harm caused to him and that it has left him and his sister with
emotional and psychological scars marked by “fears, anxiety and nightmares”. I do not
doubt that the other victims would have experienced similar distress.

Subjective circumstances

22․	Turning to Mr Djerke’s subjective circumstances, as already noted he is now aged 47.
He has a significant criminal history, including several breaches of conditional or
community supervision orders. He has one prior conviction for an offence of this kind,
committed some time ago. The penalty imposed at that time was a term of imprisonment
for five years with a non-parole period of three years. The material before me does not
disclose the nature of that offence or whether he was sentenced after entering a plea.
23․	The Prosecutor submitted that Mr Djerke’s age and his lengthy criminal history point to
his having an ingrained addiction which renders him unable to comply with court orders.
I note, however, that in a review of the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List prepared by
the Australian National University, the empirical evidence is that older participants can
have greater success on a DATO: see ACT Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List: Outcome
Evaluation, 66. That is thought to be because they will have reached a point where they
have a better appreciation of the negative impact of drug abuse on their lives and are
better equipped emotionally to develop the resolve necessary to make some change:
35.
24․	Mr Djerke has expressed the kind of resolve to which that report refers. In his suitability
assessment for a DATO, he said to the author of that report, “if you’re lucky you get 70
summers on earth. I’ve pissed away 48 of them and I don’t want to waste any more”. Mr
Djerke also gave evidence at the sentence hearing. He was an impressive witness. He
spoke enthusiastically of the work he has undertaken whilst in the Alexander Maconochie
Centre, mostly recently working as a peer mentor.
25․	In respect of his work as a peer mentor, there is a reference in the material provided on
sentence which appears to be from someone who supervises him, or at least has contact
with him in that context, which, in short, gives a rave review. The reference says that Mr
Djerke is very supportive of new inmates, helping them to adjust to prison life, explaining
routines and expectations and so on.
26․	Separately, I note that the material before me indicates that Mr Djerke enjoys extensive
support from his immediate family. I will not go into the detail of the references but there
is a reference from his mother, his brother, his sister and his daughter. Each of those
references expresses optimism about Mr Djerke’s capacity at this point to turn the corner,
as it were.
27․	The ongoing support of Mr Djerke’s family is all the more precious in light of the trauma
he has suffered in the past. The pre-sentence report reveals that he had a difficult and
violent upbringing. His father was a violent alcoholic who used to beat his mother and
who also displayed violence towards the children. The letter from the mother states that
Mr Djerke suffered particularly in that context. The father died when Mr Djerke was about
8 years old. Thereafter, his mother had to work about 80 hours in a week to support her
four children. During that time, Mr Djerke enjoyed some support from a neighbour to
whom he referred as “Nan”. She died when he was in his early teens. Most recently, in
2019, whilst he was in custody, his eldest sister died, apparently (based on the material
before me) after a long battle with anorexia nervosa.
28․	Those many and compounding traumas have plainly had an impact on Mr Djerke but
one which, according to his evidence, he now seems ready to turn into a positive. He
said in evidence that he has come to appreciate that his mother is older. He has
recognised that “gaol is easy when you don’t have to deal with why you are there”. He
said he wants to try to do something different to understand why he behaves the way he
does and, most importantly, he does not want his mother to die thinking she failed her
son. He wants to prove that he can do better.
29․	Mr Djerke’s engagement with prohibited substances began at an early age, at least 10 if
not 9 based on the material before me. After a short period, he turned to what became
his long-term drug of choice, heroin, although he has also more recently used
methylamphetamine. There is no dispute that the principles in the decision of the High
Court in Bugmy are enlivened in this case. It is well understood that drug addiction,
particularly an addiction acquired at such a tender age, is a medical rather than a moral
issue and one which requires considerable support from a range of disciplines in order
to be overcome.
30․	Turning to Mr Djerke’s moral culpability for the offences, as already indicated, I accept
that the offences were very serious and Mr Djerke’s part in them was troubling. That
said, I also accept that he was significantly affected by drugs at the time of his offending
and was on something of a bender, having not slept for several days. One of the
references in support of Mr Djerke before me states that he is an entirely different person
when he is not under the influence of prohibited drugs; that he is a kind and generous
man who will do anything for someone who seeks his support.
31․	The Prosecutor noted that Mr Djerke has undertaken rehabilitation programs in the past
and has failed. Mr Djerke addressed that in his evidence, stating that previously, when
he has been on parole, the support from being clean whilst in custody lapses abruptly
and that in the past this has led him back to failures. He has had lengthy discussions
with the people and services who support participants on DATOs and has an
understanding of the intense support provided and the work he will have to do to comply
with the order. He has expressed the view, and has conveyed this to the people who
will be his counsellors, that he requires lengthy and intensive support to adhere to a
treatment order. He said that it is only in his recent time in custody that he has come to
mature and realise the impact of drugs on his life.
32․	I note that Mr Djerke is said in one of the reports to have adopted that rhetoric on prior
occasions. As submitted by the prosecution, there is some reason for concern as to
whether he will be able, on an ongoing basis, to comply with the conditions of the order.
On the other hand, when one looks at a person in the position of Mr Djerke, one can see
a continuous cycle of offending, arrest, release, relapse into drug use and further
offending. In my view, the best interests of the community will be served by Mr Djerke
being offered the intensive, wraparound support that is provided in the Drug and Alcohol
Sentencing List so as to give him his best chance of breaking that cycle.

Sentence

33․	The prosecutor submitted that there should be a significant degree of accumulation
between the two sentences. He submitted that the origin of the totality principle is to
avoid a “crushing sentence” but submitted that a partial level of accumulation would not
be crushing. He submitted, and I accept, that the two sentences must not be wholly
concurrent because they must reflect the impact of the offences on two separate groups
of victims.
34․	Ms Baker-Goldsmith, who appeared for the offender, submitted that an appropriate
sentence could be brought under the cap of four years for a DATO. She submitted, first,
that the Court could take into account the course of conduct to which I have referred, reflecting the fact that, while two offences were committed, they were committed during
the same drug psychosis and effectively (so far as the offender’s perception is
concerned) on the same day, as he was not sleeping at that time.
35․	Separately, Ms Baker-Goldsmith noted that it is not inappropriate for the Court to have
regard to pre-sentence custody without backdating the sentence. Support for that
submission may be found in the decision of Mossop J in DPP v Parlov [2023] ACTSC
147 at [46]-[47], where it is noted that this approach has been adopted previously (such
as in R v McCallum [2020] ACTSC 15 at [81]-[82]) or else recognised as a possibility
(Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148; 3 ACTLR 210 at [65]; R v Ngerengere (No 3)
[2016] ACTSC 299 at [62]).
36․	Uninformed by authority, I would have been concerned that to adopt that course would
reflect an artificial manipulation of the sentence. Having considered the decision in
Parlov and the objects of the DATO provisions in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, I have
instead come to the view that the cap of four years was not intended to preclude people
like Mr Djerke from having the benefit of a DATO, but is rather a reflection of a policy that
any longer period would be unmanageable and more difficult in terms of the
administration of the list.
37․	The third point made by Ms Baker-Goldsmith in submitting that an appropriate sentence
could be brought under four years was the fact that the offender is entitled to a discount
to reflect the utilitarian value of his plea of guilty in the order of 15%. She submitted that
the starting point of any sentence would not result, after application of the discount, in a
sentence exceeding four years in total.
38․	Finally, Ms Baker-Goldsmith reminded me of the matters to which I have already
referred, being the consideration of the application of Bugmy principles. The offender’s
moral culpability for the offences must be assessed in the context of his upbringing of
family violence, trauma, exposure to alcohol abuse, early introduction to drugs and the
loss of several important family members.
39․	The parties provided supplementary submissions to the Court in relation to a question I
asked during the proceedings on sentence as to the possibility that the Court could
impose a full-time sentence of imprisonment, backdated for one offence, and a DATO
for the second sentence. The submissions did not produce agreement on that issue but
in any event I have decided not to take that approach.
40․	One of the matters on Mr Djerke’s record, to which I have already referred, is an earlier
offence for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for five years. In my view,
that is an appropriate starting point for each offence in the present case. That will be reduced to four years and three months to reflect the value of the plea. I consider that
there should be accumulation between the two sentences of one year. That would give
a total sentence of five years and three months. However, adopting the approach in
Parlov, the course I propose to take is to impose a sentence that has regard to the time
served without backdating the sentence to that date.

Sentence

41․	For those reasons, I impose the following sentences:
(1) Ivan Djerke is convicted of the aggravated burglary in Kambah (SC CAN

193/2022) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and eight

months, commencing on 21 November 2023 and expiring on 20 July 2027.

(2)	Ivan Djerke is convicted of the aggravated burglary in Holt (SC CAN 194/2022)
and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three years and eight months,
commencing on 21 November 2023 and expiring 20 July 2027.

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order

42․	As the total period of those sentences is three years and eight months, Mr Djerke is
eligible, at least in terms of the length of his sentence, to be considered for a DATO.
43․	He has been assessed as suitable for such an order by both Canberra Health Services
and Corrective Services. They have provided a healthcare plan and Mr Djerke is able to
enter residential rehabilitation in the Canberra Recovery Services (CRS) program today.
He has specifically requested that this be a 12-month program where ordinarily
participants spend only 3 months in residential rehabilitation. The Drug and Alcohol
Sentencing List team have therefore arranged for Mr Djerke, after his time in the CRS
program, to spend at least a further nine months in Karralika residential rehabilitation.
For the reasons I have given, I am satisfied that that is an appropriate course.
44․	Accordingly, I make the following further orders.
(3) I make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes

(Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for Ivan Djerke in respect of the primary offence,

being the aggravated burglary in Kambah (SC CAN 193/2022), of which he has

been convicted and for which he has been sentenced to 3 years and 8 months

imprisonment.

(4)	I order that that order extend to the second offence, being the aggravated
burglary in Holt (SC CAN 194/2022), for which Ivan Djerke has been convicted and sentenced also to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment. That is an associate
offence to the primary offence.
(5)	I note that convictions and sentences imposed for the primary and associated
offence have been recorded and are hereby incorporated into the Drug and
Alcohol Treatment Order in the custodial part of the order.
(6)	I order that the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be for a period of 3 years and
8 months from today, that is 21 November 2023 to 20 July 2027.
(7)	The treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order will
be a period of 18 months from today, that is 21 November 2023 to 20 May 2025.
(8)	The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for the primary and
associated offence is hereby suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing)
Act 2005 (ACT) from today.
(9)	Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), I require Ivan Djerke
to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations
under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the day
after the end of the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol
Treatment Order, 21 May 2025, until the end of the total sentence, 20 July 2027,
with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of
ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such
lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all
reasonable directions of the person supervising him including as to alcohol and
drug testing, counselling and treatment.
(10)	I note that the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol
Treatment Order is subject to the core conditions set out in s 80Y of the Crimes
(Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and the additional conditions as follows:

(a) I direct that Ivan Djerke travel directly from this Court to the CRS

facility, Fyshwick, and admit himself to the residential drug

rehabilitation program by 1:00pm today;

(b) I direct that Ivan Djerke complete the residential drug rehabilitation

program at CRS, not leave the facility until he has completed the

course and comply with all the directions of the person in charge of

the program and all the rules of the program and the facility;

(c)	Should Ivan Djerke leave or be discharged from the program before
completing it, he report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00pm on the next business day with a view to having his Drug and Alcohol

Treatment Order reviewed;

(d) That Ivan Djerke 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 he

resides, with whom he associates and his attendance from time to

time;

(e) Ivan Djerke not return a positive test sample under alcohol and drug

testing; and

(f) Ivan Djerke comply with any directions of the Court from time to time

about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means.

(11)	I direct Ivan Djerke 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 (ACT) for the period that this Order is in force before he
leaves the Court precinct today.
(12)	I direct Ivan Djerke to appear by AVL on 24 November 2023 at 12:30pm in the
Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List.

I certify that the preceding forty-four [44] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Justice McCallum

Associate:

Date: 20 March 2024