Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen
[2025] ACTSC 54
•26 February 2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Nguyen |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 54 |
Hearing Date: | 21 August 2024, 1 November 2024, 19 December 2024 |
Decision Date: | 26 February 2025 |
Before: | Christensen AJ |
Decision: | See [75] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – driving offences – serious examples of aggravated robbery and aggravated driving – car-jacking – use of force and offensive weapon – Bugmy principles not enlivened due to limited information – absence of remorse or insight – fulltime imprisonment imposed |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310 |
Cases Cited: | Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 |
Texts Cited: | Bugmy Bar Book, Early Exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (November 2023) |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Trong Anthony Nguyen ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel B Chifuntwe ( Crown) G Le Couteur ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 6, 7 of 2024 |
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
Introduction
1․Trong Nguyen is to be sentenced for an offence of aggravated robbery (CAN 2023/9418) contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, 2000 penalty units, or both.
2․In addition, two summary charges have been transferred for the purposes of sentence:
(a)Aggravated furious/reckless/dangerous driving (CAN 2023/9423) contrary to sub-ss 7(1)(a), 7A(1)(a)(i), (iii), (v) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment, 300 penalty units, or both; and
(b)Drive while disqualified (CAN 2023/9425) contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, 50 penalty units, or both.
3․In relation to both the summary charges, an automatic minimum license disqualification period of 12 months applies: s 63 Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT).
4․All of the offending occurred on 24 September 2023, and involved a serious act of violence on an innocent community member, and driving conduct that put numerous community members and the police at risk. There is a suggestion in some of the material that the offending was motivated by substance use, although that is not clear for reasons that I will come to. The subjective circumstances of the offender raise some curious considerations, but ultimately, ones that favour the promotion of community protection, through fulltime imprisonment and no leniency, in the sentence to be imposed.
Aggravated robbery offending
5․On Sunday 24 September 2023 at 11:26am, the female victim was walking in the car park of Westfield Belconnen. She was walking towards her vehicle, a white Mazda BT50 light truck bearing ACT registration plates (the Mazda).
6․When the victim reached the Mazda, she opened the driver’s side door. At this time, the victim heard footsteps running behind her. She turned around and saw a person, later identified as the offender. He was wearing a dark jacket and light coloured pants. He was holding a knife with a 10 centimetre blade.
7․The offender told the victim to give him her car keys. He then launched forward, attacking the victim with the knife and knocking her to the ground. As the victim fell to the ground, she threw her car keys over the male’s head. The victim saw the offender grab her car keys, get into the Mazda, and drive away.
8․The victim then saw blood on her left arm and saw her arm had been sliced with a knife. She retreated into the shopping centre. Members of the public assisted the victim and called emergency services. The victim was transported to the Canberra Hospital by ambulance.
Driving offending
9․At 11:36am that same day, police observed the Mazda enter the intersection of Wakefield and Limestone Avenue in Bradoon. The vehicle was driven against a red light and into oncoming traffic. The roadway was a dual lane divided carriageway with a posted speed limit of 60km/h and moderate vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the time. Police observed a sole male in the driver’s seat, later identified as the offender.
10․Police activated their emergency lights and sirens. They drove in front of the Mazda in order to protect other motorists, signalling for the male to stop. The male drove around the police vehicle and accelerated away, immediately driving onto the incorrect side of Limestone Avenue, into the direction of other motorists.
11․Police commenced a pursuit of the Mazda. During the pursuit, the Mazda was seen to drive onto the wrong side of the road against the flow of traffic on several occasions, and onto a number of footpaths in the suburbs of Ainslie, Civic, Turner, and Braddon. The speed limit in these areas was between 40 km/h to 60 km/h. The maximum speed reached was approximately 150 km/h in a 50 km/h residential zone.
12․The agreed facts provide that police continued the pursuit due to the immediate and ongoing serious risk to public safety, the offender having committed an offence involving serious injury to a person. Police held strong concerns that if not apprehended immediately, the offender may cause further serious harm to others.
13․After pursuing the offender for approximately five minutes, police lost sight of the Mazda for about 10 seconds, while it was driving on the wrong side of Cooyong Street, a dual lane divided road in Civic. The speed limit on this street was either 60 km/h or 40 km/h, with a number of controlled intersections. It abuts the central business district, retail shops, and public car parks, and at the time, the vehicular and pedestrian traffic was high.
14․Police again signalled for the offender to stop the vehicle.
15․The Mazda was seen to immediately cross onto the wrong side of the road and drive through a number of controlled intersections against red traffic light signals. The offender was seen to drive approximately 500 to 600 metres on the wrong side of Cooyong Street in Civic and in Braddon. As the offender approached Northbourne Avenue, he again drove on the wrong side of the controlled intersection, disobeying a red traffic signal, and across the light rail tracks in the direction of Turner.
16․Police immediately located the vehicle in the suburb of Turner and again signalled for the offender to stop. He again failed to do so and the pursuit was recommenced.
17․The offender drove through the intersection of Barry Drive and Northbourne Avenue and drove east along Cooyong Street. Police pursued him as he drove through the suburb of Braddon, during which he drove through a number of residential streets. The offender later turned into Braddon Court, a unit complex. He was seen to crash the Mazda into a garden bed and nearby fence.
18․Police saw the offender exit the Mazda and run from the location. He was pursued on foot by the police and was apprehended in the stairwell of one of the units.
19․The facts provide that the driving during the police pursuit and the arrest of the offender was captured on video recordings, however this was not produced on sentence.
20․The offender provided police with his identification. He was required to undergo an alcohol screening test and drug screening test. The results of the tests were negative. The offender stated to police that he had consumed heroin that day. The facts provide that he was subsequently subject to blood testing.
21․The outcome of that testing was not included in the information provided to the Court. Nonetheless, I infer, from the offender’s plea of guilty to the aggravated driving with the particulars that are contained in the charge,[1] that he accepts he had at least one of the prescribed drugs listed in the Dictionary of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1997 (ACT)[2] in his blood within the relevant period. Even now, the prescribed drugs provided in the legislation do not include heroin.[3]
[1] Being that ‘at the time of the offence, without reasonable excuse [he] failed to comply with a request or signal given by a police officer to stop the vehicle and did having within the relevant period a prescribed drug in his blood and did drive at a speed that exceeded the speed limit by more than 30%’.
[2] The Dictionary to the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) provided as at 24 September 2023 that a prescribed drug means –
(a) methylamphetamine; or (b) delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; or (c) N,α-Dimethyl-3,4-(Methylenedioxy)phenylethylamine (MDMA); or (d) any other drug prescribed by regulation.
The Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulation 2000 (ACT), as at 24 September 2023, did not include any meaning of ‘prescribed drugs’.
[3] Section 5A of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulation 2000 (ACT) was amended with effect from 25 May 2024 and provides that the following drugs are prescribed –
(a) delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; (b) methylamphetamine; (c) N, α-Dimethyl-3,4-(Methylenedioxy) phenylethylamine; (d) cocaine.
22․Police investigations established that on 28 May 2021, the offender was convicted in the ACT Magistrates Court for driving while under the influence of liquor or drugs. His license was disqualified for a period of three years.
Assessment
23․In relation to the aggravated robbery, closed circuit television footage (CCTV) was played at the sentence hearing. This footage enabled a proper assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending.
24․It shows the victim, walking alone in a relatively empty carpark, towards her vehicle. It shows the offender clearly targeting her from some distance away and making his approach. It shows the distress of the victim as she went to seek help after being attacked, and the callous disregard that the offender displayed as he drove away in her vehicle.
25․This was a serious example of a robbery that is aggravated by having a knife. This offensive weapon accounts for the maximum penalty. That the offensive weapon used was a knife is serious. It is an implement capable of causing significant harm, and on this occasion, it did. That the offender used the knife, that is, used force (it not being only a form of robbery involving threatened harm) also elevates the seriousness of the offending.
26․While the details of the force used are not known, beyond it being described in the facts as involving attacking the victim and the victim observing that her arm had been sliced with a knife, it can be deduced that at least one serious application of force occurred. The photographs of the injury show it to have been a deep and long laceration caused to the inner forearm. The photographs also show residual physical scaring. Inevitably, significant emotional scaring would have been caused, and was in this case. I will come to the effect on the victim shortly.
27․The use of the knife in this way shows a determination by the offender to commit the theft of the vehicle. Such property is of high value, and an important item to any member of the community. The theft of this form of property in the robbery again elevates the seriousness of the offence. The vehicle was crashed by the offender such that it can be inferred it was returned damaged.
28․The aggravated robbery was essentially a ‘car jacking’, which is a serious example of this type of offence, particularly when force was used with an offensive weapon, and physical injury was caused. It was a brazen aggravated robbery committed on a victim who was in a vulnerable position and who was targeted, in a planned and predatory way, by the offender. I accept though that, as submitted on the offender’s behalf, it is an unsophisticated example of the offence. I would also observe that the duration of the robbery itself was relatively short, albeit persistent in the pursuit of the victim. It was not accompanied by verbal threats.
29․The aggravated driving that the offender then engaged in immediately afterwards is also a serious example of that type of offence. While the duration of the driving in terms of time is not detailed in the facts, the facts do detail the lengthy distance travelled, with it being across multiple suburbs. This was on busy roads, in terms of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Numerous forms of dangerous driving occurred, including very high speeds, being on the wrong side of the road, driving on foothpaths, driving against red traffic signals, and multiple failures to stop for the police.
30․The last of these, along with the offender having driven at speed, and having a prescribed drug in his blood, account for it being an aggravated form of the offence with an increased maximum penalty. Nonetheless, such a form of the offence can be established by only one of those factors. Here, there are three legislated aggravating factors, as well as other forms of aggravation in the nature of the driving.
31․This includes that at the time, the offender was driving while disqualified. The disqualified driving occurred just over two thirds of the way through the disqualified order that had been imposed in 2021, indicative of the offender having an inability to maintain compliance with a court order. Concerningly, the original disqualification period had been imposed for driving while under the influence of liquor or drugs. The offending on this occasion includes an aggravating factor of the offender having a prescribed drug in his blood. Even in circumstances where the precise substance is not known, driving, particularly in the manner that the offender did, while having a prescribed drug in his blood elevates the risk involved.
32․Overall, this was a very serious example of an aggravated driving offence. It put not only many community members at risk, but also police officers. It was motivated by avoiding capture for the robbery offence, and involved numerous features of aggravation.
33․In relation to all of the offences, the seriousness is such that plainly, having considered possible alternatives, no penalty other than imprisonment is warranted.
Totality
34․In imposing the periods of imprisonment, the totality principle will be of application. A slight level of concurrency is appropriate to reflect that the aggravated driving offending involved using the vehicle that was stolen in the aggravated robbery. Similarly, a level of concurrency is appropriate for the driving offences having regard to the connection between those the offences. Nonetheless, there is a distinct nature to all the offending, such that the application of the totality principle warrants only limited concurrency in the orders to be made.
35․An exception to this relates to the license disqualification periods that will apply. Given the concurrency in the driving offending, it is appropriate that they are ordered to be served concurrently.
Current sentencing practice
36․The prosecution assisted with authorities to inform current sentencing practice, while acknowledging the limitations these provide.
37․In relation to the aggravated robbery, I have found of most assistance the authority of DPP v Smith [2024] ACTSC 99 which involved a similar ‘car jacking’ form of aggravated robbery. The offender was though youthful, and no actual violence was inflicted. A sentence with a starting point of 40 months imprisonment was imposed. Involving different circumstances, in aggravated robberies in which physical violence caused injuries to the victims, sentences with starting points of 4 years and 10 months and 5 years imprisonment were imposed: R v Apps (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 369.
38․On behalf of the offender, the potential for lesser terms to be imposed for offences of aggravated robbery was submitted: R v Campbell [2021] ACTSC 359 at [50].
39․As to the aggravated driving offence, the authorities provided, consistent with the diversity of circumstances of such offences and offenders, reflect that sentences from six months to two years have been imposed: Mann v Tremethick (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 31; DPP v Clarke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 261; R v Guy [2022] ACTSC 373; R v Goolagong (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 131; R v Law [2021] ACTSC 351; R v Collins [2019] ACTSC 302; R v Williams [2017] ACTSC 298.
Effect on the victim
40․The effect on the victim of the robbery, and as a consequence, the community, from the offending has been substantial.
41․It warrants observing that the sentence hearing in this matter necessarily involved delays in order to enable all relevant information to be available to the sentencing court. The primary victim read to the Court her victim impact statement at the beginning of the sentence proceeding. Even with the passage of time, the profound impact on this victim has not been lost on the Court. The grief she has experienced, from losing life as she knew it, continues to resonate. There is little that this Court can offer by way of solace, beyond a hope that the victim and her family understand that the effect on them has been heard. I extend the Court’s gratitude to the victim for assisting the Court to understand the depth of harm, to not only herself and her family, but also the community, that the offending has caused.
42․The primary victim explains that since the offence she has lived in paralysing fear. She has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and lives with the effects of this, with fear of going to the shops, anxiety, disrupted sleep, and memory disruption. Before the attack, the primary victim was a teacher, who would guide her students as they developed to adulthood. Since the attack, the victim has had to resign from her teaching position, causing significant financial and psychological impacts on her, as well as the detriment to the community from losing a valued teacher. The victim has lost a career of 27 years, and lost what she and her family had thought her retirement would be.
43․The victim describes how the offender’s conduct has changed the trajectory of her life. She is now limited in her social interactions, having a distrust in society. It has had physical impacts, and profound psychological impacts. It is, in the victim’s words, “a nightmare that doesn’t end” that has changed her life forever.
44․The effects from the offending have also been felt by the primary victim’s family, who have not only witnessed and supported her through her distress, but experienced their own impacts. The Court heard also from the victim’s husband and her son. Life for the family has changed forever. While grateful that the injury did not cause even more physical harm, her husband describes that they have still lost part of his wife, and their children’s mother, through the trauma she is suffering. The offending has totally destroyed their family, and his wife’s wellbeing. The primary victim’s son speaks of his distress in seeing his mother injured immediately after the offence, hearing that she had been stabbed, and seeing the blood. He speaks of the day of the offence being the worst day of his life and states that the devastating impact of it will stay with the family forever.
Pleas of guilty
45․The offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court. This was at a mention stage, and prior to any plea of not guilty or brief of evidence having been prepared. He was committed for sentence to the Supreme Court. A reduction of 25 per cent to reflect this utilitarian value is appropriate.
Subjective circumstances
46․The offender is now aged 28 years of age and was aged 26 years at the time of the offending.
47․His subjective circumstances are set out in a pre-sentence report prepared by ACT Corrective Services dated 9 December 2024.
48․The offender was born and raised in Canberra, one of five children to his parents. Mr Nguyen described to Corrective Services that his parents were strict and that he can now understand the rationale for their parenting style. He had the support of family members in Court.
49․His parents had limited English literacy which impacted their employment and the family’s social inclusion. Mr Nguyen reported that he does not consider poverty, parental substance misuse, or mental health was a factor in his upbringing. He was introduced to criminal activity by his cousins when in his later teenage years.
50․The offender commenced the use of substances from when he was 13 years of age, with the use of cannabis. He began consuming alcohol from 14 years. He reported periodic cocaine use on a recreational basis, and then use of methamphetamine in the period before the offending. He has consumed depressant substances and non prescription Buvidal. The offender told ACT Corrective Services that his preferred drug is heroin. He has commenced prescription Buvidal treatment and reports that this is helping him to gradually change his attitude to drugs. He is engaging with some substance use rehabilitation programs while in custody, but also has admitted to substance use while in custody.
51․For the purposes of preparation of the report, Corrective Services spoke with Mr Nguyen’s sister. She reported that her father would consume alcohol to an excessive level and was violent towards the offender, followed by long periods withholding communication. The offender would often leave the family home for days at a time throughout his teenage years and the family was not aware of his location.
52․On behalf of the offender, it was submitted that the Court may consider that the principles from Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 (Bugmy) are enlivened. This was done in circumstances where the representative on behalf of the offender was instructed by Mr Nguyen to not rely on such principles. The representative made this submission, appropriately, in accordance with her obligations as an officer of the Court.
53․The representative drew the Court’s attention to what was said by Mr Nguyen’s sister, and extracts from the Bugmy Bar Book: Bugmy Bar Book, Early Exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (November 2023); Bugmy Bar Book, Child Abuse and Neglect (June 2024). I have considered these matters. I am not persuaded that the Bugmy principles are enlivened based on the information known to the Court. While I can appreciate reporting a childhood involving profound disadvantage or deprivation may be difficult, and that information to enliven the Bugmy principles does not necessarily need to come directly from an offender, in this matter I am not satisfied to the requisite standard that I can make the finding raised.
54․The prosecution submitted that it was a matter for the Court to consider whether such a finding could be made, and if so, that in any event, the role of community protection was elevated. I agree. Even if I am wrong as to my conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to enliven Bugmy, in circumstances where the offender himself is seemingly far from acknowledging and addressing any such traumas, the importance of community protection would likely outweigh any reduction in moral culpability that may arise.
55․On behalf of the offender, it was also submitted that the principles from R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 as to early exposure to substances, leading to an uninformed substance dependency as an adult, were enlivened. Similarly to the conclusion I have made as to Bugmy, there is insufficient evidence upon which I would make such a finding. The offender reports early exposure to substances, but there is an absence of information as to the role that had in his substance use as an adult, including as to his use of substances as a young adult, and at the time of the offending. Further, it is not clear on the information available to the Court the extent the offender even has an entrenched drug dependency. The offender’s sister advised Corrective Services that her brother was discrete around his drug use so she could not verify his account of his usage.
56․The offender completed his Year 10 certificate and has worked in hospitality, construction, and commercial concreting. While in custody he has had some employment roles, but has exhibited some negative behaviours which have limited his employment opportunities. He has expressed an interest in completing studies in information technology. He has demonstrated a capability to engage with education, having completed a number of certificates while in custody.
57․The offender’s mental health is currently stable, but he reports that it was negative while in the community.
58․The offender informed ACT Corrective Services that he does not wish to access residential rehabilitation treatment as he does not consider he has the resolve to complete such a program. He reports previously achieving a period of 8 months abstinence while in custody, but has little confidence of his ability to not relapse upon release. The offender did though inform Corrective Services that he has committed to trying all approaches to see what he can learn for the purposes of rehabilitation.
59․Corrective Services conclude that the offender has limited protective factors, and recommend that custody may be an appropriate option to enable the offender to participate in programs to lower his criminogenic risks.
Criminal history
60․The offender has a limited criminal history, particularly so given his stated challenges with substance use. Nonetheless, it is a criminal history that is such that no leniency can be afforded to the offender. He has been previously convicted for failing to appear in court, and for multiple driving offences. His most recent conviction was for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed in December 2021. The details of what the offending involved are not known to the Court, but it raises for concern, when considering the violence used in the aggravating robbery, that the offender has a willingness and capacity to engage in violent offending behaviour, in addition to driving offences. The criminal history emphasises the need for community protection in the sentences to be imposed.
Consideration
61․In all of the circumstances, the representative on behalf of the offender made a committed attempt to highlight matters in mitigation on his behalf. The difficulty in doing so is that there are not many, if any at all.
62․It is of particular concern that there is an absence of remorse and insight into the seriousness of the offending. If anything, the offender is merciless. At the risk of distressing the victim, it is appropriate to set out the reason for that observation.
63․In relation to the aggravated robbery, the offender is reported to have expressed to ACT Corrective Services that he cannot show “fake love as he has no remorse for the victim”. He advised that he requested that his associates research the victim. He was prepared to say sorry to the victim at Court, but he changed his mind about an apology once he felt judged by the victim from her victim impact statement. The offender is reported as saying that the victim had no idea if he was committing the robbery for heroin, stating that after listening to the victim impact statement he felt nothing.
64․ACT Corrective Services report that the offender was questioned as to whether these comments were designed to achieve his desired outcome of remaining in custody. He is reported to have said “possibly”, but either way he wants a sentence with a non-parole period. ACT Corrective Services find that in the custodial environment, the offender’s attitudes “appear to be slightly shifting as there is semi consistent positive case notes recorded by custodial staff”.
65․The first pre-sentence report, dated 9 August 2024, provides that the offender did not engage with Corrective Services such that a report was not able to be produced. The offender is described as exhibiting “negative attitudes regarding his prospects of reintegration into the community, his prospects of leading a drug free lifestyle and made victim blaming comments”. The offender stated that he “wished to stay in custody for a few years as he can access drugs in prison”. During the course of the proceeding, I have been informed that the offender disputes any such statement was made. I have also been informed that the offender has declined one urinalysis test while in custody.
66․Otherwise, the offender has also, throughout the sentence proceeding, sought to be assessed for a drug and alcohol treatment order, and then subsequently withdrawn such consent. I am conscious of the legislated irrelevant considerations in sentencing per
s 34 of the Sentencing Act, none of which are matters specifically arising here. I simply make the observations as to the offender’s responses to Corrective Services, and the prospect of a rehabilitative sentence order, for the purposes of assessing the application of the relevant considerations (s 33 Sentencing Act) and the sentencing purposes (s 7 Sentencing Act) in this matter.67․The attitudinal presentation of the offender, and his apparent absence of remorse and insight to the harm his offending has caused is of concern. It does little to give confidence as to there being prospects of rehabilitation. Having said that, the offender is reported by ACT Corrective Services as demonstrating insight into the risks posed from his driving, especially in relation to the location, time, and families present, such that significant harm could have resulted. There is seemingly some capacity for the offender to gain insight into the harm he is capable of causing. The offender has engaged positively in some study and programs while in custody.
68․The apparent inconsistency in his answers, and the attitude that the offender presented to Corrective Services, has given me pause as to what truly the offender has, and is, experiencing. It is not clear whether he was motivated by substance use when engaging in the offending, whether he remains to develop past an adolescent immaturity, or whether his conduct, and presentation, is a misguided form of attempting to seek help.
69․I have concluded that is not something I am able to resolve. But it leaves the Court with limited appropriate sentencing options other than the imposition of a lengthy sentence with a nonparole period.
Nonparole period
70․There is little information before the Court that would form a basis for imposing a nonparole period that is designed to support rehabilitation, to the extent this factor has prominence in the setting of a nonparole period: R v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18 at [20], [55]. Whether to even set a nonparole period has an aspect of discretion: s 65(4) Sentencing Act.
71․Nonetheless, I consider it appropriate to set a parole period to increase the prospect of a period of community supervision, for the purposes of community protection, upon release. I also accept, as submitted on the offender’s behalf, that there are indications of rehabilitation that is in its infancy.
72․I will set it at a period that might be regarded as the ‘upper end’ of the typical range in the ACT, to the extent that the setting of a nonparole period can ever be considered an exercise in percentages. It warrants observing that I considered a percentage, while loath to consider the setting of such periods in percentage terms, at a higher level. But I have decided that it is appropriate to set it at 75 per cent of the head sentence. This will still enable scope for the Sentence Administration Board to consider whether the offender is an appropriate candidate for parole if he applies once eligible, and if not, still enables a prospect of supervision in the community upon any further applications before his final release.
73․Both parties made submissions that the Court consider making recommendations as to the terms of the parole. I have decided against this. This is difficult to do for two reasons. Firstly, it is not clear to me the form of recommendations, in terms of rehabilitation targets, that are required. Secondly, it will be for the offender to gain insight into his offending behaviour and improve his progress towards rehabilitation during his time in custody, and to convince the Sentence Administration Board as to what his parole period, if enabled, should involve.
Time in custody
74․The offender’s bail was refused following arrest. He has been in custody solely in relation to these charges since 24 September 2023, a total of 521 days. This period will be taken into account in directing when the sentence is to commence: s 63(2) Sentencing Act.
Orders
75․For those reasons, the following orders are made:
(1)On the charge of aggravated robbery (CAN 2023/9418) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 40 months imprisonment, reduced from 54 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 24 September 2023 and end on 23 January 2027.
(2)On the charge of aggravated furious/reckless/dangerous driving (CAN 2023/9423) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, reduced from 24 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 24 October 2026 and end on 23 April 2028.
(3)On the charge of drive while disqualified (CAN 2023/9425) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 80 days imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 24 March 2028 and end on 23 May 2028.
(4)The total period of imprisonment of 4 years and 8 months will commence on 24 September 2023 and end on 23 May 2028.
(5)A nonparole period is imposed to commence on 24 September 2023 and end on 23 March 2027.
(6)In relation to CAN 2023/9423 an automatic licence disqualification period of 12 months applies pursuant to s 63 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), to commence on 26 February 2025 and end on 25 February 2026.
(7)In relation to CAN 2023/9425 an automatic licence disqualification period of 12 months applies pursuant to s 63 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), to commence on 26 February 2025 and end on 25 February 2026.
| I certify that the preceding seventy-five [75] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: |
0
13
7