Director of Public Prosecutions v Mathews
[2025] ACTSC 11
•3 February 2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Mathews |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 11 |
Hearing Date: | 23 January 2025 |
Decision Date: | 3 February 2025 |
Before: | Christensen AJ |
Decision: | See [62] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – dishonesty offending – property offending – driving offending – attempt to escape offence – breach of good behaviour order – breach of intensive corrections order – whether to impose further treatment order where previously unsuccessful – substantial noncompliance with community based orders – prior criminal history affords no leniency – prospects of rehabilitation – declined to impose treatment order – resentenced – term of imprisonment imposed – rehabilitation through parole |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 10, 116, 160 |
Cases Cited: | DPP v Dunn [2022] ACTSC 355 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Joshua Mathews ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel J Churchill ( Crown) A Fraser ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Fraser Law ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 268, 269 of 2024 |
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
Introduction
1․Joshua James Mathews is to be sentenced for 17 offences committed in January to March 2024. It is sought that the court impose a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order): s 12A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). In doing so, Mr Mathews is seeking a further opportunity to address his drug dependency, and consequently, his offending behaviour. I say ‘further’ opportunity because Mr Mathews has previously been sentenced to a treatment order and did not successfully graduate.
2․While there is no legislative impediment to an offender having a further opportunity for a treatment order, there would need to be a compelling basis upon which the court could have confidence in an offender’s capability to finally rehabilitate through such a sentencing mechanism if an opportunity for a treatment order was to be afforded for a second time. The prosecution opposes the imposition of a treatment order for Mr Mathews, having regard to his history of non-compliance with community based orders. ACT Community Corrections find him unsuitable for such an order on the same basis. ACT Health Services do though find Mr Mathews to be suitable for a treatment order.
3․As will become apparent, I am not persuaded that Mr Mathews ought to be afforded a further opportunity for a treatment order. While his commitment to rehabilitation remains, and such is to be supported, there is no basis upon which to conclude that a treatment order is the mechanism by which his rehabilitation will finally be achieved. Rather, a non-parole period that will support his intended rehabilitation is appropriate.
11 January 2024 offending
4․On 11 January 2024, Mr Mathews committed an offence of attempting to dishonestly obtain property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (CC 2024/3850). The offence, as an attempt, carries the same maximum penalty as a completed offence, being 10 years imprisonment, 1000 penalty units, or both.
5․The offending involved Mr Mathews using a credit card that had been stolen the day before. Mr Mathews used the card in an attempt to purchase two punnets of berries, valued at $8.30, from Coles in Dickson. The transaction was declined.
14 January 2024 offending
6․On 14 January 2024, Mr Mathews committed an offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code (CC 2024/3332). On this occasion, he used two bank cards belonging to the same person which had been stolen the day before. At around 9:30am, Mr Mathews attended at the Gungahlin Marketplace and used the cards to make three transactions, totalling $176.50. The purchases were done at Coca-Cola Euro Pacific Partners, Tobacco Station Marketplace, and Coles Gungahlin, but the items obtained is not known.
26 January 2024 offending
7․On 26 January 2024, Mr Mathews again committed an offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code (CC 2024/3823). On this occasion, he used a stolen bank card to make seven transactions throughout the morning. The transactions initially occurred at the Coles Express Service Station, and the Coles and Woolworths at Dickson. Mr Mathews then used the card for a transaction at 7 Eleven in Fyshwick, and at Woolworths in Mawson. The combined value of the unauthorised transactions, for unknown items, was $225.39.
31 January 2024 offending
8․On 31 January 2024, Mr Mathews committed an offence of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both (CC 2024/3840).
9․The offending involved Mr Mathews entering a vehicle that was parked out the front of the victim’s residence in Kingston. Mr Mathews took two sets of sunglasses, earphones, a satchel containing cleaning cloths and a garage remote door key. The total value of the items stolen was $882.60.
12 February 2024 offending
10․On 12 February 2024 at 6:46am, Mr Mathews drove a stolen silver Toyota Yaris into the carpark of a unit complex in Gordon. The registration plates affixed to the car had been previously stolen from a vehicle in NSW.
11․At the time of this driving, Mr Mathews was a disqualified driver. He had been disqualified from driving by the ACT Magistrates Court on 24 October 2023 for a period of 12 months. Thus, the driving here occurred less than four months into that disqualification period. The driving while disqualified was an offence contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units (CC 2024/3322). An automatic minimum licence disqualification of 12 months applies.
12․With respect to the driving of the stolen motor vehicle, Mr Mathews is charged with an offence of driving a stolen motor vehicle contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code, carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units, or both (CC 2024/3323). The possession of the stolen number plate is an offence of possessing stolen property, contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, 50 penalty units, or both (CC 2024/3325).
13․After driving into the carpark, Mr Mathews parked in a spot next to a white Mazda 2. This Mazda was unlocked. He entered the car and removed the tray from the middle console which contained coins of various denominations. He then opened the hatch at the rear of the vehicle and removed a small leather toiletries bag, a penis straw, and a car logbook containing photographs. The taking of all of these items amounts to an offence of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CC 2024/3321).
14 February 2024 offending
14․On 14 February 2024 at about 1:55am, Mr Mathews and a female entered the underground carpark and then the bin room of a residential apartment building in Kingston. Mr Mathews was pushing an electric scooter, and the female was carrying an object that appeared to be a screwdriver.
15․Either Mr Mathews or the female pried open a key safe that was located on the wall of the room, and which belonged to a tenant of the apartment building. The key safe was damaged and the key was removed. Mr Mathews then used a long object to reach through the metal bars of the secure door to the entrance, where a mail room was located. He used the object to unlock the secure metal door and they both entered the mail room.
16․While in the mail room, Mr Mathews pulled at letterboxes and touched envelopes, while the female took a parcel and two other mail items from the top of the letterboxes and placed them in a shopping bag. They then went further into the building, before returning to the mail room entrance some thirty minutes later and exiting the building.
17․The entry to the apartment building was an offence of aggravated burglary contrary to
s 312 of the Criminal Code, carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or 2000 penalty units (CC 2024/3843). The taking of the key was an offence of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CC 2024/3842), committed by way of joint commission with the female co-offender. The co-offender has not been located.
15 February 2024 offending
18․At around 3:30am on 15 February 2024, Mr Mathews attended a carpark in Curtin and used a brick to smash the driver’s side window of a white Ford Ranger. This caused the vehicle’s alarm to go off, which woke the vehicle’s owner. The victim looked out of his bedroom window and saw a male in the driver’s side of the vehicle.
19․The victim gave chase, during which Mr Mathews dropped contents from his bag which led to him being identified. The victim was able to pull Mr Mathews back to his apartment and when he went to go inside to call police, Mr Mathews ran off from the location, leaving his scooter and identifying items behind. The cost of repairing the damage to the vehicle was $125.
20․The offending involved an offence of attempted theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CC 2024/3327), and an offence of property damage contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (CC 2024/3328), which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment, 50 penalty units, or both.
17 February 2024 offending
21․On 17 February 2024 at about 12:44am, Mr Mathews was located at a unit in Torrens. Police located a Toyota car key on top of a number of items of clothing on the bed in the bedroom where Mr Mathews had been staying. This key belonged to a vehicle that had been stolen from an address in Bruce in January 2024. Mr Mathews’ possession of the key is an offence of possession of stolen property contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code (CC 2024/3329).
22․The facts provide that Mr Mathews was arrested. On the information provided to the court, he was then remanded in custody for a period of three days, from 20 February to 22 February 2024 as his intensive corrections order (ICO) was cancelled. There is no information to the effect that Mr Mathews was charged, or on bail, from 17 February 2024, but he did remain on the ICO.
13 March 2024 offending
23․On 13 March 2024 at about 8:17am, Mr Mathews used a bank card that had been removed from a vehicle the day before. He used the bank card to make a transaction, for unknown items, to the value of $88.52 at the Cignall Woden Specialist Tobacconist and Gift store. In addition, Mr Mathews used the card for a transaction valued at $5.00 from a vending machine. The use of the card for these transactions is an offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code (CC 2024/3845).
14 March 2024 offending
24․On 14 March 2024 at about 10:06pm, police observed Mr Mathews in the rear of a yard at an address in Fraser. Police informed him, through a fence at the side of the property, that he was under arrest.
25․He immediately turned around and ran in the opposite direction. A police officer jumped over the fence to chase him. Mr Mathews ran into the residence, pulled the glass sliding door shut behind him, and locked the door. Police entered the residence through the front door and placed him under arrest.
26․Mr Mathews’ conduct in avoiding the police amounts to an offence of attempting to escape arrest contrary to s 160 of the Crimes Act (CC 2024/3330). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, 100 penalty units, or both.
27․After arresting Mr Mathews, police searched a sleep out at the rear of the residence where he had been storing a number of possessions. Amongst these possessions were a number of items that had been reported as stolen, amounting to two offences of possession of stolen property contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code. The stolen items possessed by Mr Mathews were the bank cards belonging to the victim from the 13 March 2024 offending, as well as driver’s licences belonging to two other people (CC 2024/3854). Additionally, a Macbook Pro that had been reported stolen in January 2024 was located (CC 2024/3331).
Nature and circumstances of the offending
Dishonesty offending
28․The offences involving the use of stolen credit cards to purchase, or attempt to purchase, items vary in the level of seriousness. Some of the offending involves negligible amounts, with items purchased, or attempted to be purchased, more in the nature of ‘need’ rather than ‘greed’. This would typically reduce the moral culpability of the offender. Other purchases are not of this characteristic, and are more indicative of Mr Mathews’ blatant disregard for the holder of the bank cards, and the retail premises involved. The number of transactions, and number of retail stores involved, increases in seriousness.
29․Offending of this nature has financial implications, and can cause significant inconvenience for the victims. It is also capable of financial implications for the stores involved, and by extension, the community, as businesses respond to offending of this type by increasing prices of goods. Denunciation, accountability, and deterrence are relevant sentencing considerations.
30․The prosecution did not, appropriately, press that imprisonment was warranted for the first offending, being the attempt, but did press that the s 10 Sentencing Act threshold was otherwise crossed with respect to all offending. I agree. The first offence was one of low objective seriousness, but in relation to the other offences of this type, and indeed, all of the offences the subject of sentence, no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.
Property offending
31․The property offending occurred in different circumstances – on some occasions being from a car, and one following the entry of an apartment building. None of the offending was sophisticated, and it was, as the prosecution submitted, reflective of opportunistic conduct.
32․Nonetheless, any taking of property, or attempt to do so, of another community members’ property is to be denounced. A similar observation can be made as to possession of stolen property. Offending involving the property of another community member causes inconvenience, has financial implications, and involves an invasion of privacy that likely disrupts the victim’s sense of safety and security.
33․This is particularly so for the offending involving the aggravated burglary. It was aggravated by having involved two offenders, which accounts for the maximum penalty. It also has aggravating features of involving a level of planning with the use of implements, and it was a protracted entry. Further, the property damage of the Ford Ranger in Curtin, and the related attempted theft, involved causing damage to effect entry. Another of the thefts involved the taking of photographs, likely being items of sentimental value.
34․The effects that offending of this type can have on the victims involved was borne out in two victim impact statements. The victim of the theft of the items from the car on 12 February speaks of her distress and the feeling of violation and fear from having items taken from her car. It has caused her to feel very nervous about coming out to her car, and to leave her property unattended. She has increased security, as have her neighbours. Additionally, there was the inconvenience of having had her car “turned upside down” and items taken and realising this shortly before she had to leave for work.
35․The victim of the 14 January 2024 offending speaks of the financial and mental impact of having their items stolen. Mr Mathews is only criminally responsible for the possession and use of the bank cards, but it is plain from the impact statement that even this conduct has had an effect on the victim. The victim speaks of the impact of being worried about the security of their belongings, and that they have been left with an undermined sense of security and peace of mind.
Driving offending
36․The driving of the stolen motor vehicle was of short duration, but it was driving done seemingly for the purpose of the commission of the theft offence, which increases the seriousness. That Mr Mathews was a disqualified driver at the time is also a serious aspect to this driving, however he is separately charged, and the totality principle is of application.
37․Indeed, the totality principle is of application with respect to the entire sentencing exercise, with the offending occurring over what can be characterised as a “crime spree” involving numerous victims. The sentences to be imposed are to recognise the harm to each victim, while also ensuring that the overall sentence is not a crushing one. A level of concurrency in the orders is appropriate.
Attempt to escape offence
38․This was not a serious example of this offence. It was of short duration and an unsophisticated attempt to avoid being arrested. Nonetheless, any offending of this type warrants a strongly deterrent sentence. It is offending that frustrates police efforts to enforce law and order, and offending that is capable of risking the safety of the police.
Presentence custody
39․Following his arrest on 14 March 2024, Mr Mathews has been remanded in custody solely with respect to these offences. A total of 327 days in presentence custody applies.
Pleas of guilty
40․The pleas of guilty were entered at the mention stage in the Magistrates Court, following negotiations, and without a brief of evidence being required. A reduction in the sentence of 25 per cent, reflecting full utilitarian value, is warranted.
Subjective circumstances
41․Mr Mathews is now 32 years of age and was aged 31 years at the time of the offending. He was born and initially raised interstate and came to live with his parents and three siblings in Canberra from when he was 12 years of age. He obtained a year 10 certificate, although had difficulties with his education due to physical health issues. He describes a positive and supportive upbringing. One of his siblings has an intellectual disability and resides with his parents. This brother is described as “idolising” Mr Mathews.
42․Mr Mathews’ parents continue to be supportive of Mr Mathews, albeit his history of illicit substance use has caused strain with his family relationships. [redacted]. Mr Mathews has as one of his goals to [redacted] and get back his family connections. Another of his goals is to engage in employment and to establish himself independently of his parents. He has previously had employment in office work, retail environments, and labouring roles. He is also intending to engage in psychiatric assessments once in the community with a view to obtaining further support in this regard.
43․Mr Mathews commenced substance use with cannabis when he was 12 years of age, but did not use substances again until he was 18 years old. He then used cannabis daily, other than for a period when his son was born. He commenced methylamphetamine use at 24 years of age, and developed an addiction to this substance. He has used other substances, but reports that his addiction is to methylamphetamine. He has had periods of abstinence, but lapses when with negative associates. He describes that he first came to inject substances while in custody, and then developed this approach as part of his dependency when in the community. He describes that the offending that occurred on this occasion occurred during a period of drug psychosis.
Criminal history
44․Mr Mathews’ criminal history is consistent with his history of drug dependency, and with the non-linear nature of rehabilitation from such dependency. He has been sentenced previously for offences including drug offences, property and dishonesty offending, and driving offending. He has previously been imprisoned, but has also had multiple opportunities for ICOs, and, as already observed, was previously sentenced to a treatment order.
45․The treatment order was imposed in December 2020 for offences of burglary and theft. A total term of 23 months imprisonment was imposed: R v Mathews [2020] ACTSC 364; R v Mathews (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 185. His compliance with the treatment order is described as largely positive until January 2022 when he lapsed and disengaged with the treatment team. There was a period of improved compliance in March and April 2022, but further substance use at the end of April 2022. Mr Mathews completed the order without further offending, but did not conclude it as a successful graduate.
46․Following the treatment order, Mr Mathews went on to commit further offences of theft, driving offences, property offences and minor drug offending in May and August 2022. He then committed the offences the subject of this sentencing exercise in early 2024.
47․Mr Mathews’ criminal history is such that no leniency can be afforded.
Conditional liberty
48․It is otherwise an aggravating factor on sentence that at the time of the current offending, Mr Mathews was on an ICO. A total term of 6 months imprisonment was imposed on 24 October 2023 (CC 2023/1725, CC 2023/1726, CC 2022/8153). Accordingly, the first of this offending occurred less than three months into that order. The ICO has since expired, such that it is not in the interests of justice to cancel the order or take any action: DPP v Dunn [2022] ACTSC 355 at [61].
49․The opportunity to serve a term of imprisonment by way of the ICO came after Mr Mathews had already had the opportunity to rehabilitate by way of a treatment order. He plainly did not sustain his rehabilitation. This history of community based orders not preventing him from further offending does not bode in his favour for a conclusion that he should be afforded any further opportunity for a treatment order.
50․I also observe that Mr Matthews was, at the time of this offending, subject to a good behaviour order that formed part of a suspended term of imprisonment. This 12 month good behaviour order was imposed, along with a number of other sentence orders, in the Magistrates Court on 30 November 2022 for an offence of possession of stolen property (CC 2022/6139). The sentence order was such that the good behaviour order commenced on 14 February 2023. Accordingly, some of the offending here occurred towards the end of the good behaviour order. I was not provided with any information as to the offending that occurred there, nor were any submissions made by either party as to the appropriate course. In the circumstances, applying s 110(2) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), and having regard to the totality of the sentence, I consider it appropriate to cancel the order and re-sentence Mr Matthews to a nominal term of imprisonment. This breach otherwise forms part of the aggravation of the offending having occurred while on conditional liberty.
Treatment order consideration
51․The unsuitability of a treatment order for Mr Mathews on this occasion is also informed by the circumstances in which he intends to serve the order. That is, there are no significant differences with how he intends to serve the order than what were in existence on the previous occasion. He intends, after a period in residential rehabilitation, to reside with his parents. During previous community based orders, including the treatment order, he has resided at this address, and it has not prevented further offending.
52․While Mr Mathews does express an intention to approach a treatment order differently on this occasion – he acknowledges that he requires more intensive support than he was open to during his previous treatment order and that he needs to stabilise before engaging in employment – how this would occur within the parameters of a treatment order is not certain.
53․Mr Mathews expresses his apparent difficulties in avoiding negative associates during his rehabilitation when in the Canberra community. He has been accepted into interstate rehabilitation programs, which are not an available rehabilitation option under a treatment order, but which may be better suited to him.
54․The rehabilitation program options available under a treatment order may not be the program best suited to Mr Mathews. ACT Health Services do find Mr Mathews suitable for a treatment order, and have identified a rehabilitation program for that purpose. ACT Health Services describe Mr Mathews as presenting as future-focussed and demonstrating a strong commitment to engage in treatment. Further, that Mr Mathews has evidently been “reflecting deeply on his substance use”, and that he has “expressed a desire to make meaningful changes”.
55․Based on their assessment, ACT Health Services referred Mr Mathews to a long-term residential rehabilitation program. Mr Mathews has been assessed as suitable for this program, but throughout the treatment order assessment he expressed hesitation about the particular program identified for him. His concern is understandable, being the limitations on contact with his son while in the program, but it does mean that the extent to which he will commit to the therapeutic intervention available under a treatment order is not clear.
56․Community Corrections assess Mr Mathews as not suitable for a treatment order given his history of substantial noncompliance with previous court orders. While such a circumstance is not necessarily a bar to the imposition of a treatment order, it is on this occasion. In all of the circumstances, I am not satisfied that a treatment order is an appropriate or suitable one for Mr Mathews.
Consideration
57․It follows that the appropriate order is one of imprisonment with a nonparole period. Mr Mathews’ prospects of rehabilitation are relevant to this. While I am not satisfied a treatment order ought be imposed, this is not to say that there are not prospects of Mr Mathews achieving rehabilitation.
58․Indeed, there is a solid basis upon which to have confidence in Mr Matthews’ ability to ultimately rehabilitate. Firstly, his criminal history, despite its length, does reflect not insignificant periods without offending behaviour. Secondly, while in custody on this occasion, Mr Mathews reports that he has not used illicit substances. Testing in August and December 2024 have returned negative results for substances. Mr Mathews is described as demonstrating positive behaviour while in custody, and he has a role in a trusted work position in the kitchen. He has engaged in training courses while in custody, and he has employment options available to him once in the community.
59․Further, Mr Mathews does demonstrate having gained a level of understanding of the consequences of his offending behaviour. He reports stealing items rather than paying for them so he could use his own finances to engage in substance use. He justified it at the time as not involving “breaking anything”, and that he would target unlocked cars. He describes that this was an “easier option” and acknowledges now that such justifications are inappropriate.
60․A victim impact statement is reported to have increased his understanding of how his actions impacted the victims. Mr Mathews is reported to have said “I feel really bad for how much it affected them and the damage I have done. I’ve been thinking a lot about the impacts, more than I did in the past”. Whether his progress in remorse and insight into his offending behaviour is at a level where it provides a motivation to finally address his substance use, and consequential offending behaviour, remains to be seen. The Community Corrections report describes that Mr Mathews would appear to require further interventions to solidify his shift in attitude and address his antisocial attitudes and behaviours.
61․A nonparole period, and a recommendation as to the conditions of parole, which recognises these prospects of rehabilitation, is appropriate. This will be a period that enables Mr Mathews to continue substance abstinence while in custody for a further period – such that he will be well placed to continue rehabilitation once in the community. It will also be a period that will provide supervision for a lengthy period upon release, along with the deterrent effect of a return to custody if rehabilitation is not finally achieved.
Orders
62․For those reasons, the following orders are made.
(1)On the charge of attempted dishonestly obtain property by deception (CAN 2024/3850), the offender is convicted and no penalty is imposed.
(2)On the charge of dishonestly obtain property (CAN 2024/3332), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 80 days on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 March 2024 and end on 13 May 2024.
(3)On the charge of dishonestly obtain property (CAN 2024/3823), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 4 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 April 2024 and end on 13 July 2024.
(4)On the charge of theft (CAN 2024/3840), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 5 months imprisonment, reduced from 200 days on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 June 2024 and end on 13 November 2024.
(5)On the charge of drive stolen motor vehicle (CAN 2024/3323), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, reduced from 8 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 October 2024 and end on 13 April 2025.
(6)On the charge of drive while disqualified (CAN 2024/3322), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 4 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 February 2025 and end on 13 May 2025.
(7)On the charge of theft (CAN 2024/3321), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, reduced from 8 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 March 2025 and end on 13 September 2025.
(8)On the charge of possess stolen property (CAN 2024/3325), the offender is convicted and sentenced to the rising of the Court.
(9)On the charge of aggravated burglary (CAN 2024/3843), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, reduced from 12 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 July 2025 and end on 13 April 2026.
(10)On the charge of theft (joint commission) (CAN 2024/3842), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, reduced from 8 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 November 2025 and end on 13 May 2026.
(11)On the charge of attempted theft (CAN 2024/3327), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 5 months imprisonment, reduced from 200 days on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 April 2026 and end on 13 September 2026.
(12)On the charge of property damage (CAN 2024/3328), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 80 days on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 August 2026 and end on 13 October 2026.
(13)On the charge of possess stolen property (CAN 2024/3329), the offender is convicted and sentenced to the rising of the Court.
(14)On the charge of dishonestly obtain property (CAN 2024/3845), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 80 days on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 September 2026 and end on 13 November 2026.
(15)On the charge of attempt to escape arrest (CAN 2024/3330), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 4 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 November 2026 and end on 13 February 2027.
(16)On the charge of possess stolen property (CAN 2024/3331), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 80 days on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 February 2027 and end on 13 April 2027.
(17)On the charge of possess stolen property (CAN 2024/3854), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 80 days on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 March 2027 and end on 13 May 2027.
(18)On charge CAN 2022/6139 I find the breach of good behaviour order proved.
(19)The conviction of Joshua James Mathews of joint commission unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 2022/6139) is confirmed, and he is sentenced to the rising of the Court.
(20)The total period of imprisonment of 3 years and 2 months will commence on 14 March 2024 and end on 13 May 2027.
(21)A nonparole period is imposed to commence on 14 March 2024 and end on 17 August 2025.
(22)It is recommended to the Sentence Administration Board under s 120(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) that:
When released on parole, Joshua James Mathews be required as a condition of the parole to undertake a substantial period of supervised or mandated drug rehabilitation, preferably in a residential drug rehabilitation facility, if a program is available to him.
63․It is noted that in relation to CAN 2024/3322 an automatic licence disqualification period of 12 months applies.
| I certify that the preceding sixty-three [63] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence her Honour Acting Justice Christensen. Associate: Date: 5 February 2025 |
1
3
5