Director of Public Prosecutions v Hamataj
[2025] VCC 147
•9 December 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 24-01292
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| EMILJAN HAMATAJ |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LAURITSEN |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 9 December 2024 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 7 and 14 February 2025 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Hamataj |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 147 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Charges of engaging in conduct in relation to money valued at $100,000, cultivating a narcotic plant and possessing a drug of dependence – no criminal recording – delay – deportation.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Survellance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Act 2024; Migration Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991.
Cases Cited:Kim v The Queen [2016] VSCA 238; Fraser v The King [2023] SASCA 74; Tones v The Queen [2017] VSCA 118; Loftus v The Queen [2019] VSCA 24; R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308; Atanackovic v The Queen (2015) 45 VR 179.
Sentence: Three-year community correction order with conditions.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms N. Simpson | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr M. Gumbleton with Mr M. Murphy (plea) Mr S. Andrianakis (sentence) | Stephen Andrianakis & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Mr Hamataj, you pleaded guilty to a charge of engaging in conduct in relation to money valued at $100,000 or more, that is the proceeds of crime, a charge of cultivating a narcotic plant and a charge of possessing a drug of dependence. Under s16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), you seek to have another offence taken into account when I sentence you on the first charge.
2The circumstances of these offences appear in the 'Prosecution opening upon plea', which is Exhibit A.
Circumstances
3The Australian Federal Police, with the aid of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was able to intercept communications using an encrypted communication platform called 'AN0M'. You were using this platform.
Charge 1
4Between midnight and 4.19 am on 21 April 2021, you engaged in a group conversation with three others using the platform. Essentially, you confirmed your readiness to hand over $110,000 the next day to unknown persons in a Toyota Camry at an address in Parkdale.
5From a combination of intercepted conversations and CCTV footage, you delivered the money between 5.25 and 5.32 pm. In exchange you received a 10 rupee note in Indian currency.
6Between 12.57 and 1.49 pm that day, the person using the name 'Rogan' agreed with you that your share of the money was £13,800, which would be given to your cousin.
7The prosecution's contention is this money is the proceeds of crime and they so contend for three reasons. You agree with the contention, as do I.
Charge 2
8With a warrant, the police searched a house in Keysborough. You were alone in the house at the time. In three rooms they found lights, transformers, pots and a sophisticated watering system. Each room had two layers of wire grids about 30 centimetres apart giving a platform for cannabis plants to grow. The three rooms were full of mature cannabis plants and there were trays of small plants. In all, there were 46 plants weighing 30.7299 kilograms. These circumstances constitute Charge 2, cultivating a narcotic plant.
9The police found an electrical bypass. They cannot say how long it had been in use. They also found various items including green vegetable matter, six separate bundles of money and white powder in an ornament. In all, the police found $19,520 in cash in the house.
10The white powder was analysed and found to be cocaine and dimethyl sulfone with the quantity of pure cocaine being 3.2 grams. You possessed this substance for the purposes of trafficking. This constitutes Charge 3, a charge of possessing a drug of dependence.
11The green vegetable matter was cannabis, weighing 259.9 grams. It forms part of the charge of cultivating a narcotic plant.
12Your fingerprints were found on three items being two envelopes containing money and the ornament which contained the white powder. Your DNA was found on other items.
13For the purposes of the s 16BA offence, you accept the prosecution's contention that the $19,520 was reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
14For reasons set out in [33] of Exhibit A, the prosecution contends you were living at the Keysborough address, assuming the identify of 'Nikos'. It is an appropriate contention.
15You were interviewed by the police and gave 'no comment' answers, as is your right. You remained in custody for 40 days before being bailed.
Criminal record
16You do not have a criminal record. As your counsel submitted, you enjoyed good character for 39 years until the commission of these offences and also for the years following your charging. Many of the offenders who appear in this Court are recidivists and of poor character. To that extent, you are different.
17The psychologist, Dr Staios, considered your offending was apparently out of character and a reflection of the unique circumstances surrounding the pandemic.
Personal
18You were born in Albania and are now 42. You have a younger brother who lives in England with his wife and two children. Your parents remain in Albania.
19Your upbringing was unremarkable except for the poverty and social and political instability in Albania.
20At 17, you emigrated to Greece for better employment prospects. You lived there for four years, working throughout as a fruit picker. You then moved to the United Kingdom and remained there for almost 20 years. You became a British citizen. You met and married Louise. Unfortunately, the marriage ended after five years. There are no children. You and Louise remain friends.
21In 2017, you visited family and friends in Melbourne and Canberra. In 2018 or 2019, you returned intending to live here permanently. However, after a lengthy Visa application process, you were refused a visa. Your employer in Melbourne at the time sponsored you with a working visa which was suspended due to this offending. Currently, you are on a bridging visa. While in Australia, you have developed a social network and are supported by members of the Albanian community living in Melbourne.
22You currently live in Melbourne in a shared house. You never had issues maintaining stable accommodation following your arrival in this country. For a brief time, you lived with your cousin in Canberra due to your bail conditions. You have a good relationship with your cousin and his wife.
23You went to primary and secondary schools in Albania and your schooling was unremarkable.
24After migrating to the United Kingdom, you worked in the hospitality industry as a kitchen hand and as a chef. Eventually, you worked in a managerial and training position at a restaurant chain for about 10 years.
25When you arrived in Australia, you continued working in the hospitality industry as a chef at the Dandenong Pavilion and then in construction. During the COVID-19 pandemic, your shifts were heavily reduced due to the impact the virus had on the industry. Due to your visa status, you were unable to obtain any pandemic relief payments and attempted to obtain extra work in construction. You had to borrow money from family and friends during this period.
26Currently, you work with a friend in clothing recycling and sustainability. The idea arose out of work transporting old clothing stocks for Dimmeys. The nature of this business is described in some of the references and documents tendered. In brief, the business collects old clothing from 30 bins distributed around Melbourne. Suitable items are packed into shipping containers and sent to Dubai. The business remains in its infancy with only one large container shipped.
27You have no history of significant physical or psychological or psychiatric medical events. You have never engaged with a mental health professional. Migrating to Greece and then to the United Kingdom was a stressful and anxious time for you, however this was never reported to any professional.
28You also experienced stress and anxiety during the pandemic when your employment was extremely limited, and you were unable to return to your family in Albania.
29You deny a history of experimenting with illegal substances, despite being charged with possession of cocaine and cultivating cannabis. You only drink alcohol on social occasions.
Psychologist
30Matthew Staios is a clinical psychologist. On 19 November 2024, he interviewed you at the request of your solicitors[1].
[1] Report dated 3 December 2024.
31At his request, you completed the Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. It consists of 175 items and measures 24 personality disorders and clinical syndromes for adults undergoing psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment. He concluded you have a dependent personality. Such persons lack initiative and autonomy. They turn to others for nurture and security and await passively to be led. Dr Staios also noted your anxiety and persistent depression.
32You told Dr Staios your offending was due to poor decision making in the context of desperation and financial hardship during the pandemic. He considered you were remorseful and had insight into the nature of your offending.
33Dr Staios examined your personality and concluded you were vulnerable to the influence of negative peers while in emotional distress and instability.
34Noting your lack of support in this state, Dr Staios was concerned an extended time in custody may result in worsening your symptoms of depression and anxiety. He considered you are a good candidate for community-based rehabilitation.
References
35Bejtula Tahiri is your friend and partner in a business called 'Re-Green Clothing Recycling Australia'. He met you in 2019 as part of the Albanian community. Your contact lessened during the pandemic but resumed afterwards. In December 2023, both of you formed the business with you taking an important leadership role. The business is successful although in its early days.
36Roland Schlenker is the owner of a property in Keysborough which he leases to five tenants including you. You have been a tenant since November 2023. In that time, he has found you to be an excellent tenant. You carry out your obligations under the tenancy and relate well to your co‑tenants.
37Rigert Troka is your first cousin. You grew up with him in the same village in Albania. He speaks of the depth of your guilt, your regret, your desire to rehabilitate and reconnect with your family overseas. He speaks of the impact of your offending on your family, a matter, which strictly speaking, I cannot consider. He sees you as a person of integrity who has successfully integrated into a multicultural society.
38Nektaria Levantis is the wife of Mr Troka. She has known you since 2014. She knows you as a person of integrity, compassion and perseverance. You have told her on many occasions of your guilt and remorse for your offending.
39Ismail Demiri is a senior figure in the Albanian community in Dandenong. He has known you since 2023. You enjoy an excellent reputation in the Albanian community. Like others, Mr Demiri finds it hard to reconcile your offending with the person he knows. Nevertheless, he believes you are a person of strong moral character with the potential to contribute to our society.
40Oliver Hamataj is your younger brother. In many respects, his life has paralleled your life. Both of you lived and worked in Greece. You did the same in England. Although your brother still lives in England, he maintains close contact with you. He believes you have learnt from your mistakes and are trying hard to move forward.
41Laura Hamataj is the wife of your brother. She met you when you were the kitchen manager of a restaurant in the English city of Rugby. You were an excellent manager. While in Australia you maintain daily contact with her, your brother, nephew and niece.
42You tendered two letters relating to your business. One is addressed to Hamataj Services from Atlantic Exports Ltd, based in the United Arab Emirates and involved in recycling fabrics. The other is an invitation for you to attend a business roundtable conducted by the City of Greater Dandenong.
Discussion
43The first charge is brought under Commonwealth laws while the second and third charges are laid under State law. Although similar in many ways, different legislative schemes apply to your sentencing.
44Charge 1 is a money laundering charge. For such offences, the prosecution referred to the sentencing principles stated in Kim v The Queen[2]. You acted to convey these monies on a single occasion. You collected the cash and delivered it. You were trusted to deal with the money in the manner desired by others. The amount involved exceeds the threshold by $10,000, a small margin. You were not the instigator of this offence but a cog in the process of transmission of the monies. Although your actions were limited, your monetary reward was sizeable, being £13,800 or about A$28,000. The charge specifies a single day of offending. On the material, your involvement was less than that day, being the two acts of collecting and delivering the monies. General deterrence must be given significant weight. Apart from your guilty plea, I do not know whether you believed or knew the monies were the proceeds of crime.
[2] [2016] VSCA 238.
45In sentencing for the offence in Charge 1, I have taken into account your admission of guilt to the offence in s16BA, that is, dealing with money less than $100,000, which is reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime. The amount involved was $19,520. Your possession relates to a single day.
46With the charge of cultivation, the sentencing purposes of general deterrence and denunciation are prominent where the drugs were cultivated for profit, as in your case.
47When the police searched the house in Keysborough, you were alone and residing there. Three of its rooms had lights, transformers, pots and a sophisticated watering system. Each room had two layers of wire grids about 30 centimetres apart giving a platform for the cannabis plants to grow. The two rooms were full of mature cannabis plants and there were trays of small plants. In all, there were 46 plants weighing 30.7299 kilograms. Apart from these plants, there was cannabis, weighing 259.9 grams. There was an electrical bypass whereby electricity was stolen. That is not the subject of a separate charge.
48There is no evidence of the value of the plants or the cannabis. There is evidence of others involvement in the cultivation of the crop but no basis for finding the part you played in an organisation. Except you were in sole possession of the crop on the day of the search, I cannot find anything further about your involvement. Although there is evidence of your earlier connection with the crop, you are sentenced on the basis of your cultivation on a single day. The prosecution concedes you lacked the intent to cultivate a commercial quantity of the drug. Your acts of cultivation on that day are not revealed except your plea acknowledges some form of cultivation. Given the quantity of the drugs and your financial position at the time, the prosecution submits, and I accept, you committed this offence for financial gain.
49As to Charge 3, the white powder was a mixture of cocaine and dimethyl sulfone with a pure cocaine content of being 3.2 grams. I could not be satisfied you possessed this drug for a non-trafficking purpose. On the contrary, I am satisfied your possession of this substance was for purposes of sale.
50Specific deterrence and protecting the community from you are difficult purposes for you. On the one hand, your personality exposes you to good and bad influences and, to an extent, in the past, you have chosen bad. On the other hand, your offending occurred in the unusual circumstances of the pandemic and the financial impact of restrictions upon you. You were without sufficient employment or sufficient legitimate financial sources.
51As a non-citizen during the pandemic, you did not receive government financial assistance. You did these criminal acts to gain money to support yourself. You told Dr Staios you acted desperately while under considerable stress.
Maximum penalty
52The maximum penalties for the offences are:
(a) engaging in conduct in relation to money valued at $100,000 or more that is the proceeds of crime – 10 years' imprisonment or a fine of 600 penalty units ($133,000) or both;
(b) cultivation of a narcotic plant – 15 years' imprisonment;
(c) possession of a drug of dependence – 5 years' imprisonment or a fine of 400 penalty units ($66,088)or both. In specifying those maximum penalties, I am not satisfied your possession was for any purpose not relating to trafficking; and
(d) dealing with money less than $100,000 reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of an indictable crime – 2 years' imprisonment. This is the subject of the offence in s16BA.
Guilty pleas
53Your involvement in Charge 1 was discovered through the activities of the Australian Federal Police. They were able to intercept communications made by you and others using a platform called AN0M. Many other persons used this secretive platform for illegal purposes. The validity of some of those interceptions is the subject of challenge in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. The South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal rejected a challenge. The High Court granted special leave to appeal but the Commonwealth Parliament intervened legislatively. I do not know the grounds upon which the actions in the other two States are based but the willingness of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate point to the limited likelihood of a successful challenge by others and therefore the limited value of your sacrifice of the chance of the benefit of a successful challenge by your guilty plea[3]. Nevertheless, you are sacrificing something of value, being the possibility of a successful outcome, and you should receive some benefit. This emerges from my understanding of this passage from the judgment of the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal in Fraser v The King[4]:
“We accept the general relevance of the appellant's preparedness to forego any challenge to the lawfulness or admissibility of the evidence against him. However, in the circumstances where the legal merit of that challenge was unknown, and essentially speculative, we do not think it was a particularly significant matter….”
[3] Survellance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Act 2024.
[4] [2023] SASCA 74 at [71].
54Your guilty pleas have saved the time and expense of a jury trial. Judging from the indictment, the prosecution could have called many witnesses. If so, the trial could have taken weeks. Your guilty pleas avoided the time and expense of such a trial. They benefit the course of justice.
55They are also evidence of your remorse and I accept you are remorseful for your offending. They also are a public acknowledgement of your guilt. Occasionally, such acknowledgement is important, especially to victims of crime. Admittedly, there are no identified victims of your crimes.
Delay
56You were arrested and charged on 7 June 2021. A filing hearing in the Magistrates' Court occurred the next day. The first committal mention hearing occurred on 31 August 2021. On days in September and December 2023, there were joint committal hearings. On days in May, June and July 2024, there were 'local' committal hearings culminating with your committal on 7 August 2024 on the basis of the prosecution's brief of evidence. No oral evidence was given. Once committed, you proceeded to a plea rapidly.
57The fact of delay can be used in two ways for sentencing purposes. In Tones v The Queen, the Court said[5]:
‘It is well established that significant delay between the time that an offender is interviewed by police and the time that charges are laid, and the delay between the laying of charges and trial, can be a powerful mitigating factor. There are two limbs to delay. The first limb concerns unfairness to the offender, in the sense that the relevant charge – or the prospect of such a charge – was 'hanging over' the accused's head and caused him or her anxiety ('unfairness limb'). The second limb concerns whether, during the period of the delay, the offender has made progress towards rehabilitation and whether there were good prospects of ongoing rehabilitation ('rehabilitation limb').’
[5][5] [2017] VSCA 118 at [36].
58Both limbs apply to you. The delay is understandable for your legal advisers would want to understand the nature and legitimacy of the intercepts of your conversations on AN0M. The gap between your arrest and now is significant. These charges have hung over you and caused you anxiety. This has caused you to suffer from depression and anxiety to a mild degree. The second limb raises what you have or have not done in the interim and your prospects of rehabilitation. You have behaved impeccably over the period.
59You have complied with the conditions of your bail for more than three years. The credit you amass through compliance must be balanced with the knowledge a failure to comply may have returned you to custody. But, in my experience, many people do not comply with their conditions of bail, your compliance over such a long period remains a significant factor in assessing your prospects of rehabilitation.
60Your friend and relatives all speak of your genuine remorse and desire to rehabilitate yourself. I accept your 40 days in custody has had a deterring effect upon you. I agree with your counsel's submission your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.
61The Court in Tones’ case noted the fact of delay can be a powerful mitigating factor. In your case, I consider it is because of the length, the psychological effect upon you and what you have done or not done during the period of delay.
Pre-sentence detention
62You spent 40 days on remand before being bailed. The conditions of your bail prevented you travelling interstate or overseas. They stopped from travelling to attend your brother's wedding. Since you are part of a close family, this was a disappointment. Even though being on bail is preferable to being in custody, this was a hardship of some mitigatory weight.
Deportation
63You are not an Australian citizen. You are present in this country on a visa and wish to remain here. Your application for a Temporary Skills Shortage Visa was rejected by the delegate of the Minister in 2018 but returned for reconsideration by an order of the Administrate Appeals Tribunal in October 2021. Reconsideration has been deferred pending the result of this proceeding.
64Whatever sentences I impose will be examined by the relevant authority under the character test posed by the Migration Act 1958. I appreciate the effect of a sentence of 12 months or more imprisonment. However, that appreciation cannot affect the sentences I will impose.
65In Loftus v The Queen[6], the Court said:
‘The potential for an offender to be deported at the completion of a sentence is relevant to sentencing in two ways. First, the prospect of deportation renders the imprisonment more onerous because the prisoner will face the prospect of deportation. This, in turn, may render the incarceration more difficult. Secondly, the deportation, should it occur, would constitute an additional punishment because it destroys the opportunity to settle permanently in this country.
In assessing, for the purposes of sentencing, the chance of deportation, it will be relevant to consider whether the sentence imposed would trigger a discretion, or alternatively, a duty, to cancel the visa held by the offender.
Although the potential that the offender may be deported following sentence is a relevant consideration in sentencing in the way explained above, that potential cannot control or dictate the sentencing outcome. It would be an error for the sentencing judge to impose a sentence, that would otherwise not be appropriate, for the purpose of avoiding the operation of the Migration Act.’
[6] [2019] VSCA 24 at [79] to [81].
66I accept both aspects apply to you. The expectation of deportation causes you anguish, even though you are not in custody at the moment, and even though most of your immediate family live overseas.
67If deported, you would lose the opportunity of settling in this country, which is something that you desire. Nevertheless, this consideration of deportation is a relatively minor matter in the mitigation of any sentence I impose.
Conditions in custody
68Your period on remand occurred during the restrictions of the pandemic. It included two weeks in lockdown involving only one hour each day out of your cell. This renders those weeks more onerous than would be the case normally, but again this is a relatively minor matter.
Comparable cases and current sentencing practices
69Helpfully, the prosecution provided a summary of cases where charges in each related to your Charges 1 and 2. The prosecution referred to the two purposes of comparable cases stated in R v Pham[7]: guidance as to the identification and application of relevant sentencing principles; and the possible yielding of discernible sentencing practices and possibly a range of sentences against which to examine a proposed sentence.
[7] (2015) 256 CLR 550 at 557.
70Your counsel provided summaries of 21 sentences in this Court dealing with the cultivation of a narcotic plant. Each sentence resulted in a community correction order ranging in duration from 12 months to 36 months.
Disposition
71Having spent 40 days in custody, your counsel submitted I should not return you to prison but should place you on a community correction order. This submission takes one to the seminal judgment of the Court of Appeal in Boulton v The Queen[8].
[8] (2014) 46 VR 308.
72In Appendix 1 to its judgment, the Court set out guidelines for sentencing courts for community correction orders. Those guidelines dealt with various topics including in Part 2 the question of imprisonment or a community correction order. The court analysed these sentencing options in terms of the sentencing purposes in s 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991: just punishment, general deterrence, specific deterrence and rehabilitation. Its analysis of these purposes led the Court to conclude a community correction order will enable all of the purposes of punishment to be served simultaneously, in a coherent and balanced way[9].
[9] At [25].
73At [25], the Court said:
‘Even in cases of relatively serious offences – which would previously have attracted a medium term of imprisonment (such as, for example, aggravated burglary, intentionally causing serious injury, some forms of sexual offences involving minors, some kinds of rape and, in some rare and exceptional circumstances, homicide) – the sentencing court may find that a properly conditioned CCO of lengthy duration is capable of satisfying the requirements of proportionality, parsimony and just punishment, while affording the best prospects of rehabilitation.’
74Although the charges describe offending of varying degrees of significance, I consider the various mitigatory factors, especially those relating to your pleas, the delay and your prospects of rehabilitation coupled with an appropriately severe community correction order would give proper weight to the purposes of sentencing without the need to impose a sentence or sentences of imprisonment.
75At the hearing on 7 February 2025, having tentatively decided to impose a community correction order and to use the available time profitably, I read out almost entirely my draft sentencing remarks. As it turned out, this was a most fortunate exercise because I had referred to Boulton’s case, which is a guideline judgment in relation to community corrections order and made particular reference to Appendix 1.
76The Counsel for the Director quite properly pointed out to me the guideline judgment in that case, that is in Boulton's case, had no application to Commonwealth offences and in fact she referred me to our Court of Appeal's judgment in Atanackovic v The Queen[10].
[10] (2015) 45 VR 179.
77In any event, I posed to the counsel for the Director on 7 February, the sort of general question about what use I could make of Boulton’s case in relation to a community corrections order in the context of Commonwealth offences, and in point of fact the Court in Atanackovic's case at paragraph 160 made a broad observation along those lines and I will just read it out:
‘We would add that, contrary to the assumption that appears to underpin some submissions that have been made to this court since Boulton, that case, where it applies, has not elevated CCOs to the status of 'sentencing option of choice' for any particular offences. In saying that CCOs may be suitable even in cases of relatively serious offences which might previously have attracted a medium term of imprisonment, Boulton was simply making the obvious point that, given the multifaceted features of CCOs, a CCO may be more appropriate than imprisonment across a broad range of offences. Likewise, the statement in the case that a CCO, where appropriate, should be preferred to imprisonment, is a salutary reminder of the longstanding principle of parsimony. Such statements do not create any presumption that a CCO is suitable for any particular offence, still less that it is appropriate in the circumstances of any particular offender. The appropriate sentencing disposition in each case will depend on the statutory provisions and sentencing considerations that are pertinent to that case, informed by relevant case law.’
78Plainly the Court was making that comment or observation in the context of Commonwealth offences, drawing up their understanding, which is our understanding, of the community corrections order and its potential.
79Accordingly, apart from paragraph 160, I will entirely ignore Boulton’s case in this context and in particular appendix 1. Secondly, having read the two reports, that is the report from the Community Correction Service and the report from the Mental Health Advice and Response Service, I am now satisfied the community correction order is appropriate in the circumstances of this proceeding.
Sentence
80I will convict you on each charge and place you on a community correction order of three years' duration with the following special conditions:
(a) to perform 300 hours of unpaid community work;
(b) to be subject to supervision;
(c) to undergo counselling and treatment to address his drug abuse or dependency;
(d) to receive and undergo treatment to address his mental health issues.
81All hours successfully completed under conditions (c) and (d), which are the therapeutic conditions, will count as hours of unpaid community work.
82In making this order, I have taken into account your 40 days of pre-sentence detention.
Forfeiture and Disposal
83I will make the disposal and forfeiture orders in the terms sought.
Section 95 explanation
84The purpose of the CCO is to punish you for your offending, mainly through the unpaid community work condition and to assist in your rehabilitation through the conditions of supervision and drug counselling and treatment for mental health issues.
85If you do not comply with the conditions of the order, you may be charged with the offence of contravention. If charged and found guilty, apart from penalising you for the contravention, it is possible the order is cancelled and you are re-sentenced on the original offences.
86If your circumstances change sufficiently after the making of the order, it may be varied on your application or that of Corrections Victoria.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
8
0