Director of Public Prosecutions v Gilbey; Director of Public Prosecutions v Goodwin
[2024] ACTSC 265
•27 August 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Gilbey; DPP v Goodwin |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 265 |
Hearing Date: | 15 August 2024 |
Decision Date: | 27 August 2024 |
Before: | Taylor J |
Decision: | See [114]. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – co-offenders – aggravated robbery – home invasion – serious offending – where victim suffered serious injury – low value of property taken – distinction between the role of each offender – difference between co-offender’s prospects of rehabilitation – offences committed on conditional liberty – consideration of parity |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 28(2)(a), 116(3), Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 308, 310 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT) s 110, 110(2)(a) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 33(1)(f), 53(1)(a), 77(1)(b) |
Cases Cited: | Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 DPP v Campbell (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 105 DPP v Girvan [2023] ACTSC 35 R v Haddara [2022] ACTSC 224 DPP v Trewartha [2023] ACTSC 13 Green v The Queen; Quinn v the Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 Hall v the Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5 Hillier v DPP (NSW) [2009] NSWCCA 312; 198 A Crim R 565 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 Imbornone v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144 Johnson v R [2017] NSWCCA 53 Kelly v Ashby [2015] ACTSC 346 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59 Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14; 19 ACTLR 270 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 19 ACTLR 99 Muldrock v the Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 R v Apps (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 369 R v Baxendale [2018] ACTSC 260 R v Batcheldor [2021] ACTSC 208 R v Carberry [2022] ACTSC 208 R v Evans; R v Reid [2020] ACTSC 169 R v Hagen [2022] ACTSC 362 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWCR 346 R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68 R v Kelly (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 253 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Lockwood [2018] ACTSC 288 R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8; 281 A Crim R 273 R v Van Rysewyk [2008] NSWCCA 130 R v Watson [2021] ACTSC 339 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v White [2023] ACTCA 35 R v Wilson; R v Beath-Williams [2022] ACTSC 20 Smith v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 163 Taylor v R [2014] ACTCA 9 The Queen v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18 Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2 Veen v the Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Jeremy Adam Gilbey (First Offender) Mellissa Jean Goodwin ( Second Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel E Wren ( DPP) A Doig ( First Offender) J Sabharwal (Second Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Darryl Perkins Solicitors ( First Offender) Fraser Law (Second Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 137 of 2023 SCC 139 of 2023 |
TAYLOR J:
Introduction
1․The co-offenders, Jeremy Adam Gilbey and Melissa Jean Goodwin, are to be sentenced for one count of aggravated robbery by joint commission, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, 2 500 penalty units, or both.
2․In committing this offence each co-offender has breached numerous Suspended Sentence Orders (SSOs) imposed in the ACT Magistrates Court. In addition to sentencing the co-offenders for the aggravated robbery offence, the Court must determine the action to be taken in respect to each of the breaches.
Facts
Context of the offending
3․The co-offenders are domestic partners. Ms Goodwin was friends with the victim’s younger sister in high school and therefore, they have known each other for a considerable time. At the time of the offending, the co-offenders lived in a unit adjacent to the unit block where the victim lived. They shared an acrimonious relationship with the victim.
4․On 17 March 2023, Ms Goodwin accused the victim of having taken a piece of furniture out of the garage belonging to the co-offenders. Ms Goodwin had taken that piece of furniture out of the victim’s apartment. On the same day, Mr Gilbey stated to a witness that he was going to “fucking smash” the victim, “bash her fucking skull in with a hammer” and “kill the bitch”.
5․On 18 March 2023, Mr Gilbey stated to a witness that that he was going to “knock” the victim and smash her with a hammer. Ms Goodwin told the same witness that she was going to “beat the shit out of [the victim]”. Later that day, Mr Gilbey was seen by two witnesses walking toward the victim’s unit block while holding a hammer. The co-offenders were also captured on a neighbouring resident’s Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage walking toward the victim’s unit. Mr Gilbey was holding a hammer in the footage.
Conduct constituting the offence
6․At around 1:30pm on 18 March 2023, the victim was sitting in the loungeroom of her unit, approximately two metres away from the front door. The victim saw Ms Goodwin appear in the doorway and the victim said words to the effect of “I’ve got nothing to say to you”. Ms Goodwin pulled open the external screen door to the unit, breaking open the chain latch connected to the door. The internal door to the unit was secured with a locking mechanism within the doorknob, a deadlock and a Lockwood latch through which a padlock could be secured but was not at the time of the offence. Mr Gilbey used a hammer to smash open the door to the unit, causing the Lockwood latch to come away from where it was affixed to the wall and breaking off a chunk of concrete. The hammer appeared to be old and had a wooden handle.
7․Mr Gilbey entered the loungeroom of the victim’s unit with Ms Goodwin following immediately behind him. Mr Gilbey was carrying a hammer in his right hand. He raised it in the air and threatened to hit the victim with it a number of times. As Mr Gilbey first did this, Ms Goodwin said words to the effect of “Jeremy, don’t do that”.
8․Mr Gilbey then attempted to grab the victim by the neck with one hand before pushing her to the ground and attempting to place his hand around her neck again. The victim was crouching on the floor of her loungeroom with her back against an ottoman as Mr Gilbey held her down and then hit her on the head with either his hand or the hammer. While this was occurring, Ms Goodwin took $21 in gold coins from the victim’s coffee table and $500 in notes of $50 denomination from inside the victim’s handbag.
9․Ms Goodwin then attempted to remove the shirt and bra of the victim as the victim was known to often keep items of value inside her bra. The victim manoeuvred her body to place her face and chest against the floor in order to prevent the co-offenders from placing their hands inside her bra. Mr Gilbey then knelt with a knee on either side of the victim’s head and hit her across the head a number of times with either his fist or the hammer.
10․Mr Gilbey stood up and went to leave the unit. Before exiting, one of the co-offenders threw the victim’s mobile phone at her. The mobile phone connected with the victim’s nose, which caused the screen to smash. Following the offending, the victim touched her face and was able to feel the bone protruding through the skin of her nose. The co-offenders left the unit.
Immediate complaint
11․The victim exited her apartment and called out for assistance. Two neighbours rendered assistance to the victim at which point she stated that “Jeremy” had assaulted her and struck her with a hammer.
12․An ambulance arrived and conveyed the victim to The Canberra Hospital. The victim told attending paramedics that she had been struck in the head multiple times with a hammer, thrown to the ground, choked and the co-offenders had attempted to “rip her clothes off”.
13․During her examination at the hospital, the victim made the following disclosures to a doctor:
(a)“Melissa tried to open the door, ripped screen door open.”
(b)“Her partner showed up and kicked the door in.”
(c)“He pushed me to the ground and tried to strangle me. I kicked him off. He tried to strangle me twice. He tried with one and then two hands. Pressure was applied to my neck. I managed to keep his hands fully off my neck.”
(d)“He punched me in the head, hit me with a hammer.” The victim clarified that she was not sure if she was struck by the hammer.
(e)“He punched me in the head again, I kept fighting. He sat on my head – I had trouble breathing, I got my head to the side to breath.”
(f)“She took everything. [She] tried to rip my top off.”
(g)“They were leaving, she pegged the phone at my face and broke my nose.”
The victim’s injuries
14․A Forensic Medical Officer assessed the victim as having sustained the following injuries:
(a)Compound and comminuted fracture of the right nasal bone;
(b)Comminuted and displaced fracture of the left nasal bone;
(c)Fractured nasal septum and contusion with secondary epistaxis (nosebleed);
(d)Full thickness nasal laceration;
(e)Deep right sided laceration;
(f)Bifrontal subgaleal (scalp) haematomas;
(g)Extensive facial bruising;
(h)Chest bruising; and
(i)Bilateral lower limb bruising.
15․The injuries sustained by the victim were assessed as being the result of blunt force trauma.
16․The fractures to each nasal bone and the nasal septum required operative repair under general anaesthesia to restore anatomical alignment and treat nasal obstruction. The laceration to the victim’s nose was a full thickness laceration extending into the nasal cavity. This injury was cleaned and closed under general anaesthetic and will result in permanent scarring.
17․The victim spent three days in hospital and was discharged on 21 March 2023.
Arrest and investigation
18․At around 5:45pm on 18 March 2023, Ms Goodwin was located by New South Wales (NSW) Police in Queanbeyan, NSW. At the time of her arrest, Ms Goodwin was wearing clothing which matched the depiction in the CCTV footage at the unit block.
19․At around 5:57pm on 18 March 2023, Mr Gilbey was also located by NSW Police in Queanbeyan, NSW. He was wearing clothing which matched the depiction in the CCTV footage.
20․At 6:09pm on 18 March 2023, Crime Scene Investigators attended the victim’s unit. A trail of blood droplets were located leading from the carpark into the victim’s unit. Blood stains were located on the exterior of the front door. Inside the unit, blood stains were observed on a table adjacent to the front door, a blanket on the ottoman, a pillowcase on the ottoman, power cabling on the floor, the loungeroom carpet and the linoleum floor. A damaged mobile phone with blood on it was located on the floor of the apartment.
21․At 8:10pm, a search warrant was granted in respect to the co-offenders’ premises. During the search of the co-offenders’ garage, police located a hammer with a wooden handle.
22․On 19 March 2023, the victim participated in an interview with police. She reported that she heard Ms Goodwin take $21 in change from her table. She said she knew that she had $500 in notes of $50 denominations in her handbag at the time of the incident but was unsure whether it was stolen as she had not had the opportunity to check.
23․On 23 March 2023, the victim participated in an audio record of conversation where she confirmed that the $500 had been taken from her handbag.
Victim impact statement
24․A Victim Impact Statement (VIS) was provided to the Court. I am obliged to take into account the effect of the offending on the victim: ss 33(1)(f) and s 53(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Crimes (Sentencing) Act). Unsurprisingly given the nature and extent of the acts perpetrated against her, the offending has had a significant and enduring effect on the victim’s physical and mental health.
25․The victim detailed that her nose is now visibly deformed and she struggles with sinus and breathing issues. She is contemplating having further surgery to correct the damage. The injuries to her nose exacerbated pre-existing conditions concerning her hearing, blocked tear ducts and dental and jaw alignment.
26․The offending has had a dramatic and long-lasting effect on the victim’s sense of safety and the confidence with which she moves around in the world. Specifically, the victim revealed that she has been diagnosed with agoraphobia since the offending. She expressed that it could take her up to four hours to build up the courage to leave the house, by which time she is so exhausted that she stays home. She is regularly “triggered” by things in her life which cause flashbacks to the offending. She has nightmares about Mr Gilbey being released from custody. The victim expressed that she had to move house but still lives in a constant state of fear that he will find her. She has experienced falling asleep at the wheel of her car, something that she had not done prior to the offending. The victim now relies on other people to drive her places.
27․Plainly, the offending has severely and negatively affected the victim’s capacity to function in various aspect of everyday life. The Court is assisted by the provision of the VIS to understand the gravity of the harm caused by the actions of the co-offenders. Recognising the harm done to the victim in this matter is a significant sentencing consideration.
Sentencing considerations
Nature and circumstances of the offending
28․A consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offence requires an assessment of the objective seriousness of the conduct. The maximum penalty provided for by the legislature provides a “yardstick” against which to assess the objective seriousness of the offending: Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at 372 [31]. An assessment of objective seriousness and where offending conduct sits on the spectrum of offending is an important consideration: R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 at 266 [19]. The Court must identify and consider those factors that bear upon the objective seriousness of the offence, though categorisations such as low, mid or high range objective seriousness may generally be unhelpful in this jurisdiction: R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 at [24].
29․The maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated robbery, being 25 years of imprisonment or a fine of $400,000 or both, indicates the very real seriousness of the conduct. As a yardstick the significant penalty puts the offence among the most objectively serious offences in the ACT, consistent with it being both a crime against the person and a property crime: see R v Watson [2021] ACTSC 339 at [38] citing R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWCR 346 at 368 [99]. The count “rolls up” conduct that includes the forced entry to the victim’s home and the aggravated robbery once inside. The criminality involved in the count will necessarily be more serious by virtue of its status as a rolled-up count: R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68 at [13] and Johnson v R [2017] NSWCCA 53 at [68]-[70].
30․The guideline judgement of the NSW Court of Appeal in R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346, cited with approval in this jurisdiction in Hall v the Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 and R v Carberry [2022] ACTSC 208, outlines the factors relevant to the objective seriousness of robbery offences. They are as follows:
(a)The nature of any weapon used;
(b)The degree of planning involved;
(c)Whether the offending involved violence;
(d)The vulnerability of the victim;
(e)The nature and value of the property taken;
(f)The number of co-offenders; and
(g)The effect on victims.
31․The offence could be properly described as a “home invasion”. There was significant violence deliberately directed toward the victim’s head and face as well as her neck; places of vulnerability for the human body. The violence resulted in serious injury to the victim. The victim was also subjected to an intrusion on her bodily autonomy with the attempt to remove her shirt and bra. The weapon used, a hammer, was capable of causing real harm and inducing fear. There were two co-offenders.
32․The offending could not be categorised as entirely opportunistic or impulsive offending; there was a degree of planning involved, revealed in comments made by the co-offenders in the days leading up to the offending and by Mr Gilbey having armed himself with a hammer prior to attending the victim’s home. However, it must be said that the offending itself was not particularly sophisticated. The value of the property taken was relatively small, being $521 in cash. No doubt that loss represented financial disadvantage to the victim. The victim was alone in her own home, a place that should have afforded her safety and security. The victim was trapped in her home by virtue of the conduct, unable to flee to escape the attack until the co-offenders left.
33․The circumstances of this offence differ somewhat from a typical robbery offence in that the offending appeared to have the primary purpose of causing harm to the victim. In the comments made to witnesses, the co-offenders are clear and specific in their intention to injure the victim. The taking of the victim’s money appeared largely opportunistic. The premediated aspect of the offence pertains to the use of violence. This is in contrast to a situation where in the course of committing a theft, an escalation occurs resulting in the use of violence. The violence perpetrated in this instance was deliberate and brutal. It was not a resort to violence incidental to an intention to rob.
34․There is a conflict on the material as to which co-offender threw the mobile phone at the victim’s face hitting her in the nose. The statement of facts attributes that conduct to Mr Gilbey whereas the victim reported Ms Goodwin as responsible for that conduct. The parties agreed that the only conclusion that could be drawn is that while one of the co-offenders certainly performed the act, it could not be determined beyond reasonable doubt which co-offender was directly responsible. It being an offence of joint commission, the co-offenders are responsible for all the acts performed as part of the joint criminal enterprise. Accordingly, the act of throwing the mobile phone at the victim is not a matter that can be used to differentiate as between the nature and extent of each offender’s actual involvement.
35․As Baker J observed in R v Hagen [2022] ACTSC 362 at [27]:
Although the offender is liable for the actions of the other participants, when sentencing the offender it is necessary to draw distinctions between the roles and culpability of each of the induvial offenders: KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32 per Latham J (Whealey JA and Harrison J agreeing) at [19] – [20]; Burrows v R [2017] NSWCCA 45 at [37].
36․Notwithstanding the position with respect to the act of throwing the mobile phone at the victim, there are clear distinctions in the role of each of the co-offenders. Mr Gilbey instigated and perpetrated much of the violent conduct toward the victim. Ms Goodwin’s involvement in the violence was limited and she made some attempt to dissuade Mr Gilbey when he first brandished the hammer. She did assist in the attempt to remove the victim’s shirt and bra. Ms Goodwin’s role was primarily confined to taking property. The prosecution accepted that Ms Goodwin’s culpability was below that of her co-offender. Nonetheless both offenders contributed to the environment of threat and fear necessary for the successful commission of the offence.
37․Plainly, the circumstances of the offending, including the extent of injury deliberately occasioned to the victim, see it properly characterised as a serious example of the offence.
Conditional liberty
Jeremy Gilbey
38․By virtue of this offence, Mr Gilbey is in breach of three SSOs imposed in the ACT Magistrates Court.
39․The detail contained in Mr Gilbey’s criminal history is not entirely accurate. I have reviewed the original files and the following results are an accurate reflection of the orders made in the Magistrates Court on 25 January 2023. On that day, Mr Gilbey was sentenced as follows:
(a)CAN 6910/2022 – destroy property, contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act), for which he was sentenced to 1 month of imprisonment.
(b)CAN 7396/2022 – choke, suffocate or strangle another person, contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act, for which he was sentenced to 7 months of imprisonment suspended after serving 60 days upon entering a Good Behaviour Order (GBO) for 12 months.
(c)CAN 11703/2022 – common assault, contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act, for which he was sentenced to a concurrent period of 2 months of imprisonment suspended immediately upon entering a GBO for 12 months.
40․These offences were committed on 18 July 2022 and, of significance, were perpetrated against the same victim as the current offence before the Court. The victim was in her unit when she heard loud banging on the door. She opened the front door and saw Mr Gilbey. He began to yell profanities at her through the security screen door. She said words to the effect of “fuck off” and closed the door. The victim then heard her glass window smash and opened both the front door and security screen door to confront Mr Gilbey about what he had done to her window. Mr Gilbey grabbed the victim by the throat using his left hand and choked her, causing the victim to be unable to breathe. He then pushed her inside her unit and left the location. The victim attempted to follow Mr Gilbey outside, at which point he picked up a metal plant pot and threw it at her. The victim turned to brace herself and the metal plant pot struck her in the shoulder causing instant pain.
41․The commission of the 18 July 2022 offences required another breach to be dealt with by the Magistrates Court on 25 January 2023. The 18 July 2022 offences were committed while Mr Gilbey was subject to a GBO imposed under a SSO. On 16 June 2022, Mr Gilbey was sentenced in the Magistrates Court for driving while disqualified (CAN 1130/2021). A sentence of four months of imprisonment was imposed, suspended immediately upon entering a GBO for six months. Those orders breached by the July 2022 offences, Mr Gilbey was re-sentenced for the drive while disqualified offence on 25 January 2023 to 4 months of imprisonment, consecutive on the period imposed on CAN 7396/2022, suspended immediately on the condition that he be of good behaviour for 12 months.
42․Accordingly, there is 5 months of imprisonment left to serve on CAN 7396/2022, 2 months of imprisonment left to serve of CAN11703/2022 and 4 months of imprisonment left to serve on CAN 1130/2021. Preserving the intention of concurrency on CAN 11703/2022 and the cumulative intention of CAN 1130/2021 results in a total period of imprisonment left to serve of 9 months.
Melissa Goodwin
43․By virtue of this offence, Ms Goodwin is in breach of two SSOs. As with Mr Gilbey, Ms Goodwin’s criminal history is not entirely accurate. I have had regard to the original files to clarify the orders that were in place at the time the aggravated robbery was committed. The Magistrates Court bench sheets make clear what the criminal history does not and that is, that the total period of imprisonment left to serve as a result of the breach of the two GBOs is 3 months.
44․On 6 February 2023, Ms Goodwin was sentenced in the Magistrates Court for a charge of theft (CAN 5181/2022), contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. This offending occurred on 13 May 2022, and involved Ms Goodwin stealing 6 handbags with a combined value of $3,069.50 from David Jones. She was sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment, suspended on the condition that she be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.
45․The theft offence was committed while Ms Goodwin was subject to a GBO imposed as part of a SSO, for offending committed on 9 January 2020, where she dishonestly appropriated a bottle of perfume valued at $198 from David Jones (CAN 805/2020). On 20 November 2020, Ms Goodwin was sentenced for the minor theft to 3 months of imprisonment suspended on entering into a GBO for 18 months. She breached the GBO through the commission of the May 2022 offence, seven days prior to the GBO ending. She was re-sentenced on 6 February 2023 to a period of 3 months imprisonment, concurrent with CAN 5181/2022, suspended on the condition that she be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months.
46․I also note that Ms Goodwin was subject to a Community Corrections Order in NSW at the time of the aggravated robbery offence.
Breach of conditional liberty
47․The co-offenders committed the offence while each subject to obligations to be of good behaviour attached to SSOs. This is an aggravating circumstance; an offender having betrayed the opportunity to be in the community and pursue rehabilitation: R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 at [15].
48․This is relevant to a determination of the appropriate punishment for an offence but does not influence the assessment of objective seriousness of an offence: Smith v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 163 at [26]. See also R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 at [90]-[92], Hillier v DPP (NSW) [2009] NSWCCA 312; 198 A Crim R 565 at [30] and R v Van Rysewyk [2008] NSWCCA 130 at [25]. I bear in mind that I must approach this feature of the offending with care so as to avoid double punishment: Kelly v Ashby [2015] ACTSC 346 at [61].
Subjective circumstances
Jeremy Gilbey
49․The material before the Court in respect to Mr Gilbey includes a Pre-Sentence Report and Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report, both dated 29 April 2024.
50․Mr Gilbey is 49 years of age. He has a criminal history commencing in 1999 in NSW. His previous compliance with community-based orders has at times been unsatisfactory, with breach action initiated on several occasions due to further offending.
51․Mr Gilbey grew up in Sydney, NSW and reported having a typical familial upbringing. He maintains a good relationship with his mother and is in regular contact with one of his siblings. [Redacted].
52․Mr Gilbey reported having been with his current partner, Ms Goodwin, for approximately 23 years. They have three teenage children together who are in the care of their maternal grandmother.
53․Mr Gilbey advised he had been working for a local company in Canberra for over four years prior to being remanded. He stated that there may be scope to return to that employer, however he also has prospective employment from a person he met in custody. He advised he may have an outstanding Centrelink debt but is not aware of the total. He has maintained employment as a sweeper while in custody.
54․Mr Gilbey reported that he commenced using cannabis and amphetamines between 15 and 17 years of age. At the age of 21 he commenced using heroin which he found to be instantly problematic. Whilst he has had short periods of abstinence, his drug use has been relatively constant throughout his life. He is engaged in the Buvidal program and advised that it is going well. He reported using cannabis and amphetamine on odd occasions, including have used amphetamine prior to the commission of the current offence before the Court.
55․In the community, Mr Gilbey reported that he plays pool at a competitive level, reads and walks his dog. He stated that he had not been associating with any anti-social peers for some time prior to being remanded.
56․Mr Gilbey reported an ongoing injury to his knee and having experienced a decline in his mental health since his remand. He reported having engaged with specialist intervention unit staff to address anxiety due to situational stress that has been exacerbated by receiving threats from the victim’s friends.
57․Upon release, Mr Gilbey proposed to reside with his partner at a friend’s leased property. This information was not able to be verified by the report writer. He intended on residing there temporarily until he can secure employment and a private rental property.
58․Mr Gilbey denied the extent of the offending as described in the statement of facts. He expressed that he was under a great deal of stress at the time of the offence due to moving and a lack of sleep exasperated by amphetamine use.
59․Mr Gilbey was assessed as being suitable for an Intensive Correction Order.
Melissa Goodwin
60․The material before the Court in relation to Ms Goodwin includes a Pre-Sentence Report and an Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report both dated 29 April 2024, a Mental Health Assessment Report dated 24 April 2024, as well as a number of certificates and records of correspondence concerning support programs she has accessed while on remand.
61․Ms Goodwin is 41 years of age. She has a criminal history commencing in 2004. Previous compliance with community-based orders has been unsatisfactory due to failure to attend supervision appointments, illicit substance use and further offending. ACT Corrective Services records showed that during this current period of remand, she has been subject to warnings for poor behaviour on three occasions and has received behavioural commendations on two occasions.
62․Ms Goodwin was born in Sydney and advised that her father left the family when she was five years old and she has not had contact with him since. Her relationship with her mother has been estranged since childhood. She resided in a group house from 15 years of age until allocated her own government housing accommodation.
63․Ms Goodwin advised of being in a long-term relationship with the co-offender and that their three children are in the care of her mother. She advised that Child and Youth Protective Services became involved arising out of drug use by Mr Gilbey and herself. She has not spoken with her children since being remanded and expressed a desire to rebuild their relationship. While on remand she has completed the parenting course ‘Bringing Up Great Kids’.
64․Ms Goodwin has completed her Year 11 certificate. She has a limited employment history. She attributed her unemployment to her mental health and drug use. She has successfully maintained custodial employment in the bakery and has completed various courses relevant to employment while on remand.
65․Prior to entering custody, Ms Goodwin’s source of income was Centrelink benefits. She disclosed some driving offence related fines which she is currently paying off in instalments. While on remand, she engaged in a financial counselling program.
66․Ms Goodwin acknowledged knowing anti-social people in the community and verbalised her intent to disconnect from negative influences.
67․Ms Goodwin disclosed an extensive history of illicit substance use beginning with heroin when she was 22 years of age. By the age of 24 she was using heroin daily but as of 2 years ago she was using the substance approximately once a week, as well as consuming methamphetamine monthly. She is currently engaged in the Buvidal program and has been attending the Smart Recovery program while in custody. Ms Goodwin reflected that she uses illicit substances to numb negative feelings associated with dissatisfaction with her life circumstances, and accordingly, her drug use increased upon losing custody of her children. She disclosed consuming illicit substances with her partner. Ms Goodwin has been subject to urinalysis on seven occasions while on remand, all of which have returned negative results for substances other than Buvidal.
68․Ms Goodwin appears to have a relapse prevention plan for her release into the community, namely continuing alcohol and drug treatment at Toora Women Inc. (Toora Women), attending the Smart Recovery program at Directions Health and continuing Buvidal treatment. Multiple letters were provided from Toora Women. The first of which, dated 29 April 2024, detailed her active participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program while in custody. Another, dated 10 July 2024, confirmed that Ms Goodwin had requested support from Toora Women upon her release. The letter also confirmed that Ms Goodwin has a place in their Day Program and will have a bed available to her from 15 August 2024.
69․Ms Goodwin advised that she suffers from arthritis. She disclosed a history of self-harm, with the latest episode occurring some years ago. She described “feeling down” while in custody but denied any current or past suicidal ideation or attempts. She was assessed as not presenting with symptoms of mental illness but that she would benefit from psychological support or counselling.
70․Ms Goodwin was found unsuitable for an Intensive Correction Order because she did not have accommodation available. Correspondence from Toora Women confirms the ongoing availability of accommodation for Ms Goodwin with their service.
Character reference
71․A character reference was tendered on behalf of Ms Goodwin under the hand of Ms Fenning. Ms Fenning is a chaplain at the Alexander Maconochie Centre who stated she has known Ms Goodwin for “a while”. She described Ms Goodwin as motivated to address her challenges and as demonstrating a “strong desire to further harmony in her surrounds, evidenced by the extra jobs she does around the yard”. Ms Fenning highlighted Ms Goodwin’s commitment to improving her life and expressed her belief that Ms Goodwin can contribute positively to society.
Guilty pleas
72․The co-offenders entered pleas of guilty on 16 February 2024. A trial had been set to commence on 26 February 2024 with an estimated duration of five days. The prosecution submitted that the timing of the plea was “last-minute” and as such a 10 per cent discount should be given: Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 19 ACTLR 99 at [47]; affirmed in Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 at [37]. I agree. I will reduce the sentence to be imposed by 10 per cent in recognition of the utilitarian value of the plea, in respect of each co-offender.
Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation
Melissa Goodwin
73․The pre-sentence report author noted that Ms Goodwin did not dispute the statement of facts and accepted responsibility for her offending behaviour. She demonstrated a degree of victim empathy and attributed her actions to compromised decision making arising from methamphetamine use. Further, her letter to the Court expressed some remorse for her actions. She wrote that she “would like to offer an apology” to the victim however did not demonstrate significant insight into the impact of her conduct on the victim. She expressed regret for “having gone to the victim’s house”, which does not in my view accurately reflect the circumstances and severity of her offending.
74․Ms Goodwin does appear to have readily engaged with the courses and programs available to her during her time on remand. She has remained abstinent from drugs, engaged in numerous courses and maintained two custodial employment positions. Seventeen certificates were tendered detailing her participation in various programs geared toward developing her professional skills, health awareness, addiction recovery and financial education. This reflects a desire to use her time meaningfully and to improve herself in anticipation of her eventual release into the community. Ms Goodwin appears to have insight into the challenges she faces regarding drug use, acknowledging their interconnectedness with her mental health challenges and criminal behaviour.
75․Ms Goodwin expressed her desire to return to the community, rebuild her relationship with her children, look after her pets and demonstrate that she can be a “good responsible person”. She intends on attaining employment in the hospitality industry and engaging in various services including the Toora Women’s Day Program. She expressed confidence in the capacity of the supports she now has in place to assist her to maintain abstinence and be “a decent member of society”.
76․Ms Goodwin did not give sworn evidence. While some caution is warranted when assessing untested expressions of remorse (see R v Baxendale [2018] ACTSC 260 and Imbornone v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144 (Imbornone)), in this instance the expression of remorse is consistent with sentiments expressed directly to the pre-sentence report author and with the offender’s plea of guilty.
Jeremy Gilbey
77․Mr Gilbey denied the entirety of the statement of facts to the author of the pre-sentence report. Counsel for Mr Gilbey submitted that this was not an attempt to traverse his plea, and rather, a reflection of the numerous iterations of the statement of facts prior to agreement between the parties. Mr Gilbey’s disagreement with aspects of the statement of facts was in relation to the version initially prepared by police when he was first charged with the offence. Counsel confirmed that Mr Gilbey maintained his plea of guilty and accepted responsibility for his conduct.
Consideration
78․Remorse is relevant to an assessment of each of the co-offenders’ prospects for rehabilitation (R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 at 169-170 [41]) which, if it can be achieved is the most durable guarantor of safety for the community (Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 at 537 [32]).
79․I am satisfied that Ms Goodwin has demonstrated some remorse for her offending conduct. While it cannot be said that she entirely recognised the impact of her conduct on the victim, I consider that this is likely complicated by the distinct roles of the co-offenders in the commission of the offence.
80․Ms Goodwin has made a significant effort to demonstrate her commitment to improving the trajectory of her life. Ms Goodwin was categorised as a high risk of re-offending. This is understandable in the context of her criminal history, but in my view does not adequately reflect the significant supports with whom she has initiated and maintained engagement. Whether high risk or something below that, it is beyond doubt that Ms Goodwin will require significant assistance to action the aspiration she clearly has to live a life different to that which her criminal history reflects.
81․Ms Goodwin’s prospects for rehabilitation must be approached with some hesitation in light of the extent of the challenges she faces to reform her life, against the background of repeated breaches of the opportunity of conditional liberty. It must be said that her ongoing relationship with the co-offender is a significant risk factor affecting her prospects for rehabilitation. Their history of shared drug use in the context of a long-standing relationship which has included the removal of their three children from their care, undoubtedly has the capacity to impede her rehabilitative efforts. Mr Gilbey, as I will come to identify, has not pursued supports in relation to his own drug use with the same level of motivation as Ms Goodwin.
82․Ultimately, I am persuaded that through her efforts while in custody, Ms Goodwin has demonstrated herself to be highly motivated to address the factors contributing to her offending conduct. Ms Goodwin has the potential to realise a more stable existence that does not include ongoing drug use; there being a sound plan to support that goal in the community. I am satisfied that were Ms Goodwin to consistently achieve abstinence from drug use, her risk of re-offending would dramatically reduce. Accordingly, rehabilitation is a factor that can appropriately be afforded weight in the sentence.
83․There is limited information before me regarding Mr Gilbey’s prospects for rehabilitation. Factors in his favour include a positive relationship with his supportive mother and a history of full-time employment. These factors were both present at the time of the offence and were unsuccessful in guarding against his recent criminal history. It cannot be ignored that Mr Gilbey had only been in the community for 53 days before he again engaged in violent conduct against the victim; representing, as the prosecution submitted, further proof of the risk he presented to the victim and an escalation in the seriousness of his conduct.
84․I accept the submission that in circumstances where Mr Gilbey has an entrenched drug addiction, 53 days was unlikely to have seen him achieve any significant rehabilitation. Nonetheless, that this offending was not prevented by the protective factors in his favour, nor the presence of a suspended sentence imposed upon him for offending conduct against the same victim, does not bode well for Mr Gilbey’s prospects for rehabilitation.
85․I accepted the tender of an email written by Mr Gilbey in the moments prior to imposition of this sentence. Mr Gilbey’s solicitor submitting some difficulty with email communication. The email is dated after the sentencing hearing where it was submitted by the prosecution that Mr Gilbey had failed to demonstrate remorse. The email expresses some remorse. It also accords with Mr Gilbey’s desire to live a drug free life, to re-establish a relationship with his children and his plan to remain on the Buvidal program upon his release.
86․Mr Gilbey’s expression of remorse has come very late in the proceedings after it became clear that remorse was a factor to be taken into account. He was not called to give evidence and accordingly, his expression of remorse is untested. In those circumstances, little weight can be attached to it: see Imbornone. I am satisfied that he has feelings of regret as to the position he is now in, arising from his conduct. I am also satisfied that he has genuinely contemplated how he might go about changing his life upon his release into the community.
87․I acknowledge that he has commenced Buvidal injections and that he is employed while in custody. Both are matters to his credit. I acknowledge that he has accepted responsibility for his offending conduct. He has not expressed genuine remorse. As it stands, Mr Gilbey presents as having limited prospects for rehabilitation. The parole authorities will be in a position to properly assess Mr Gilbey’s prospects for rehabilitation, particularly if the Buvidal program proves successful and he engages with the rehabilitation programs made available to sentenced prisoners.
Criminal history
88․An offender’s criminal history does not operate as an aggravating feature but can limit the leniency that can be afforded to an offender at sentencing. The pattern of criminal conduct revealed in both co-offender’s criminal histories demonstrates that this kind of offending is not uncharacteristic (Veen v the Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465).
89․Mr Gilbey has an extensive criminal history in both NSW and the ACT. His previous offending consists of driving, drug, theft, property damage, weapon and assault offences. As noted above, he has previous convictions for offending against the same victim. He is also recorded for failing to comply with community-based orders.
90․Similarly, Ms Goodwin has an extensive history in both NSW and the ACT. Her previous offending consists of property, assault and driving offences. She too has a history of failing to comply with community-based orders.
Time in custody
91․The co-offenders have each spent 529 days in custody solely referable to the offence before the Court. The sentence imposed will be backdated to take account of that time.
Parity
92․There being co-offenders in this matter, I must consider the principle of parity. Parity embodies the concept of “equality before the law”: see Green v The Queen; Quinn v the Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 at 473 [28].
93․The Court of Appeal in Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2 considered the principles that apply to a consideration of parity, at [24]:
The notion that like cases should be treated alike is fundamental to any rational and fair system of criminal justice: Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, 610–11 per Mason J. Unjustifiable disparity is an infringement of the equal justice norm: Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 at [32] (Green). However, just as equal justice requires that like offenders should be treated alike, relevant differences should also be acknowledged: Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295, 301–2 (Postiglione) per Dawson and Gaudron JJ. This approach to parity has been applied by this Court in many cases, including Singh v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 17 at [74], Rubino v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 22 at [26]–[27] and Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 at [48] (Le Clair).
94․Both offenders were on conditional liberty at the time of the offending. A matter of significance is that Mr Gilbey’s most recent sentence in the ACT Magistrates Court arose from violent offending against the same victim. Both offenders have extensive criminal histories and have battled drug dependency issues from a young age. Both played an active role in the offending.
95․There is some distinction between the extent of their involvement in particular with respect to the violence perpetrated against the victim. Mr Gilbey was primarily responsible for the infliction of deliberate violence. Ms Goodwin attempted to dissuade Mr Gilbey from striking the victim with the hammer although ultimately continued to participate in the offence. Ms Goodwin verbalised an acceptance of responsibility and demonstrated victim empathy whereas Mr Gilbey has not demonstrated genuine remorse. The prosecution accepted that Ms Goodwin’s culpability should be considered as less than Mr Gilbey’s.
96․It is appropriate that the sentence I impose reflect the difference in their roles as to the extent of the violence perpetrated against the victim.
Sentencing practise
97․Sentencing outcomes do not set a precedent nor fix an upper or lower cap for an offence: Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at 445 [51]-[53]. The outcomes for other offenders might assist to illustrate a range but they do not define the boundaries of the sentencing discretion. A sentence that is “just and appropriate” (Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59 (Mill v The Queen) at 63 [8]) must give effect to individualised justice.
98․It is useful to note what the Court of Appeal observed in R v White [2023] ACTCA 35 at [52]:
In Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38, The Court of Appeal noted at [40] that most sentences recorded in the ACT sentencing database for aggravated robbery following a plea of guilty were in the range of 30 months to four years’ imprisonment. In R v Lovelock [2014] ACTSC 229 at [13], Murrell CJ, when considering current sentencing practice in the ACT Supreme Court, observed that a common sentence for aggravated robbery was three years’ imprisonment. In each case, the Court was referring to the length of sentences after application of discounting for pleas of guilty.
99․In DPP v Campbell (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 105 at [111] I observed that:
Where the offending could be characterised as a “home invasion”, the sentences imposed were in some instances more severe than the range identified by the Court of Appeal in White (citing Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38 and R v Lovelock [2014] ACTSC 229).
100․The prosecution referred to several sentencing outcomes from this Court: DPP v Girvan [2023] ACTSC 35, R v Haddara [2022] ACTSC 224, DPP v Trewartha [2023] ACTSC 13, R v Apps (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 369, R v Evans; R v Reid [2020] ACTSC 169, R v Batcheldor [2021] ACTSC 208, R v Lockwood [2018] ACTSC 288, and R v Wilson; R v Beath-Williams [2022] ACTSC 20. I have had regard to the facts, circumstances and outcomes in each of those matters.
Determination
101․The purposes of sentencing to which I must have regard are set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. The nature of the offending in this instance requires the sentencing purposes of punishment, recognition of harm, specific and general deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community to feature as significant considerations. Rehabilitation is relevant in each case, though a more influential consideration for Ms Goodwin for the reasons I have already identified.
102․It was accepted that the only appropriate outcome for each co-offender is a period of imprisonment. No other sentence would properly reflect the gravity of the offending and give effect to the purposes of sentencing: s 10 Crimes (Sentencing) Act.
103․For both co-offenders, a concerning aspect of the offence before the Court is that it was committed while they were subject to SSOs. Particularly with respect to Mr Gilbey, who had been sentenced less than two months prior to the commission of this offence for violent offending against the same victim. Specific deterrence is a significant consideration for Mr Gilbey.
Breach matters
104․There being a breach of GBOs by the co-offenders by virtue of the commission of the aggravated robbery offence, it is necessary to cancel those orders upon conviction: s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT) (the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act). The sensible position adopted by the co-offenders was that the only appropriate outcome in relation to the breach matters, in light of imprisonment being the only appropriate outcome for the instant offence, is the imposition of the suspended sentences: s 110(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act.
105․A review of those factors relevant to the determination of whether to re-sentence or to impose the suspended periods of imprisonment reveals that imposing the sentences in each case is entirely appropriate: see R v Kelly (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 253 at [15].
106․Both co-offenders had been placed on SSOs less than two months prior to the commission of the offence, and accordingly the proportion of the GBO served and any rehabilitation attained, was minor. They have committed a serious offence which, in relation to Mr Gilbey, is of very similar conduct to the offence for which the SSO was imposed. The commission of the offence clearly evinces an intention to disregard the obligation to be of good behaviour. Given their prolonged engagement with the criminal justice system, I am confident that they were aware of their obligations and the potential consequences of any breach.
107․The requirement to deal with the breach matters requires a consideration of the principle of totality: Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 at 623-624. The sentence must be “just and appropriate” to reflect the total criminality of the offending: Mill v The Queen at 63 [8]. There is a need to recognise the separate nature of the offences such that substantial concurrency is not warranted.
108․By the time the co-offenders came before me, sentencing proceedings having been abandoned before another judge in May 2024, the Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report for each offender had expired. It was accepted that an Intensive Correction Order was not an appropriate outcome in relation to Mr Gilbey: see s 77(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. In relation to Ms Goodwin, counsel sought the imposition of a partly suspended sentence in recognition of her potential for rehabilitation noting the availability of long-term accommodation with Toora Women which provides direct access to their day rehabilitation program as well as other intensive supports. The prosecution was not heard against this outcome.
109․A partly suspended sentence can be “constructively adapted” to reflect Ms Goodwin’s particular circumstances; recognising the significant period she has already spent in custody and allowing for certain release to take up the opportunity to be intensively supported by Toora Women. Further, the Court would retain “overall supervision” of Ms Goodwin such that any breach would be drawn to the Court’s attention: R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8; 281 A Crim R 273 (UG) at [82]. Unlike a non-parole period and a parole period, there is no “usual” relationship between the part of the sentence that is served and the part that is suspended: UG at [77].
110․A partly suspended sentence of imprisonment would provide the opportunity for extended supervision in the community in pursuit of the rehabilitation pathway Ms Goodwin has identified. The GBO can be crafted to include the specific supports that will be critical for Ms Goodwin upon her release, resulting in an opportunity to rehabilitate under a regime of intense scrutiny. Any conduct that takes Ms Goodwin away from the pathway to rehabilitation will be swiftly identified and if necessary, drawn to the Court’s attention for consideration of whether any remaining period of imprisonment ought to be imposed. I have considered the operation of the totality principle in circumstances where I have determined the appropriate outcome for the aggravated robbery offence is a partly suspended sentence. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the 3 months of imprisonment in relation to the breach matters, be imposed as a period of full-time imprisonment and that the partly suspended sentence for the aggravated robbery offence should commence at the expiration of that 3-month period.
111․There is no case to be made for Mr Gilbey in relation to anything other than a period of full-time imprisonment. So much was conceded. This will see the need for a non-parole period to be set. The principles guiding the setting of a non-parole period have been the subject of consideration in the following cases: Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14; 19 ACTLR 270 at 283-285 [61]-[66]; Taylor v R [2014] ACTCA 9 (Taylor) at [19]; Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5 at [33]-[37] and The Queen v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18 (Ruwhiu) at [18] (citing Taylor with approval). I have had regard to the principles articulated therein. A non-parole period is the period that justice requires the offender to serve in custody, being the minimum period of actual incarceration having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending, the offender’s subjective circumstances, the purposes of sentencing including punishment, and the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation: Ruwhiu at [18]; Muldrock v the Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 at 139-140 [57].
Conclusion
Jeremy Gilbey
112․On the charge of aggravated robbery the starting point for the sentence is 4 years of imprisonment reduced to 3 years, 7 months and 6 days in recognition of the plea of guilty.
Melissa Goodwin
113․On the charge of aggravated robbery the starting point for the sentence is 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment reduced to 3 years, 1 month and 24 days in recognition of the plea of guilty.
Orders
114․For those reasons, the following orders are made:
Jeremy Gilbey
(1)On the charge of aggravated robbery (SCCAN 122/2023), Mr Gilbey is convicted and sentenced to 3 years, 7 months and 6 days of imprisonment commencing on 17 September 2023 and ending on 22 April 2027.
(2)On the breach of the GBO on CAN 7396/2022, the GBO is cancelled and I impose the period of imprisonment of 5 months commencing on 18 March 2023 and ending on 17 August 2023.
(3)On the breach of the GBO on CAN 1130/2021, the GBO is cancelled and I impose the period of imprisonment of 4 months commencing on 18 August 2023 and ending on 17 December 2023.
(4)On the breach of the GBO on CAN 11703/2022, the GBO is cancelled and I impose the period of imprisonment of 2 months commencing on 18 March 2023 and ending on 17 May 2023.
(5)The total period of imprisonment is 4 years, 1 month and 5 days. The non-parole period is to commence on 18 March 2023 and end on 18 October 2025.
Melissa Goodwin
(1)On the charge of aggravated robbery (SCCAN 123/2023) Ms Goodwin is convicted and sentenced to 3 years, 1 month and 24 days of imprisonment commencing on 18 June 2023 and ending on 10 August 2026.
(2)On the breach of the GBO on CAN 5181/2022, the GBO is cancelled and I impose the period of imprisonment of 3 months commencing on 18 March 2023 and ending on 17 June 2023.
(3)On the breach of the GBO on CAN 805/2020, the GBO is cancelled and I impose the period of imprisonment of 3 months commencing on 18 March 2023 and ending on 17 June 2023.
(4)I order that the sentence on the aggravated robbery (SC CAN 123/2023) be suspended from 28 August 2024 after the offender has spent 1 year, 2 months and 11 days in custody, upon her entering an undertaking to comply with her good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act for the balance of the term of the sentence. I impose the following conditions in addition to the core conditions:
(i)The offender is to accept the supervision of the Director-General and comply with all reasonable directions for the duration of the Good Behaviour Order;
(ii)The offender is to engage with support services and programs at Toora Women as directed including with respect to the Toora Day Program for the duration of the Good Behaviour Order or such lesser period as deemed appropriate by the Director-General; and
(iii)The offender is to comply with directions in relation to urinalysis, medical and psychological assessments for the duration of the Good Behaviour Order.
| I certify that the preceding one hundred and fourteen [114] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor. Associate: O Ferguson Date: 28 August 2024 |
55
4