Director of Public Prosecutions v Parlov

[2023] ACTSC 147

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Parlov

Citation: 

[2023] ACTSC 147

Hearing Dates: 

6, 11, 14 April 2023; 5, 9 June 2023

Decision Date: 

9 June 2023

Before:

Mossop J

Decision: 

See [51]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated burglary by joint commission – offender granted bail and proceedings adjourned to allow offender to participate in residential rehabilitation program –  appropriate for offender to continue with rehabilitation in the community –  where imposition of a partially suspended sentence would require setting of non‑parole period and further period in custody – offender previously granted parole in relation to an earlier sentence – period of imprisonment wholly suspended taking into account but not including pre-sentence custody

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 27, 80, 64, 65, 66

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 312

Cases Cited: 

DPP v Mena [2023] ACTSC 80

Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148; 3 ACTLR 210

R v Johnston [2017] ACTSC 280

R v KS [2022] ACTSC 133

R v McCallum [2020] ACTSC 15

R v Ngerengere (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 299

Texts Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing and Restorative Justice) Amendment Bill 2015 (ACT)

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions

Rebecca Dulcie Parlov ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

T Hickey ( DPP)

K Lee ( Offender)

Solicitors

Director of Public Prosecutions

Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)

File Number:

SCC 205 of 2021

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․Rebecca Parlov was found guilty by a jury of one count of aggravated burglary (contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)). Her co offenders were Sugimatatihuna Bernard Gabriel Mena and Bradley Joe Roberts who were also found guilty by the jury. Mr Mena was also found guilty of attempted murder and unlawfully discharging a loaded arm so as to cause another person reasonable apprehension for his or her safety.

Facts

2․The offending occurred on 11 March 2021. The facts are as found in relation to Mr Mena in DPP v Mena [2023] ACTSC 80 at [3]-[11]:

3.For the purposes of sentencing, it is necessary to find the facts and do so in a manner which is consistent with the verdicts of the jury. It is not necessary to name the victims of the offending one of whom is subject to a suppression order. They will be referred to as Mr A and Ms B.

4.During the evening of 10 March 2021 Mr A was acting as the driver for Ms B who was supplying illicit drugs around Canberra. At 8pm Rebecca Parlov, Mr Mena and another man were in each other’s company in Bonner near Mr Mena’s house. At 8:43pm Ms Parlov enquired of Ms B if she had any methamphetamine. Arrangements were made for Bradley Roberts to collect that drug. Ultimately sometime after 3am Ms B and Mr A met Mr Roberts in a car park outside Woolworths at Bonner. Ms B supplied Mr Roberts with the methamphetamine. Mr A had a conversation with Mr Roberts and asked whether he was the person who had called him a paedophile. Mr A threatened to fight Mr Roberts. Although the evidence as to precisely what was said varied, Mr Roberts replied by saying something like “we’ll go get Sugi and that and we’ll come back and whack you”. Over the next two hours messages were exchanged between Ms Parlov and Ms B and Mr Roberts and Ms B. It was very clear that Ms Parlov and Mr Roberts wished to meet with Ms B and, it can be inferred, Mr A.

5.Mr A and Ms B ended up at Ms B’s house.

6.At about 5:34am on 11 March 2021, Ms Parlov made a Facebook call to Ms B. At the time Ms B was at her home in Spence with Mr A. The call was put on speaker. Ms Parlov wanted to know where Ms B and Mr A were. Ms B heard a car stop outside. Ms Parlov said that she needed to speak to Mr A. Ms Parlov told Mr A to walk outside the house. Ms Parlov said something to the effect that she did not want to do it inside Ms B’s house.

7.Ms Parlov then started banging on the front door of the house asking to be let in. She said words to the effect of “open the fucking door, we are coming in anyway.” Ms B then opened the door. Ms Parlov “shoved past” Ms B as she walked past her and went straight up to Mr A. She was wearing gloves. Mr Roberts also entered Ms B’s house and was standing off to the side next to a chest of drawers. Mr A grabbed a knife and stepped away from Ms Parlov. Ms Parlov said words to the effect of “are you going to pull a knife on a girl?”. Mr A observed that Roberts was “backing up” Ms Parlov until he saw the knife. Mr A anticipated from Mr Roberts’ body language that Mr Roberts was going to rush up on to him until he saw the knife.

8.At about this time Mr Mena, who was wearing a mask, came through the front door. After he entered the house, he pulled out a sawn-off .22 calibre rifle from his waistband and shot Mr A. The bullet hit Mr A’s stomach, just above his belly button. Mr Mena then fumbled with the gun as he reloaded. He then raised the gun, pointed it at Mr A’s face and fired a second shot. The bullet hit Mr A’s jaw. Both shots were fired at close range. One of them was fired from no more than 3 m from Mr A. After the second shot was fired the three offenders fled the scene.

9.At about 6:18am Mr A admitted himself to Calvary Hospital in Bruce with gunshot wounds. He was dropped off at the emergency department carpark in an orange Toyota Corolla. Mr A was triaged as a category 1 patient (an immediate life-threatening condition). He was initially assessed as having a wound with swelling to his left cheek, a severely comminuted fracture to the left jaw, a wound to his upper abdomen and two wounds to his left forearm. Medical staff noted a change in his voice and decided to place him in an induced coma. He was intubated and placed on a ventilator. He underwent a CT scan which reported multiple metallic foreign bodies lying both superficially and deep in his jaw. His left carotid artery was in close proximity to a major metallic foreign body. He also had a single metallic foreign body lodged in his abdominal wall.

10.Mr A was transferred by helicopter to the Canberra Hospital. He underwent multiple surgeries to explore, washout, debride and remove fragmented pieces of the bullets from his jaw, neck and abdomen. He also underwent plastic surgery on his left forearm, including the repair of one of the flexor muscles in the forearm which was injured. On 14 March Mr A underwent further surgery to repair the fractured bones in his jaw. This required the internal fixation of plates, screws, wires and rods which will remain in place permanently.

11.Mr A awoke from his induced coma on 18 March 2021. He was discharged from hospital on 19 March 2021.

Victim impact

3․The victim impact statement is that read in relation to Mr Mena (see Mena at [12]-[13]). It must be borne in mind that the principal impacts upon the victim were from being shot by Mr Mena as distinct from the aggravated burglary in which Ms Parlov was a participant.

Objective seriousness

4․The objective seriousness is as assessed in the reasons given in relation to Mr Mena. Ms Parlov is to be sentenced on the basis that the aggravated burglary was committed by joint commission and that the intention was to at least put Mr A in fear of the immediate application of violence. That is an assault without a battery. Notwithstanding that she was the one doing most of the talking, given that the motivation for the offending and the decision-making process is not clear, Ms Parlov’s culpability is similar to that of Mr Mena and Mr Roberts.

Subjective circumstances

5․Ms Parlov is 26 years old. She is one of 10 children born to her parents. She is single with no dependents. She has a limited employment history.

6․She has recently uncovered some childhood trauma which she is addressing through a counsellor. She did not wish to have the details of that childhood trauma recorded in the pre-sentence report.

7․She commenced using cannabis the age of 16 and moved on to methamphetamine, smoking up to 2 g daily. She claims to have abstained from illicit substance use since 2021. She also claims to no longer associate with her previous antisocial connections.

8․She has an address to reside at which is a condition of her parole order.

9․She has a poor history of compliance with community-based sentences. She is assessed as not suitable for a community service work condition.

10․Ms Parlov was granted parole on 17 January 2023 with a release date of 25 January 2023. If released she would remain on parole until 10 December 2023.

11․Ms Parlov maintains her innocence and hence cannot be found to be remorseful in relation to her conduct. Her lack of acceptance of responsibility affects the assessment of her prospects of rehabilitation.

12․While in custody the offender has taken every opportunity to complete self-improvement courses, the details of which are contained in a large number of certificates which were tendered at the sentencing hearing. That includes a number of courses relating to use of illicit drugs. She has also become qualified for the role of women’s peer mentor in the Women’s Correctional Centre part of the AMC. This has involved an eight-week training program and being identified as someone who is capable of meeting the expectation of high standards of behaviour and modelling and encouraging this to their peers. She has received consistently positive feedback since the commencement of her role. While earlier in her period of custody she displayed some adverse conduct directed towards Ms B, consistent with a continuing criminal attitude, the history of completion of courses in the absence of any complaint about her conduct since that time reflects what appears to be a change in attitude on her part. Whether, having regard to her criminal history, that attitude can be maintained in the medium to long term is uncertain at this stage.

13․A reference from a friend who has also been involved with drug use was tendered. The reference refers to the encouragement given by the offender to the person to complete her rehabilitation and support her children. There is a further reference from an older woman who is able to provide support to the offender.

14․The offender has available to her a position in a six and possibly 12 week residential rehabilitation program known as the Elouera Women’s Program. This is located in Orange, New South Wales. The benefit of participating in such a program away from Canberra is that the offender is less likely to come across her past antisocial Canberra associates in that program.

15․A letter from the offender refers to commencement of trauma counselling relating to her childhood and being brought up by parents who were “lost in addiction”. It referred to the courses that she has done in custody and her desire to do residential rehabilitation away from her past Canberra associates. It refers to the programs she has done in custody and the fact that she now has available to her secure accommodation if living in the community.

Criminal history

16․Ms Parlov has a significant criminal history going back to 2016. This includes multiple driving offences, failing to appear after a bail undertaking, property offences including theft, obtaining property by deception and unlawful possession of stolen property, assaults, possession of drugs, burglary and aggravated burglary. She has been subject to significant sentences of full-time detention in the past. The criminal history is consistent with significant involvement with illicit drug use. She is assessed as being at a medium to high risk of general reoffending.

Time in custody

17․The offender has been in custody since 29 April 2021. Including today that is a period of 716 days. The period from 5 November 2021 until 25 January 2023 (inclusive), a period of 447 days was attributable to sentences for other offences. That means that 269 days, including today but excluding 25 January 2023, are solely attributable to the current offending.

18․The date of 25 January 2023 is the date on which she would have been released on parole in relation to earlier sentences of imprisonment. As a result of sentences imposed in February 2022 for offences of joint commission theft and joint commission burglary (CC2021/7759 and CC2021/7758), she will remain on parole until 10 December 2023.

Consideration

19․The principal criminogenic risk for the offender is ongoing drug use and the antisocial associates which come with, and encourage, such drug use. The offender’s conduct in custody demonstrates, at present, sustained motivation to rehabilitate herself. The submission of the offender was that she should be granted bail in order to attend the Elouera Woman’s Program and that her ultimate sentencing should be postponed until she had completed that program.

20․The evidence of attempts to address her drug problems are such that, notwithstanding her substantial criminal history, this appears to be a “crossroads” case.

21․I accept, as counsel for the prosecution submitted, “crossroads submissions” are routinely made and rarely justified. However, while people’s lives are never as simple as involving a crossroads, there are occasions when offenders have the motivation and opportunity to turn away from a life of crime and courts do recognise the interests of the community in having that occur. Inevitably, any leniency shown to offenders in order to provide them with an opportunity to take the right path at a crossroads involves a risk that they will not remain on that path for long enough. That is why whether or not to accept a “crossroads submission” involves an exercise of judgement and any sentence needs to be appropriately hedged about by consequences which place more emphasis on punishment and community protection that will flow if the offender does not stay on the right path.

22․In the present case, the offender does appear motivated to get her life on track. Obviously, whether or not she can achieve this outside very controlled environments will be a matter yet to be determined. However, given the cost that she has imposed upon the community by her history of offending it is important to give her the opportunity to achieve rehabilitation. That should be done in a manner which maximises the incentives for long term lawful conduct through the potential for the imposition of a significant penalty if she fails to take the opportunity given to her.

23․Counsel for the prosecution submitted that to impose a sentence which did not necessarily require a further period of full-time detention to be served would be “utterly inadequate”. In the absence of good evidence of a desire for rehabilitation I accept that such a submission would be an accurate one. However, in the present case I do consider that significant weight should be given to the desirability of rehabilitation. While the offender does not accept responsibility for the present offending, she does accept the need to break free from using illicit drugs and the evidence discloses that this is the underlying driver of her criminal conduct.

24․In my view, the appropriate sentence for the aggravated burglary is three years and three months’ imprisonment.

25․How that is to be served may be deferred until the offender has had an opportunity to complete the relatively brief residential rehabilitation program.

26․Adjournment of the proceedings prior to concluding the sentence is a course which has been found to be available in R v KS [2022] ACTSC 133, notwithstanding that it avoids some of the requirements of a formally deferred sentence under s 27 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (CS Act). Notwithstanding the submissions of the prosecution to the contrary, until the Court of Appeal says otherwise, that approach should be followed.

27․The options that might be ultimately available are:

(a)the imposition of a backdated sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period;

(b)the imposition of a backdated sentence of imprisonment which is partially suspended; and

(c)the imposition of a backdated sentence of imprisonment to be served by intensive correction.

28․The parties differed as to the availability of an intensive correction order in the circumstances. Counsel for Ms Parlov submitted that it was an available disposition.  Counsel for the prosecution submitted that it was not.

29․The obstacle to dealing with the matter by way of an intensive correction order is s 80 of the CS Act. Section 80(1) provides that:

(1)A court must not make an intensive correction order with intensive correction to be served concurrently or consecutively with a sentence of full-time imprisonment, a suspended sentence of imprisonment, a sentence of default imprisonment or a good behaviour order.

…

30․The critical question is what is meant by “a sentence of full-time imprisonment” and whether that incorporates a period where the offender is subject to a sentence of imprisonment but has in fact been granted parole.

31․There are exceptions to the prohibition in s 80(1) where the good behaviour order or suspended sentence relates to an offence committed before the intensive correction order offence was committed. Notably s 80(4) deals with suspended sentences of imprisonment for an offence that was committed before the intensive correction order offence was committed. It refers to the situation where an offender is under a suspended sentence order but not in full-time detention.

32․Counsel for Ms Parlov submitted that she was not the subject of “a sentence of full time imprisonment” because, as a result of the parole order, she was not actually serving time in prison. It is difficult to reconcile that submission with the distinction drawn in s 80(4) between circumstances where a person is subject to a suspended sentence order and where they are subject to such an order but not in full-time detention. The drawing of that distinction indicates that the concept of a “suspended sentence of imprisonment" includes the whole of the sentence of imprisonment including both the portion of the sentence that is served in detention and the portion of the sentence which is served subject to a good behaviour order. In my view, the reference to a “sentence of full-time imprisonment” in s 80(1) should be read as being a sentence of imprisonment to be served by full-time detention as distinct from a suspended sentence order or an intensive correction order. Thus, a person will remain under a sentence of full-time imprisonment even if the person is released from that imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of the Act allowing grant of parole.

33․That conclusion is reinforced by the absence of any provisions which address the relationship between the revocation of parole and the cancellation of an intensive correction order. If the intention of the legislature was that an intensive correction order may operate during a period when a person was on parole, then there would likely have been provisions addressing what happened in circumstances where the grant of parole was cancelled. There are no such provisions. If parole was cancelled but the intensive correction order remained in place, then it would be ineffective. The CS Act does not link the cancellation of parole with any consequence for the intensive correction order.

34․Finally, such a conclusion is also consistent with the explanatory statement for the Crimes (Sentencing and Restorative Justice) Amendment Bill 2015 (ACT) which introduced the intensive correction order regime. Although that statement does not specifically address the meaning of “full-time imprisonment”, the manner in which it describes an intensive correction order as “a standalone sentence” and the manner in which it addresses subs 80(4) and (5) is consistent with the conclusions reached above based upon the text of the statute alone.

35․For these reasons s 80 is a barrier to the making of an intensive correction order concurrent with or consecutively upon the offender’s existing sentence.

36․That leaves as available options a sentence of imprisonment which would involve resetting the existing non-parole period or alternatively a partially suspended sentence of imprisonment. A partially suspended sentence of imprisonment might involve immediate release or require the service of a further period prior to release.

37․The adjournment of the proceedings and a grant of bail in order to permit Ms Parlov to attend the program in Orange would give her a further opportunity to make progress with and demonstrate her commitment to rehabilitation. If she successfully completes the program then that will be further evidence of her capacity to stay free of drugs and, I infer, free of further offending. In those circumstances, there will be a better case for release into the community subject to a regime of supervision. Although that regime of supervision is less intense and the mechanisms for dealing with any breach of the requirements of the good behaviour order are more cumbersome than those associated with an intensive correction order, there are mechanisms by which the offender may be punished and the community protected if she fails to stay on the right path.

Orders

38․The orders of the Court will involve a grant of bail to permit the offender to participate in the Elouera Women’s Program in Orange and the listing of the proceedings upon the offender’s completion of that program or her discharge from it.

39․I will hear from the parties as to the mechanics of this process and the precise terms of the order that should be made.

[The parties were heard and the following orders made]

1.The offender is granted bail on 17 April 2023 at 8:30am upon the following conditions:

(a)Upon release, report to ACT Corrective Services at 249 London Circuit, and then travel directly with her mother, [REDACTED] and present herself to ‘Lives Lived Well’ for intake into the Elouera Women’s Program by 4pm on the date of her release from custody.

(b)Complete the Elouera Women’s Program and comply with all reasonable directions given by the Elouera Women’s Program staff.

(c)Reside at [REDACTED] until the completion of the Elouera Women’s Program.

(d)Upon completion of the Elouera Women’s Program, return forthwith to Canberra and reside as directed by the Director-General.

(e)In the event she is involuntarily discharged, or self-discharged, from the Elouera Women’s Program, immediately advise her supervising ACT Correctives Services Officer and present self to the ACT Supreme Court on the next business day after her discharge.

(f)Comply with the conditions of the Parole Order dated 17 January 2023.

(g)Not contact, directly or indirectly, [REDACTED].

(h)Not be within 100m of [REDACTED], unless in relation to a Court proceeding.

(i)Not threaten, harass, intimidate or assault [REDACTED].

2.Direct that the offender is to file and serve any additional evidence arising from her participation in the Elouera Women’s Program no later than 2 June 2023.

3.The proceedings are listed for sentence on 5 June 2023 at 9:30am.

4.Liberty to apply for vacation of the hearing date if the offender remains in the Elouera Women’s Program on the listed sentence date.

Hearing on 9 June 2023

Introduction

40․Rebecca Parlov was granted bail on 17 April 2023 in order to permit her to complete the Eloura Women’s Program at a premises in Orange. She successfully completed a six‑week program. That program has involved various self‑improvement courses. Further documentary material that has been tendered indicates that she has available to her, upon release, access to a registered psychologist who saw her while she was in prison. She has been accepted into the Canberra Recovery Services day program and also a program run by Toora Women Inc. She also has access to counselling in the community with a counsellor who has seen her while in custody. She also has access to continuing support from the organisation that runs the Eloura Women’s Program for a period of up to six months. While it cannot be said with any degree of confidence that she will make full use of these various support services, it is positive that they are available. In a letter to the court, she continues to express a willingness to continue with her rehabilitation. She proposes not to accept the place in Canberra Recovery Services because it is a mixed-gender program and she is reluctant to associate with people who are only just commencing to address their drug addiction problems. It is her intention to participate in the program offered by Toora Women Inc.

41․When the matter returned to court on 5 June 2023 following the successful completion of the Eloura Women’s Program the sentencing options remain a backdated partially suspended sentence of imprisonment or alternatively a backdated sentence of imprisonment with a reset non-parole period.

42․Having regard to the successful completion of the rehabilitation program and the apparent motivation to continue with, at least, some of the available supports if she is released from custody, I considered that the appropriate course was to impose a partially suspended sentence of imprisonment that will allow her to remain in the community.

43․However, at the hearing on 5 June 2023 the parties identified a potential difficulty with such a course. That was because the provisions requiring the setting of a non-parole period (CS Act, ss 64, 65, 66) would operate in relation to a partially suspended sentence. As a consequence, notwithstanding that:

(a)the offender had previously been granted parole in relation to her earlier sentence; and

(b)the date upon which the non-parole period for the newly imposed sentence would have passed,

because of the cancellation and resetting of the non-parole period, the existing grant of parole would, at least arguably, be no longer effective and a further hearing would be required so that the offender would be required to spend a further period in custody before that could occur.

44․The proceedings were again adjourned so that parties could provide submissions as to whether this was in fact the law and upon any factual information about how long it might take the Sentence Administration Board (SAB) to consider the question of parole again.

45․So far as the law is concerned, having regard to the manner in which I propose to deal with the issue, it is not necessary to finally resolve the matter. However, as presently advised, I consider that the position is most likely to be that the cancellation and resetting of the non-parole period means that a previous grant of parole prior to the imposition of a further sentence is no longer effective, even if the end of the non-parole period remains the same when it is reset as a result of the imposition of the new sentence.

46․Having regard to the possibility that the court may reach that conclusion, counsel for the offender submitted that it would be open to the court to deal with the matter by the imposition of a wholly suspended sentence that took into account the time already spent in custody but did not include that time as part of the sentence. This is a course which has been adopted in previous cases such as R v McCallum [2020] ACTSC 15 at [81]‑[82]. It was recognised as a possibility in Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148; 3 ACTLR 210 at [65] and R v Ngerengere (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 299 at [62]. It was however a practice which was considered inappropriate in R v Johnston [2017] ACTSC 280 at [42] as representing a “manipulation of the circumstances and the sentences to get around the provisions of the Sentencing Act”. In the present case, the prosecution submitted that it was not appropriate to engage in such a course for the reasons explained in Johnston. Counsel submitted that a return to prison for a short period required for the SAB to address, on an expedited basis, a further application for a grant of parole would not interfere with the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation. If the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation were so fragile as to be affected by a short additional period of incarceration, then that would indicate that the approach adopted by the court more generally, and allowing the offender to re-enter the community, was inappropriate.

47․While I accept the general proposition that is not appropriate to manipulate a sentence so as to avoid the limitations of the CS Act, I nevertheless consider that in the present case the approach contended for by counsel for the offender should be adopted. It must be recognised that the CS Act is a complicated piece of legislation which, on occasion, has the potential, in the multitude of circumstances that can arise, to generate outcomes which do not reflect any particular conceivable legislative purpose. In such cases, it is not illegitimate to structure sentences in a way that achieves an appropriate sentencing outcome despite the prima facie operation of the legislation.

48․In the present case, the offender has previously obtained a grant of parole. Having considered the evidence and the sentencing submissions, I consider that it is appropriate that she continue with her rehabilitation in the community. Her circumstances since the grant of parole have only improved the case that she has for entry into the community, namely the completion of the Eloura Women’s Program and the evidence of an ongoing commitment to her rehabilitation. To require her to re-enter custody for the purpose of undertaking a process which would serve no useful purpose is unattractive. That is a course which I have concluded I should not adopt in circumstances where there is an alternative available which has been recognised and previously adopted in this court. That is to take account of the time served, not by way of the backdating of the sentence, but by simply shortening the sentence so that it reflects the balance of the term required to be served. I accept that this may have the effect of distorting bare sentencing statistics. However, anybody who takes the time to consider the reasons of the court will understand that the practical effect of the sentence is longer than the bare sentencing statistics would indicate. I will make a note in the terms of the orders which should dispel any misunderstanding of the sentence.

49․The sentence that I earlier indicated was a sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment. Since my earlier reasons she has spent three more days in custody which brings the total number of days in custody solely attributable to the current offending up to 272 days (approximately nine months). For the reasons that I have given, that period will be taken into account by shortening the overall sentence rather than by backdating. The effective sentence of three years and three months, shortened by the 272 days already spent in custody gives a sentence to be imposed of two years six months and three days. The sentence so adjusted will be suspended forthwith. The good behaviour order will be subject to a probation condition which gives the Director-General significant power to give directions to the offender.

50․The length of the suspended portion of the sentence of imprisonment is such that if she complies with the good behaviour order during that period then it is likely that the goal of rehabilitation will have been achieved. If she does not comply with the good behaviour order, either by further offending or otherwise, then in imposing the suspended portion of the sentence of imprisonment or in resentencing her, other sentencing considerations will have to play a more significant role. It should be clear to the offender that it is only her positive prospects of rehabilitation that have led to the lenient sentence. Should the offender come back before the court as a result of circumstances indicating that those prospects are no longer so positive then a more usual sentence of imprisonment for such serious offending would need to be imposed.

Orders

51․The orders of the Court are:

1.On the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2021/3902) the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years six months and three days commencing on 9 June 2023 and ending on 11 December 2025.

2.Note that this sentence has taken into account but does not include 272 days of pre-sentence custody.

3.The sentence is suspended on 9 June 2023 upon the offender entering into an undertaking to comply with her good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 for a period of two years and six months and three days with the additional conditions:

i.she be subject to supervision on parole by the Director-General for a period of two years six months and three days or such lesser period as determined by the Director-General and obey all reasonable directions of the Director-General during that period;

ii.she report to ACT Corrective Services, 249 London Circuit, Canberra no later than 4pm on 13 June 2023.

I certify that the preceding fifty-one [51] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence his Honour Justice Mossop

Associate:

Date: 30 June 2023