Director of Public Prosecutions v Glowacki

[2024] VCC 383

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-23-01307

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ROBERT GLOWACKI

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 March 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 March 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Glowacki
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 383

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – sentence                   

Catchwords:              Guilty plea – one charge of aggravated burglary – forced entry by three co-offenders, all masked in the middle of the night serious example of aggravated burglary – relevant prior criminal history – delay – application of general Bugmy principles – parity and totality – deterrence - general and specific, just punishment and denunciation 

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991

Cases Cited:Robert Glowacki v. The King [2023] VSCA 176; DPP v. Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; Worboyes v. The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Bugmy v. The Queen 249 CLR 571

Sentence:                  Four years, six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr E.S. Dober	Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria
For the Offender	Mr D. Cronin Mr S. Cooper	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1Robert Glowacki, following a sentence indication given by me[1], you have pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated burglary contrary to s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty for which is 25 years’ imprisonment.

[1]Sentence indication hearing conducted on 18 March 2024

2The charge of aggravated burglary arises from the events of 28 November 2019, when you and two others forced entry into the victims’ house in Rupert Street, Mitcham, armed with offensive weapons, intending to steal property.

3You were 29 years of age at the time of this offending. You are now 33 years old. You have a relevant prior criminal history which you have admitted.

Circumstances of offending

4The circumstances of your offending are detailed in an agreed factual summary dated 18 March 2024 that was prepared by the prosecution for the purpose of the sentence indication hearing, and which is the agreed basis upon which you are now to be sentenced.

5On the evening of 27 November 2019 you met your cousin, Lauchlan Bright, at the Croydon Hotel. A number of hours later, at 12.50 am on 28 November 2019, you and Mr Bright together with an unknown male offender attended an address in Rupert Street, Mitcham; the home of Mr Kummrow and Ms Foxi. Both victims were present in the house at the time.

6The property has a motion sensor positioned over the front gate and Mr Kummrow was alerted to your presence when it was activated. He and Ms Foxi went to look at the CCTV monitor in their lounge room and saw the three of you jumping over their front fence.

7Mr Kummrow ran to the back of the house and called 000. He then left the house through the back door and jumped some fences before hiding in a neighbouring garden. Ms Foxi moved into the kitchen, hid her mobile phone and crouched on the floor.

8CCTV footage captured the three of you approaching the front door of the property, before kicking and forcing the front door until it was damaged enough for you and the two co-offenders to crawl into the house.

9Mr Bright was captured on CCTV footage carrying an axe/hatchet style weapon inside the house. The weapon had a distinctive camouflage patterned handle. Mr Bright was wearing dark pants, a grey hoodie, a navy puffer vest, back runners, face coverings, gloves and was carrying a satchel across his body.

10One of the other offenders is captured on CCTV footage carrying an imitation firearm and an edged weapon inside the house. That offender was wearing black pants, a camouflage waterproof jacket, black runners, a black face covering and black sunglasses.

11The third offender is captured on CCTV footage carrying a black-handled knife and a silver torch inside the house. That offender was wearing black 'Nike' pants with a white tick on the left leg, a black waterproof jacket, white and multicoloured 'Nike' runners, a black face covering with a white skull pattern, and black and grey gloves.

12In the agreed facts you are excluded as the offender carrying the imitation firearm. Moreover, the prosecution accepts that it cannot be established which offensive weapon you carried or that you had any knowledge of the specific weapons brought into the house by the co-offenders. The prosecution concedes that it cannot establish that you knew or were reckless as to the presence of the victims at the time you entered the property.

13The offender wearing the black waterproof jacket was captured on CCTV footage confronting Ms Foxi in the kitchen. That offender was holding the knife towards her in a threatening manner. He then took various items as Ms Foxi opened drawers and appears to look for things. Ms Foxi appears visibly shaken throughout the incident.

14Mr Bright left the house and put a number of items he had stolen into Ms Foxi’s car that was parked in the driveway. He then returned inside the house. A short time later one of the accused fled from the address leaving Mr Bright and the other offender inside. A little later they also ran from the house.

15The police arrived at the house at about 1.05 am. They saw Mr Bright as he ran from the property, however, they then lost sight of him. The police then spoke with Mr Kummrow and went inside to view the CCTV footage of the incident.

16Both Mr Kummrow and Ms Foxi were distressed and shaken as a result of being confronted by the offenders carrying weapons but were otherwise unharmed.

17A short time later the police placed a cordon around the property and an officer and dog attached to the Canine Unit commenced a search of the area with other police officers.

18About 50 minutes later the Canine Unit located Mr Bright in the backyard of a nearby property. He was wearing only one shoe. Mr Bright was arrested and searched at the scene before being taken to Box Hill Police Station.

19The police continued to search the area for you and the other offender, however, you both managed to evade the police and flee the area.

20At 1:44 am, the police intercepted a car driving erratically in the vicinity of Rupert Street, Mitcham. The car was being driven by Mr Bright’s then partner, Alyce Hammel, who had been directed to the area by text message, asking her to pick up Mr Bright.

21Crime scene officers found electronic items such as laptops, mobile phones and other personal property belonging to Mr Kummrow in the front seat of Ms Foxi’s car.

22Police investigations established that Mr Bright’s phone was in contact with mobile phones connected to you and Alyce Hammel a short time prior to the offending. Ms Hammel had attempted to contact you and Mr Bright on numerous occasions shortly after the incident and prior to her being intercepted by police in the vicinity of Rupert Street that morning.

23A few days following the incident, on 30 November 2019, a resident in Rupert Street was driving her car when she noticed a rear door was not closing properly and was rattling. When she stopped to close the door she noticed several smears and droplets of blood on her car. She contacted the police as she was aware of the incident and thought the blood may have some connection to it. She had not driven her car since the aggravated burglary was committed in the early hours of 28 November 2019.

24Crime scene investigators obtained samples of the blood from the car which were sent for forensic analysis. The profile of one of the samples obtained from the car matched your DNA.

Procedural history

25I turn now to the procedural history of these proceedings.

26On 20 December 2019 you were involved in a motor vehicle collision on the Maroondah Highway where police attended. You were taken under police guard to the Royal Melbourne Hospital where you remained for four days before being remanded in custody on a charge of aggravated home invasion arising from the events of 28 November 2019, in addition to other offences arising from your manner of driving on 20 December 2019.

27On 24 December 2019 Ms Hammel was arrested as a suspect in the aggravated home invasion and participated in a record of interview with police. Following the interview, investigators excluded Ms Hammel as a suspect.

28Certain of the responses provided by Ms Hammel in her record of interview were relevant to the police investigation into your possible role in the incident. The prosecution sought to compulsorily examine Ms Hammel in the Magistrates’ Court on two occasions, but she failed to appear at those hearings.

29On 24 November 2020 Ms Hammel signed a statement in which she declared the contents of her interview were true.

30Subsequently, on 10 November 2021, Ms Hammel made a sworn statement drafted by her legal representatives in which she retracted her earlier police statement.

31The matter was listed for trial before another judge of the County Court commencing in January 2022. Ms Hammel failed to appear at that trial. You were convicted and sentenced for the offence of aggravated home invasion. For reasons that are not relevant to my sentence, the verdict of the jury on that trial was set aside on appeal[2] and the matter listed for further trial before me commencing 12 March 2024.

[2]Robert Glowacki v The King [2023] VSCA 176

32A warrant of apprehension was issued for Ms Hammel to appear at your trial. The warrant was executed on 12 March 2024, and Ms Hammel gave evidence in advance of a jury being empanelled in your trial. After giving evidence at a pre-trial hearing, the prosecution accepted that aspects of Ms Hammel’s evidence it had previously sought to rely upon were inadmissible in your trial.

33Following the pre-trial hearing, the prosecution consented to a sentence indication being given to a single charge of aggravated burglary and on 18 March 2024, following the sentence indication given by me, you entered a guilty plea to that charge, rather than to a charge of aggravated home invasion.

34Your matter resolved to a guilty plea more than four years following the aggravated burglary committed on 28 November 2019, during which period you have remained in custody. The prosecution fairly accepts that the delay associated with Ms Hammel’s failure to attend court prior to March 2024, and the circumstances leading to a re-trial, are not matters for which you bear any responsibility. I return to the relevance of this significant delay on your sentence later in my reasons. 

Nature and gravity of offending

35I turn now to an assessment of the gravity of your offending.

36This was undeniably a serious example of the offence of aggravated burglary, the inherent seriousness of which is reflected in the maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment fixed by Parliament.

37The gravity of this offence is borne out by a number of aggravating features, additional to those that are elemental to the offence:[3]

·        you entered the premises with two other offenders, all carrying offensive weapons;

·        one of the offensive weapons was an imitation firearm (although I accept you did not know this fact at the point of entry);

·        you and the co-offenders used force by kicking the front door in to gain entry to the house;

·        you committed the burglary in the early hours of the morning;

·        you and your co-offenders wore dark covers over your faces; and

·        the home was deliberately, rather than randomly, targeted.

[3]DPP v. Meyers [2014] VSCA 314, at p 16 [48].

38Much of the offending, including the point at which you and the co-offenders gain entry to the house by kicking the door, is graphically captured on CCTV footage, which was viewed in court at your plea hearing.[4] The footage demonstrates the terrifying and violent nature of your forced entry into the premises.

[4]Exhibit 1.

39Your intention at the point of entry is relevant to my assessment of the gravity of your offending. By your plea you accept that you entered the premises with the intention of stealing property. Once inside, you and the co-offenders can be seen moving from room to room, searching for items of value such as electronic goods, some of which were removed from the house by Mr Bright and placed in Ms Foxi’s car.

40It is accepted by the prosecution that at the point you entered the premises, you neither know nor were reckless as to the presence of the victims in their home. However, Ms Foxi’s presence must become readily apparent once you were inside the house. However, her presence did not deter you and the other offenders from remaining in the house, still armed with weapons, as you continued searching for things to steal.

41Although the offence of aggravated burglary was complete upon the entry to the house, the conduct of you and the co-offenders once inside highlights the focus you and the co-offenders had on stealing items of value at the point you all forced entry into the house. This includes the moment at which one offender pointed a knife threateningly at Ms Foxi in the kitchen, before continuing to search for things to steal.  Understandably, Ms Foxi appears visibly shaken at this point.

42While no victim impact statements were tendered, this must have been a traumatic ordeal for Mr Kummrow, and in particular Ms Foxi, when confronted with three masked and armed offenders who entered the home after violently breaking through the front door in the middle of the night. Fortunately, no physical injury was sustained by the victims in the course of the incident but that does not alter the terrifying nature of your offending that night.

Personal circumstances

43I turn now to your personal circumstances. You were born and raised in Melbourne and are now 33 years old.

44Your parents separated before you were born. You report a good relationship with both of your parents and with your half-siblings. However, your father struggled with an addiction to heroin and spent many years in custody where you would visit him throughout your childhood. When he was not in jail you had limited contact with your father as you grew up.

45You recall a positive relationship with your mother’s partner, 'Ozzie' but they separated when you were about nine years old. Your mother’s next partner, Robbie, was abusive towards you and your mother and both he and your mother used drugs. You were sent to live with your aunt and her partner at this time, eventually returning to live with your mother when she was no longer abusing drugs.

46That your upbringing was an unstable one is demonstrated by the fact you attended approximately ten different primary schools. At the time your mother was in a relationship with Robbie you report the trauma of witnessing his violence towards your mother as being the most disturbing acts of violence you have witnessed.

47You struggled academically at school, describing your learning ability as 'not very good'. You experienced bulling in primary school and would retaliate by fighting. You attended Croydon Community School but left school before the end of Year 10.

48Since leaving school you have had limited employment, working as a plasterer’s labourer for three months and then later as a plumber’s labourer for five months, the longest position you have held.

49You have a four-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. Your daughter lives with her maternal aunt and uncle in Tasmania subject to child protection orders and you have fortnightly contact with her via video link. You are in a relationship with Rebecca, who is an ongoing source of support for you and to whom you are engaged.

50As to your history of drug use, you began using cannabis at the age of 12. By the time you were 17 you were smoking 'two to three grams' of cannabis a day.  At the age of 15 you began using speed but soon escalated to regular ice use, smoking up to two grams a day. You report that you relapsed into ice use for about eight weeks following your release from custody in 2019 and were also using up to 60ml of GHB a day. You have also used cocaine, LSD and Ketamine intermittently in the past.

51You were assessed for the purposes of your plea hearing by clinical psychologist, Carla Lechner, on 7 April 2022. In her report dated 11 April 2022 Ms Lechner recounts this history and diagnosed you with a stimulant use disorder that is in remission while you are in custody. At the time of your assessment with Ms Lechner you were prescribed 60ml of methadone, which has since been decreased to 40ml. Ms Lechner is of the opinion you would benefit from intensive drug treatment upon your release from custody.

52You have an extensive and relevant prior criminal history. Most significantly, you have been sentenced in the County Court to detention and then two further lengthy terms of imprisonment in the past. In 2009 at the age of 18 you were sentenced to two years, six months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre for two armed robberies. In July 2011 you were sentenced to four years, six months’ imprisonment on charges of armed robbery and attempted theft. In 2013 you were sentenced to six years, three months’ imprisonment for offences that included burglary, theft of motor vehicle, armed robbery, intentionally causing injury, threat to kill, reckless conduct endangering serious injury and assault.

53In March 2018 you were sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment, combined with a 24-month community correction order by the Magistrates Court for offences that included charges of burglary and theft of a motor vehicle. In August 2019 the community correction order was breached and the order was varied (and ultimately cancelled on appeal), in addition to being sentenced for offences that included possession of GHB, ecstasy and prescription drugs, and possession of a controlled weapon without excuse.

54Your parole was breached by this further offending and you returned to prison until your release in November 2019, two days prior to this offending.

55Finally, in May 2022 you were sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for offences arising from the motor vehicle collision on 20 December 2019. To be clear, this is not a prior conviction but is relevant to my sentence for reasons I outline later in my reasons.

Matters in mitigation

56Having discussed the objective gravity of your offending, I now turn to the matters relied upon in mitigation of your sentence, as outlined in written plea submissions and which Mr Cronin expanded upon at your plea hearing.

Guilty plea

57First and foremost, you have pleaded guilty to the charge of aggravated burglary and in doing so you have facilitated the course of justice. In saving the court and the community the time and resources associated with a jury trial, there is utility in your plea. The practical or utilitarian benefit of your plea is also reflected in the fact that you have saved the victims from having to give evidence at a trial and from being cross-examined about their ordeal.

58I heard competing arguments as to whether yours was an early guilty plea. As stated, you were charged with the offence of aggravated home invasion, but following Ms Hammel’s evidence and my sentence indication, you have pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary. The prosecution argues this is not an early guilty plea and highlights the fact that no earlier plea offer was made to a charge of aggravated burglary in the form that has now been accepted.

59However, as submitted on your behalf, the matter had no realistic prospect of resolving on this basis until Ms Hammel’s evidence had been given, which through no fault of yours, was not until March 2024. There is force in the defence submission that the situation is analogous to a matter that resolves following a committal hearing. For this reason, I consider that yours should be regarded as a relatively early guilty plea to the charge of aggravated burglary.

Delay and totality

60The delay associated with the finalisation of your case is also of significance.

61In their submissions defence counsel emphasised that from the time you were charged with aggravated home invasion in December 2019, Ms Hammel had failed to attend court for compulsory examination on two occasions. Ms Hammel similarly failed to attend to give evidence at the time of your first trial in February 2022, at which evidence was led that was subsequently ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeal and the matter remitted for retrial in March 2024.

62The period of in excess of four years before this matter finalised is a considerable delay and in the circumstances of your case operates in mitigation of your sentence. Delay in itself is not mitigatory. However, the law recognises that 'the duration, cause and other circumstances of delay' may result in unfairness to an offender. In this case the unfairness is twofold.

63Firstly, as submitted by your counsel, over this period you were confronted with 'an ever-changing case', causing uncertainty as to the evidentiary case you would be required to answer.  That uncertainty did not resolve until Ms Hammel gave evidence prior to the empanelment of a jury on your second trial. I accept that over that four-year period during which you were held on remand, the anxiety of having a serious charge hanging over your head, not knowing the outcome, is akin to a form of punishment in itself.

64Secondly, the delay associated with these proceedings meant you lost the opportunity of having any part of your sentence for this offence served concurrently with a sentence subsequently imposed by the County Court on 12 May 2022. On that date you were sentenced for the offences committed on 20 December 2019 when you were observed by police driving a stolen vehicle as it accelerated through an intersection on the Maroondah Highway against a red light, colliding with another car. It was this incident that led to your hospitalisation, following which you were remanded in custody.

65On 12 May 2022 you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for driving-related offending, including charges of reckless conduct endangering persons and theft of a motor vehicle. Of those 15 months, the court directed that nine months’ imprisonment was to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for this offending following your conviction at trial for the offence of aggravated home invasion, recalling that this was the verdict that was set aside on appeal.

66As a result of the further delay arising from the successful appeal against conviction, you served the entirety of that 15-month sentence with no opportunity for concurrency with the sentence I must now impose for the offence of aggravated burglary.

67This fact is not only a feature of the unfairness limb of the delay but also gives prominence to the sentencing principle of totality. In sentencing you, as a matter of fairness, I must ensure that your sentence for this offending, when considered in light of the sentence imposed on 12 March 2022, reflects the total criminality of your offending, and no more.

68Further to this, it is accepted by the prosecution that 29 emergency management days were incorrectly deducted from a wholly concurrent sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court on 15 September 2022 and are days that are now to be taken into account under the principle of totality.

Conditions in custody

69I also have regard to the fact that your time in custody, awaiting finalisation of this matter, was more onerous due to the fact it occurred throughout the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period restrictive conditions were imposed in custodial settings to respond to the risk posed by the virus, including periods of lockdown, quarantine, restrictions on face-to-face visits and limited access to treatment, education and other rehabilitative programs. I have taken the added burden of your time in custody throughout the pandemic into account in sentencing you.

Parity

70I have also had regard to the sentence of five years, three months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years, three months, imposed on your co-offender, Lauchlan Bright, on 14 September 2021. This sentence, although imposed for the offence of aggravated home invasion, arises from the same incident and therefore enlivens the sentencing principle of parity.

71There are, however, a number of notable differences between your position and that of Mr Bright.

72Firstly, and significantly, Mr Bright entered his plea at a time when the criminal justice system was beset by delays in the wake of the pandemic. Consistent with the authority of the Court of Appeal in Worboyes[5], Mr Bright was entitled to have the heightened utility of his guilty plea reflected in a further discernible sentencing discount, a matter that was expressly referred to by the sentencing judge in that case. Your counsel accept that no Worboyes sentencing discount applies to your guilty plea.

[5]Worboyes v. The Queen [2021] VSCA 169

73Additionally, Mr Bright’s prior criminal history was less significant than yours and led the sentencing judge to assess Mr Bright’s rehabilitation prospects as 'cautiously optimistic'.

74Balanced against these matters the prosecution accepts that your case contained triable issues that were not present in Mr Bright’s case. As such, I accept that your guilty plea assumes some additional significance.

75On your behalf defence counsel argued that the offence of aggravated burglary is 'objectively less serious' than the offence of aggravated home invasion, for which Mr Bright was sentenced. It is submitted that this is borne out by the fact that whilst both offences carry the same maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, aggravated home invasion has a mandatory minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment while this offence does not.

76In my view the most significant aspect of the difference in the two offences relevant to this case is that an element of the offence of aggravated home invasion does not apply to your sentence, that is, it is not asserted by the prosecution that you knew or were reckless as to the presence of others at the time you and the co-offenders forced entry to the premises. In all other respects your offending arose from the same factual circumstances as Mr Bright, and relevantly, both offences carry the same maximum penalty.

77I accept that in fixing a mandatory minimum sentence for the offence of aggravated home invasion, Parliament has expressed a legislative indication of the seriousness of that offence, but this alone does not make it an objectively more serious offence. It is the facts and circumstances of the offending, considered against the maximum penalty for the offence, that combine to determine the objective gravity of offending. I give some, but not significant, weight to the fact you have pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated burglary while Mr Bright was sentenced for the offence of aggravated home invasion arising from the incident on 28 November 2019 when considering the issue of parity.

Bugmy principles

78Your difficult and disrupted childhood experiences are also relevant to your sentence. In a letter written to the court your father, Warren Brooks, confirms that he and your mother separated before they knew that she was pregnant with you, and that as you were grew up his involvement in the drug world led him being 'constantly in and out of prison and incapable of being a father and a role model' for you.[6]

[6]Exhibit A – letter written by Warren Brooks dated 1 February 2024.

79During your formative years you were exposed to parental incarceration, drug abuse and at the hands of your mother’s partner, Robbie, violence directed at both you and your mother.  It was your exposure to the violent abuse of your mother that you described as the most disturbing you had witnessed when you were assessed by Ms Lechner.

80The law recognises that the effects of a dysfunctional upbringing do not diminish over time and are relevant in mitigation of sentence. I accept that the general principles enunciated in the case of Bugmy[7] are engaged and that full weight should be given to the effects of your childhood deprivation in mitigation of your sentence. Your moral culpability for your offending cannot be equated with a person whose formative years have not been affected in this way.

[7]Bugmy v. The Queen 249 CLR 571

81As to parity, I note that Bugmy principles were also applied in mitigation of the sentence imposed on Mr Bright.

Prospects of rehabilitation

82Finally, I turn to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation.

83It is conceded by your counsel that you have a significant and relevant prior criminal history. You have spent a considerable portion of the last 15 years of your life in custody and previous sentences of imprisonment have not deterred you from engaging in this serious instance of offending in late 2019. It is of concern that this offending occurred within days of your release from custody in November 2019.  These matters all tend against any finding that your prospects of rehabilitation are positive.

84In her report Ms Lechner observes that you are at high risk of becoming institutionalised, although she does not conclude that you already are.

85Despite your criminal history there are some positive indications for your future. Firstly, you have some significant support in the community. Your fiancée, who has demonstrated her support for you by her attendance throughout these proceedings, has stood by you over these years. You clearly have her ongoing support to turn your life around. You also have the support of your father and his extended family. Your father, who made a full recovery from his addiction to heroin in 2011, now works as a drug counsellor. In his letter to the court your father observes that you are at 'a crossroads' in your life, stating:

'In terms of my son Robert I feel he never stood a chance of becoming a responsible, productive member of society, he had no role models and no meaningful guidance and it shows in his criminal record.

… in conversations and letters since his remand on the current charges… I have garnered some hope for change for him. In my opinion his perspective and thinking has changed significantly. He has indicated to me an understanding of his addiction… and has also shown that he’s willing to [attend] Drug and Alcohol programs whilst in prison…Robert is at a point in his life where, with the right support, he can make significant changes…'

86Your father also states he would be able to assist you in securing employment in construction upon your eventual release from custody. I note that whilst on remand you have been given responsibility working as a billet in your unit and whilst under sentence earlier you undertook gardening work.

87You have also completed a 44-hour drug and alcohol treatment program and have indicated a willingness to engage in further drug treatment.

88In a letter you wrote to the court that was tendered at your plea hearing[8], you state that your four-year-old daughter is a motivation for you and that you do not want her to grow up without a father, as you did. Your letter also reveals a degree of insight into the trauma experienced by Ms Foxi, as is apparent from the CCTV footage.

[8]Exhibit C – letter written by Robert Glowacki, undated.

89At the age of 33 you have much of your life to live. Your prospects of rehabilitation are inextricably linked with your ability to remain drug free in the future. Sensibly, Ms Lechner recommends you receive intensive drug and alcohol counselling upon your release from custody to minimise the risk of a relapse. She also recommends psychological treatment to improve your 'adaptive coping skills' without relapsing into drug abuse.

90When you were sentenced in 2013 the sentencing judge assessed your future prospects as 'poor'. I now view your rehabilitation prospects in a slightly more optimistic light. With additional maturity you have shown some insight into the matters you need to address to break the cycle of drug abuse and offending and have support in the community to do so. These matters mean that notwithstanding your criminal history your future prospects could not be characterised as being without hope. Only time will tell.

91In sentencing you for this offending the sentencing considerations of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation are all matters of significance. Community protection also remains a relevant sentencing consideration, as does the need for the sentence to deter you specifically from future offending.

Sentence

92Balancing the matters to which I have referred, while having regard to the maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated burglary, I sentence you to four years, six months' imprisonment on Charge 1. I fix a period of three years before you are eligible for parole. As indicated during the plea hearing, I have fixed this non-parole period given the desirability of you being supervised in the community upon your release in order to undergo the intensive drug treatment recommended by Ms Lechner. Ultimately, however, the decision of whether or not to grant parole is exclusively one for the Adult Parole Board.

93Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that 941 days be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed, not including today’s date.

94Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, if not for your plea of guilty, I indicate that the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a sentence of six years, six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years, ten months.

- - -