Director of Public Prosecutions v Figura
[2024] ACTSC 358
•4 November 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Figura |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 358 |
Hearing Date: | 28 October 2024 |
Decision Date: | 4 November 2024 |
Before: | Christensen AJ |
Decision: | See [74] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving offences – aggravated furious driving – police pursuit – repeat offender – disqualified driving – breach of conditional liberty – recidivist offender – application of Bugmy principles – drug dependency substantially contributing to commission of offences – prospects of rehabilitation – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act1900 (ACT) s 24 |
Cases Cited: | Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Ashley Brian Figura ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel G Meikle ( Crown) S Lynch ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 177, 178 of 2024 |
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
Introduction
1․Ashley Figura is to be sentenced for three offences that occurred on 7 February 2024. The offending involves dangerous driving, including failing to stop for police. He has pleaded guilty to these offences, establishing a breach of a suspended term of imprisonment for an assault offence.
2․Mr Figura accepts that terms of imprisonment will be imposed and seeks that the overall term be suspended and served by way of a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order). The objects of a treatment order include to reduce an offender’s dependency on controlled drugs and promote community safety by reducing offending caused by such a dependency: s 80O Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act).
3․The issue in this matter is whether Mr Figura is eligible for such an order, and whether it is an appropriate and suitable one to make. Determining this involves engaging in a sentencing exercise, and considering the purposes of sentencing, as well as the objects of such an order.
The offending
4․On 7 February 2023 at about 9:54am, police were stationery at an intersection in Downer. The police observed a black Holden Commodore to be speeding on a nearby residential street. Police activated their emergency warning devices and signalled for the vehicle to stop. It did not do so, and police lost sight of the vehicle.
5․At about 10:20am, police received information of the same vehicle driving into a retirement village in Higgins. Police arrived at the location at about 10:37am and began to circulate the village.
6․The vehicle was found to be stationery, about 50 metres down a driveway. The front end of the vehicle was facing a police vehicle. Police activated their emergency warning devices and drove down the driveway towards the vehicle. The vehicle rapidly reversed away from police, around a tight corner.
7․The vehicle continued to reverse away from police, before it collided into the rear of an unoccupied parked Suzuki Jimny. The force of the impact pushed the Suzuki off the concrete surface and into a garden bed. It came to a stop at the rear of the village. The vehicle rapidly accelerated onto a grass bed, and over a small grassed knoll adjacent to the roadway in the retirement village. It then drove directly past a police vehicle that was stationary on the opposite side of the grassy knoll.
8․Police got out of their vehicle and prepared to deploy a tyre deflation device. At this time, they were able to identify the driver of the vehicle as Mr Figura. He had a female passenger.
9․Mr Figura continued away from police and they lost sight of the vehicle. They began conducting patrols in the immediate area. At about 10:40am, it was seen traveling westbound on Belconnen Way in Scullin. Mr Figura was seen to fail to give way at a roundabout.
10․Police initiated a pursuit, again activating emergency warning devices. Mr Figura did not stop. Police pursued him along William Hovell Drive for approximately 30 seconds before losing sight of the vehicle. The pursuit was terminated at about 10:42am.
11․On 21 February 2024, police attended at a residence in Bonner and saw Mr Figura jump from the rear yard of the residence into a neighbouring yard. Police were able to apprehend him.
12․This offending gives rises to the following offences:
(a)Aggravated furious driving (repeat offender), contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units, or both. An automatic minimum licence disqualification for 12 months applies.
(b)Not give particulars to police, contrary to s 287(1) of the Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units.
(c)Drive while disqualified (repeat offender), contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment, 100 penalty units, or both. An automatic minimum license disqualification for 24 months applies.
13․There can be no doubt that offending of this type is, justifiably, of concern to the community. It is offending that is capable of causing significant harm to community members with the potential for grave consequences. It is only by good fortune that more serious outcomes did not occur from Mr Figura’s driving conduct here. But it remains a serious example of the offence.
14․The driving involving the actual police pursuit was for a period of some five minutes, within a context of a longer period of driving across multiple suburbs that also involved concerning behaviour, including speeding and failing to give way at an intersection. The time when the driving occurred meant the roads, both main and residential, would have been likely heavy with traffic. Throughout the course of the driving, other road users were put at risk, including potentially vulnerable persons in a retirement village, as well as the passenger in the vehicle. Mr Figura was under the influence of a drug at the time, exacerbating the risk to others from his reduced capacity to drive safely.
15․There were multiple occasions of failing to stop for police during the entire period of the driving. The circumstances of the failing to stop are serious examples, with an apparently blatant and defiant disregard for police directions that put the police involved and other community members at risk. The circumstances of the failing to stop also provide for the increased maximum penalty as a statutory aggravation. The repeated occasions and manner of the failures to stop result in it being a serious example within that increased maximum penalty.
16․Further, in the course of this defiant driving, the driving included crashing into another community member’s vehicle. This was plainly done with considerable force, causing significant damage, and putting others at risk. Mr Figura entirely disrespected the owner of that vehicle by not stopping to disclose his conduct. There were inevitably financial consequences and inconvenience caused to the owner of that vehicle.
17․This aspect has been charged separately, in having been a driver involved in a crash that did not give his particulars to a police officer. I take this conduct into account as part of the overall assessment of the driving offending, with this including Mr Figura’s lack of regard for other community members with that driving. The penalty to be imposed for the failure to give his particulars will reflect this approach. Overall, in an application of the totality principle, it is to be reflected that all of the offences occurred simultaneously as a course of conduct.
18․The appropriate terms of imprisonment to be imposed, it being plain and not in dispute that imprisonment is the only appropriate penalty, are informed by current sentencing practice. The prosecution assisted, to the extent comparative authorities can be of assistance, with R v Law [2021] ACTSC 351. I have considered this authority, noting that in that matter, and the authorities considered therein, the offenders did not appear to have the same level of repeated offending, but also in some examples committed more serious examples of driving.
19․Pleas of guilty were entered in the Magistrates Court at a mention stage, prior to the provision of a brief of evidence or hearing listing. The charges were committed and transferred for sentence to the Supreme Court for the purposes of assessment for inclusion in the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List. A reduction in the order of 25 per cent is appropriate to reflect the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty.
Time in custody
20․Mr Figura has been in custody solely in relation to these charges from 7 February 2024 to 26 February 2024, and then again from 8 March 2024 to 4 November 2024, a total of 262 days. The sentence will be backdated for this period, with a commencement date of 16 February 2024: s 63 Sentencing Act.
21․In the period from 27 February 2024 to 7 March 2024 he was serving a sentence for cancellation of a parole order for unrelated reasons. This period is taken into account only to the extent that it is relevant to observe that Mr Figura has now being in custody for an ongoing period since early February 2024. The parole order has since expired.
Conditional liberty
Suspended sentence
22․The offending occurred at a time when Mr Figura was subject to a suspended sentence with a good behaviour order. This was for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, aggravated by family violence, contrary to s 24(1) of the Crimes Act1900 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The offending occurred on 25 March 2023 and involved an assault on [redacted]. Mr Figura struck the victim once in the chin using a closed fist, causing pain and bleeding.
23․The Court must either cancel the good behaviour order and either impose the suspended sentence or resentence the offender: s 110(2) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). The prosecution helpfully provided all relevant information to assess the appropriate response to this breach.
24․A total term of two months imprisonment, to commence on 29 September 2023 and conclude on 28 November 2023 was imposed. The sentence was suspended immediately, on the date of sentence, that is 29 September 2023, with a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months.
25․The offending that breaches this order was not of a similar nature. It was offending that occurred within some five months of the imposition of the term, and almost halfway into the order. The order has now expired.
26․Any breach of a court order, particularly one that involves what is intended to be the deterrent effect of a suspended term of imprisonment, is to be condemned. The prosecution submitted that it is appropriate to impose the sentence that was suspended.
27․The breach offending was not of a similar nature, and was not an immediate example of non-compliance with the order. I consider it appropriate to take the breach into account as an aggravating factor on the sentence for the subject offences and to give significant weight to that in the sentencing exercise. Accordingly, an exercise in resentence is appropriate in respect to the breach. The sentence to be imposed for the breach offence will take into account the nature and circumstances of that breach, and that the order has now expired.
Parole
28․On 22 January 2024, Mr Figura was directed to appear before the Sentence Administration Board in respect to his parole. He failed to do so, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Accordingly, the offending occurred at a time when he was subject to not only the suspended term of imprisonment, but also a parole order. This parole order has since expired.
29․Mr Figura provides an explanation for the offending as being that he was aware that there was a warrant for his arrest. His grandfather’s funeral was scheduled, and he was concerned to miss this. He stated that he intended to hand himself in after the funeral. This claim does not find support in the facts as to the circumstances of his arrest. Mr Figura explained that this was because he was fearful of what had happened.
30․That the offending occurred while subject to parole is also an aggravating factor on sentence. It is also informative as to Mr Figura’s suitability for a treatment order given his apparent disregard for community based orders in the past.
Disqualified driving
31․As evident from the charges, at the time of the offending, Mr Figura was disqualified from driving. He had been disqualified by the Magistrates Court on 30 April 2021 for a period of 3 years for an offence of disqualified driving. The driving here occurred almost halfway into that order, albeit he had been in custody for much of that period. He was released on parole on 13 September 2023, and the driving contrary to the disqualification order occurred within six months of that release. The sentence order for that offence was 4 months imprisonment, amongst a total effective sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment for other offences including aggravated furious/reckless/dangerous driving.
32․In sentencing for this offence on this occasion, a sentence that takes into account this, and other, previous convictions for driving while disqualified is plainly warranted. This is not to punish Mr Figura for the previous offending, but to reflect that deterrence and accountability are significant sentencing considerations in light of his recidivist behaviour.
Criminal history
33․The extent to which Mr Figura is a recidivist offender is demonstrated by his criminal history. As the prosecution submitted, Mr Figura’s criminal history “is lengthy, and reveals prior convictions for like offending”. This criminal history disentitles Mr Figura from leniency.
34․It is a criminal history that demonstrates him to be someone with a history of defiance of the law and court orders. He has previously been convicted of offences including escaping from arrest or custody, family violence offending, theft, and failing to appear at court. He has previously breached an intensive correction order for an offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent.
35․He has been previously convicted in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) of driving while disqualified on six occasions and one occasion of driving while his license was suspended. He has been previously convicted for driving offending in New South Wales (NSW).
36․Mr Figura has also been previously convicted of aggravated furious/reckless/dangerous driving on four occasions from April 2017 to April 2021. Most recently, this resulted in a sentence of imprisonment, as part of a total effective sentence of 2 years, 3 months, and 30 days imprisonment, with a nonparole period.
37․The nature and circumstances of all of the previous examples of the driving offending are not known to the Court. Regardless, it is obvious that Mr Figura is a recidivist offender in this respect, and his criminal history suggests that strongly deterrent sentences which prioritise community protection from this form of offending are warranted.
Subjective circumstances
38․Mr Figura is now 30 years of age. He was aged 29 years at the time of the offending. He is from Wiradjuri country on his father’s side. He currently has little connection to the Aboriginal community, but is interested in engaging more with his culture.
39․He was born in Canberra and moved between the ACT and NSW through his childhood and adolescence in circumstances of a parental separation when he was one year old. He experienced frequent relocations which impacted his schooling.
40․Mr Figura also experienced exposure to family violence. He came to move out of his mother’s house at 15 years of age due to his mother’s partners, who were “toxic” and violent. He stayed at youth refuges and couch-surfed. His living situation was unstable until he was 23 years old.
41․On behalf of Mr Figura, it was submitted that his upbringing was such that the principles of Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 are enlivened. This was with reference to his emotional and physical instability, and, while causation is not necessary to enliven such principles, the impact of this upbringing being clear given the impulsive, immature, and unsophisticated nature of his offending. The prosecution did not submit against such a conclusion. I accept that the circumstances of Mr Figura’s childhood are such that his moral culpability for his offending behaviour is reduced.
42․Mr Figura does not have a relationship with his father. He had a close relationship with a grandfather, who he describes as having been a father figure to him. His grandfather passed away shortly before the offending on this occasion. He has four half-brothers, and is very close to his brothers on his mother’s side.
43․Mr Figura reports having a positive and supportive relationship with his mother. The Court must observe a level of hesitation as to the extent to which that support extends to supporting Mr Figura to rehabilitate from drug dependency. The information provided to the Court includes that Mr Figura’s mother has been convicted for providing prohibited items, involving substances, to Mr Figura when he was detained in custody in 2017. The information provided though does not include the full circumstances and reason that offending occurred. It seems more relevant to consider the most recent information as to the support Mr Figura’s mother is capable of providing. This includes that his mother is described as having “turned her life around”, a change that Mr Figura needs also to do, and one that presumably his mother will be well placed to support him with.
44․Mr Figura also has the support of a long-term partner. His partner is Aboriginal and wants to support Mr Figura in engaging more with his culture. They sadly experienced the stillbirth of a daughter in mid 2023, which impacted Mr Figura’s mental health in the lead up to the offending. He has three children from previous relationships, one of whom he is in regular contact with. Mr Figura’s motivation to engage with his culture includes wanting this for his children.
45․Despite his challenges with his schooling, Mr Figura has completed an equivalent qualification to a Year 10 certificate through TAFE. He has also obtained certifications in construction and landscaping, and previously commenced a Bachelor in Construction Management while in custody. He has an interest in completing this degree in the future.
46․He has had inconsistent employment history, no doubt impacted by his periods in custody. He has had positions as a labourer, an apprentice engineer, and a bricklayer. He clearly has strong potential for employment, and reports this as a priority for him once he reaches an appropriate stage in his rehabilitation journey. He acknowledges employment as important for him to avoid experiencing boredom and loneliness, but does enjoy spending his free time with family, restoring cars, and motorbike riding.
Substance use and rehabilitation history
47․Mr Figura commenced cannabis use at age 15, progressing to daily use by 16 years. He had become a daily user of methamphetamine from the age of 21. From age 25, he commenced use of heroin, in a context of pain relief for a neck and back injury.
48․He has previously been prescribed medicinal cannabis for this injury and I trust he understands that this will not be possible during a treatment order. A drug and alcohol treatment order is one that is abstinence based, and has an expectation of no reliance on substances beyond the most benign forms of medication that are available at a pharmacy or with a prescription. What is permitted under a treatment order does not extend to substances of alcohol and cannabis, even if those substances may in other circumstances not be unlawful.
49․Mr Figura was recently prescribed pharmacotherapy, but has ceased use in recent weeks as he wished to avoid dependency. This is a matter for him and his medical practitioners. Mr Figura describes that in the past after he stopped pharmacotherapy, he was able to stay sober for an extended period.
50․As at the time of his initial assessment for a treatment order in August 2024, Mr Figura reported last using substances some four months previously. Drug testing that he has sporadically had since February 2023 shows only positive results for prescribed buprenorphine and prescribed cannabis, other than a result of methylamphetamine and amphetamine in October and November 2023. The testing results are not inconsistent with Mr Figura’s stated use, a circumstance that bodes well for his willingness to be honest. Such a quality is an essential characteristic for successful engagement with, and completion of, a treatment order.
51․Further indicative of Mr Figura’s intentions as to honesty is the description of his previous engagements with rehabilitation programs. These were in 2019 and 2020. Mr Figura informed assessment officers that his engagement at those times was to “tick a box” and that at the time he could not wait to use substances after leaving.
52․His more recent engagement with the rehabilitation Solaris Therapeutic Community Program has been more genuine. He has completed a relapse prevention plan, something that on this occasion he “did … properly”. This plan is described by Karralika programs as being comprehensive and realistic.
Consideration
53․The sentences to be imposed are such that Mr Figura is eligible for a treatment order in terms of the periods of imprisonment to be imposed for offences that he has pleaded guilty to: ss 12A(1)(a), (b)(ii) Sentencing Act. He is not subject to a sentence order for another offence: s 12A(1)(c) Sentencing Act.
54․The issue becomes whether Mr Figura meets the other criteria in s 12A of the Sentencing Act, whether such an order is appropriate, and whether such an order is suitable: ss 80S, 80T Sentencing Act. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Mr Figura meets the legislated criteria and that a treatment order is both an appropriate and suitable sentencing order.
55․ACT Health Services concluded that Mr Figura is suitable for a treatment order, with a recommendation that the treatment and supervision part of the order be for a period of 12 to 18 months. Mr Figura is reported to have a history of some mental health challenges, none of which preclude him from suitability for a treatment order.
56․The prosecution, fairly, did not oppose a treatment order, but also did appropriately caution the Court as to the suitability of such an order given Mr Figura’s demonstrated non-compliance with previous community based orders.
57․Mr Figura was compelling in evidence he gave at the sentence hearing as to his genuine intention to address his drug dependency and offending behaviour. Such an observation must of course recognise that many offenders can present as so at the time of a sentencing hearing, but not demonstrate capability to achieve this once released into the community.
58․The benefit that is available from a treatment order is that the mechanisms of oversight on an offender’s release from custody do not allow much scope for disingenuous efforts at rehabilitation. Upon release, an offender is closely monitored by the treatment team – a team including officers from ACT Corrective Services, ACT Health Services, and the Australian Federal Police – and with regular urinalysis testing for illicit substances, as well as, initially, weekly reviews before the Court. Non-compliance with the community based order is able to be rapidly addressed, and, if appropriate, responded to by a return to custody.
59․To his credit, Mr Figura expresses that it is this oversight that he wishes to embrace to ensure he is accountable and supported to achieve his rehabilitation aims. He demonstrates that he has gained knowledge of the onerous requirements and expectations of a treatment order and expresses his intent to comply with them. He demonstrates insight that such oversight is the difference from previous releases from custody and expresses confidence in his ability to achieve rehabilitation as a result. I have appropriate confidence in the capability of the treatment team’s oversight such that Mr Figura is likely, on this occasion of release, to achieve his intended rehabilitation.
60․I reach this conclusion conscious that ACT Corrective Services concluded in their assessment that Mr Figura is not suitable for a treatment order. This conclusion was reached with reference to Mr Figura being a recidivist offender who has a history of disengagement with Corrective Services.
61․Further, ACT Corrective Services assessed Mr Figura as a high risk of general reoffending. This finding is made in a context where it was also found that his substance use is linked to his offending behaviour. Similarly, ACT Health Services found that there was a likelihood of a severe substance use disorder at the time of the offending. Mr Figura describes that his use of methamphetamine equally precipitated and perpetuated his engagement in offending behaviour. He expresses that:
The drugs affected my ability to make clear and conscious choices. I had ten days left of parole and was going to free for the first time, but I couldn’t make a clear decision. I should have just got off the drugs and done things right.
62․Mr Figura’s substance dependence plainly substantially contributed to the commission of the offences. He describes that the offending was “a stupid decision made under the influence again”. He demonstrates insight that the offending was more than simply “stupid”, with the assessors describing him as acknowledging the risks of his behaviour, identifying the risks to residents, and the possibility of causing serious harm to members of the community.
63․It is clear that addressing his substance dependency is the mechanism that will best address Mr Figura’s risk of reoffending, and ultimately, achieve community protection. I accept that Mr Figura has a history of non-compliance with community based orders that gives pause as to his capability to not reoffend and to achieve the objects of a treatment order. But in many respects these circumstances are consistent with exactly the type of offender who is most suitable for a treatment order. This is particularly so where, as here, the offender has indicia for rehabilitation success. That is, there is motivation, protective factors available, and a willingness to be honest and finally engage with the steps that will be necessary to achieve rehabilitation.
64․Mr Figura anticipates that he will have difficulty in a residential rehabilitation program, and that he will be focused on his recovery if he can return home at night. Given he has a supportive partner available in that environment, and that this accommodation has been found suitable by ACT Corrective Services, this appears reasonable. As ACT Health Services provide, a residential program can be a flexible “step up” option if necessary.
65․ACT Health Services describe Mr Figura as being future focused and focused towards engaging with treatment, finding employment upon release, and as having expressed a desire to build a loving, drug-free home for his partner and children. He is described as displaying insight to some of the contributing factors for his substance use and as having expressed a desire to change his lifestyle. He is described as having clearly taken the time to do prior research on how the treatment order functions, and how treatment in each phase would work.
66․Mr Figura had himself made independent enquiries as to possible rehabilitation programs. While in custody, he has completed the Karralika Solaris program, which provides a solid foundation for him to continue with program support of this nature in the community. As was submitted on behalf of Mr Figura, the correspondence from this program demonstrates his progress with engagement in rehabilitation. This includes a description that he displays significant strengths in his willingness and motivation towards behaviour change.
67․ACT Health Services recommended Mr Figura for the Matrix Program at Karralika, and he has been accepted into this program as of the date of sentence delivery. Upon release from custody, he will be expected to engage immediately with the program to arrange his participation. Given he will not be in a residential program, a curfew will be put in place prescribing where he is to reside and to stay overnight.
68․Mr Figura has the support his mother and a long-term partner in the community. He reports having few pro-social friendships. It can be expected that distancing himself from negative associates may be a challenge for him upon a release into the community, but this is something that he will have the support with from his rehabilitation programs, from other participants in the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List (DASL), and no doubt his mother and partner. As the experience of DASL shows, achieving rehabilitation involves not only addressing his drug dependency, but the rebuilding of the participant’s life as a whole. Mr Figura demonstrates an understanding, and commitment, to do this.
69․Mr Figura provides his goals on the treatment order are as follows:
Complete day program and slowly gain employment.
Maintain sobriety.
Be a good, loving partner and building a loving home for the children.
Lead an honest life.
70․Mr Figura states that:
I’m ready now. At this age, something has to change. I’m 30 years old and I want to get on with life. I don’t want my kids growing up in this environment and with the right supports I can achieve this.
71․I am satisfied that Mr Figura is ready to embrace the privilege that a treatment order provides. Such a sentence order is the most appropriate one, and one that fulfills all purposes of sentencing.
Orders
72․For those reasons, the following orders are made:
(1)Ashley Brian Figura be convicted of driving while disqualified (repeat offender) (CAN 2024/2367) and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, reduced from 8 months imprisonment on account on his plea of guilty, commencing 16 February 2024 and ending on 15 August 2024.
(2)Ashley Brian Figura be convicted of aggravated furious driving (repeat offender) (CAN 2024/2365) and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, reduced from 20 months imprisonment on account on his plea of guilty, commencing 16 August 2024 and ending on 15 November 2025.
(3)Ashley Brian Figura be convicted of not giving particulars to police (CAN 2024/2366) and no penalty is imposed.
(4)On the breach of the Good Behaviour Order in CAN 2023/3207, I find the breach proved and resentence Ashley Brian Figura to the rising of the Court.
(5)A total term of imprisonment of 21 months be imposed, to commence on 16 February 2024 and end on 15 November 2025.
Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order
(6)A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Ashley Brian Figura in respect of the offence set out in Order 2, of which Ashley Brian Figura has been convicted and for which he has been sentenced for a total term of 15 months imprisonment.
(7)The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be for 12 months and 12 days, to commence on 4 November 2024 and end on 15 November 2025.
(8)The Custodial Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for the eligible offence be suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from 4 November 2024 until 15 November 2025.
(9)The Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be for 12 months and 12 days, to commence on 4 November 2024 and end on 15 November 2025.
(10)For the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order:
(a)The core conditions of the Order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be hereby imposed;
(b)Ashley Brian Figura 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 at court from time to time;
(c)Ashley Brian Figura not return a positive test sample under alcohol and drug testing;
(d)Ashley Brian Figura not consume or use alcohol, cannabis, illicit drugs and prescription drugs not prescribed to him;
(e)Ashley Brian Figura comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means;
(f)Ashley Brian Figura is to reside at 6/27 Tenison-Woods Circuit, Bonython ACT 2905 when not in residential rehabilitation;
(g)Ashley Brian Figura is not to leave his place of residence between 9pm each day and 7am the next day other than for a medical emergency, and he present to the front door of his residence if required by an officer of ACT Policing; and
(h)Ashley Brian Figura be directed to sign a sealed copy of this Order and an undertaking to comply with the Order and any obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for the period that this Order is in force before he leaves the Court precincts.
(11)Ashley Brian Figura be directed to appear in person for DASL review in Court at 11:30am on Tuesday, 12 November 2024.
73․It is noted that in relation to CAN 2024/2367, pursuant to s 32(5)(b) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) the offender is automatically disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for 24 months.
74․It is noted that in relation to CAN 2024/2365 pursuant to s 63(1)(f) of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) the offender is automatically disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for 12 months.
| I certify that the preceding seventy-four [74] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: |
2