Director of Public Prosecutions v Parsons (a pseudonym)
[2024] VCC 1119
•22 July 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Unrestricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BRENDAN PARSONS (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE HIGHAM | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 July 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 22 July 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Parsons (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1119 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – Persistent contravention of family violence safety notice – Drive whilst suspended - possession of a drug of dependence - possession of a prohibited weapon without exemption - guilty plea – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 6AAA, s 18 ZP(1)(c)(d), s 18ZO
Sentence: Aggregate sentence of 10 months imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr S Tamburro | |
| For the Accused | Mr B Grimshaw |
HIS HONOUR:
1On the 20 February 2023 you were placed upon a DATO of 47 months’ duration by Her Honour Judge Gaynor for offending that comprised:
(a) 1 charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of methamphetamine;
(b) 1 charge of trafficking in GHB (1,4 butanediol); and
(c) 1 charge of possess DOD and various schedule 4 poisons.
2In comprehensive sentencing remarks Her Honour Judge Gaynor noted your concerning prior criminal history, your disadvantaged childhood of familial substance use and mental ill-health, and your commencement of substance use in your late adolescence.
3She referenced the conclusion of psychologist Ian McKinnon in a report dated 2 December 2022, diagnosing a complex post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression, and identified in your deep fear of abandonment.
4As to the circumstances of the offending Her Honour Judge Gaynor noted[1]: “your situation at the time of your offending was particularly dire. Your partner (Mia McDonald[2]) was pregnant, she got Covid very badly and had to be hospitalised, and your daughter (Sienna[3]) was born by caesarean section prematurely at about 36 weeks. There had already been involvement of child protection services because of the violence of Mia’s ex-partner. They became aware of your own history, and you were told you could not live at the house with your partner, nor could you assist her during the birth of your child.”
[1] Paragraphs 18 &19 of Her Honour Judge Gaynor’s sentencing remarks 20/2/23
[2] A pseudonym.
[3] A pseudonym.
5“In those circumstances you dealt with those difficulties as you probably have all your life, by using drugs as a means of self-soothing. In any event, it is clear that your habit soon was well beyond any financial means you had to support it and so you turned to the activities which have brought you here before the court.”
6Noting the prosecution’s reservation as to the sufficiency of the court’s sentencing powers, Her Honour Judge Gaynor stated[4] that: “in all the circumstances I am satisfied that I can, taking into account the mitigating factors, impose a sentence which is within the cut off for eligibility with drug and alcohol treatment order.”
[4] Ibid, paragraph 39 -42
7“I accept that you are remorseful for your offending. I accept that you had an extremely difficult childhood, so the principles of Bugmy v Q [2013] HCA 37 apply. I accept that at the time of your offending you were under particular stressors. I accept that you have done well in jail and have a genuine desire to reform and live a life which is drug-free and prosocial. I accept that you are suffering a complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and that jail is more than ordinarily difficult for you than for someone not suffering such a condition. And I accept that a continued term of imprisonment could result in serious injury to your mental health.”
8“I also note that this is serious offending and that principles, to some extent, of specific deterrence and general deterrence have a part to play in the sentencing exercise I must undertake.”
9She then pronounced sentence. The s 6AAA statement was 5 and a half years with a Non-Parole Period of 3 years and six months.
10You commenced on the order and was supervised by Her Honour Judge Gaynor, attending her regular list.
11On 11 August 2023 you were sentenced by Her Honour Judge Gaynor to a term of imprisonment of seven days for contravening a family violence intervention order. For the Commonwealth Charge of using a carriage service to harass you were convicted and discharged. The term of imprisonment was ordered to be wholly subsumed within the custodial part of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO).
12Relevantly, the victim in that matter was your intimate partner, Mia. The offending pre-dated the imposition of the DATO and related to calls made by you to her whilst you were on remand.
The ATC
13Initially on the order you maintained abstinence, one consequence of which, in addition to being progressed to Phase 2, was that in August 2023 you were permitted to live with your partner and children as a family.
14This reunion was short-lived however, as in October 2023 you and Ms McDonald separated. A full no contact FVIVO listing you as the respondent and Ms McDonald as the protected person was served upon you on 1 December 2023.
15From 8 November 2023 onwards your urine screens tested positive, with consistent detection of methamphetamine as well as other substances. Your test results were consistent with a full relapse into drug use.
16There followed increasing disengagement with your order obligations, missing appointments and drug testing, as your Incentive and Sanctions sheets and the Progress Report make clear (see ATC exhibit 1 and exhibit 2).
17On 1 February 2024 you failed to turn up for your weekly review. On 2 February 24 you were told by Her Honour Judge Gaynor that you would be ordered to serve activated sanction days. However, you pleaded various commitments and ill-health. Her Honour permitted you to attend to those, but indicated in the clearest terms that you would be serving sanctions the following week.
18You however did not appear for your next scheduled review on the 6 February 24 – listed in front of me – despite the clearest expectation for your attendance, nor did you attend the following day 7 February 24.
19A warrant was then issued for your arrest on that day, and on the 12 February 24 an Application To Cancel was filed under s 18 ZP(1)(c) and (1)(d): that you were not willing to comply with one or more conditions attached to the order (1)(c) and that the continuation of the Treatment & Supervision part of the order was not likely to achieve one or more of the purposes for which the order was made (1) (d).
20On 19 February you were remanded by the Melbourne Magistrates Court on new offending including family violence offending committed against your intimate partner Mia. On 20 February the outstanding warrant from this court was executed and you were brought before His Honour Judge Sexton pursuant to the terms of the warrant. His Honour Judge Sexton ordered that you serve 14 days of activated sanctions pursuant to 18ZL(1)(f).
21The first ATC mention was on 26 February when a progress report and participant summary reports were ordered (ATC Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). The court was then informed of your remand on the new offending and that there were other charges sought to be resolved. The ATC was listed for substantive hearing on 4 April 2024 and was then further adjourned to enable the new charges to be transferred to this court under the provisions of S 18ZO.
22By 17 April 2024 all resolved charges had been transferred to this court and there were thus two separate proceedings in front of the court. It was common ground between the parties that the plea should be dealt with first before the determination of the ATC. The plea was heard on the 13 May and 14 June 24.
23The powers of the Drug Court to deal with an offender participant charged with an offence (whether alleged to have been committed before or after a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was made) are set out in s 18ZO of the Sentencing Act.
24Relevantly s18Z0(1A) reads: If an offender who is subject to a DATO made by the Drug Court Division of the County Court is charged with, and pleads guilty to, an offence that is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court
(a)the Magistrates Court must order that the proceeding in respect of a charge is transferred to the Drug Court division of the County Court and
(b)the Drug Court division of the County Court may deal with the offender for that offence'.
25Section 18ZO(2) provides: If
(a)the Drug Court convicts the offender of the offence and imposes a sentence of imprisonment on the offender in respect of the offence and
(b)the Drug Court does not suspend the sentence in whole or in part; and
(c)the length of the sentence imposed is not more than the remaining length of the custodial part of the DATO (as calculated in accordance with S 18ZE(2)(a)); and
(d)the offence is a kind of offence in respect of which the Drug Court could make a DATO if the offender were not already subject to one
in imposing the sentence, the Drug Court may order that the sentence is subsumed within the custodial part of the drug and alcohol treatment order.
26Section 18ZO (3) provides for when the court does not subsume any imposed sentence within the custodial part of the DATO and the powers therefore enlivened under S18ZN (1)(b)(i) or (ii): (i.e. cancelling of the Treatment & Supervision part of the DATO and activating all or part or the remaining custodial term, or re-sentencing to a non-custodial disposition).
27The legislation thus prescribes a four-stage process.
(i)Firstly, the court determines whether it would deal with the new offence.
(ii)Secondly, if the court does so determine, the court will then hear the new offending and determine the appropriate sentence for that offending.
(iii)Thirdly, if the court sentences to an immediate term of imprisonment, the court will then determine whether, in the exercise of its discretion, to order that the sentence be subsumed within the remaining length of the custodial part of the DATO, if the sentence can be so subsumed.
(iv)Fourthly and finally, if the court determines not to order the sentence be subsumed, or the sentence cannot be subsumed, the court must cancel the treatment and supervision part of the order and take one of the two prescribed actions under 18NZ(1)(b)(i) or (ii). That is activate some or all of the remaining custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order or re-sentence to a non-custodial order.
The Plea
28On the 13 May I indicated my preparedness to deal with the new transferred offending, and you pleaded guilty to the following 5 charges (court reference ending 470):
(i)2 charges of persistent contravention of family violence safety notice (Charge 1 informant Holmes and Charge 1 informant Frisken) for which the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment;
(ii)1 charge of drive whilst suspended (Charge 1 informant Milburn) for which the maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment;
(iii)1 charge of possession of a drug of dependence (Charge 6 informant Frisken) for which the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment; and
(iv)1 charge of possession of a prohibited weapon without exemption (Charge 7 informant Frisken) for which the maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment.
29Tendered as exhibit one on the Plea was a Summary of Prosecution Opening which set out the agreed facts of your offending. In brief, the circumstances of your offending were as follows:
30On 1 December 2023 a Family Violence Interim Intervention Order was served on you in relation to your former intimate partner, Ms Mia McDonald and the mother of Sienna, your daughter.
31Between 7 December 2023 and 9 December 2023 you made a total of 40 phone calls to your victim (Charge 1 informant Holmes).
32On 8 December 2023, Ms McDonald answered one phone call and upon identifying your voice hung up the phone. Ms McDonald attended Fawkner Police Station and provided a statement to Police. Phone checks by police of the outgoing and ingoing call logs between you and your victim confirmed that the calls made to the victim were from you.
33On 3 January 2024 you were observed driving a black Volkswagen Golf on Pascoe Vale Road and were subsequently intercepted by police. You were arrested and taken to Fawkner Police Station where you provided a no comment interview. As was of course your right. You were charged and bailed. Further enquiries revealed that your license was suspended on 19 October 2023 and this suspension was still active (Charge 1 informant Milburn).
34Between 14 January and 8 February 2024 you called Ms McDonald on a total of 220 occasions utilising two different phone numbers (Charge 1 informant Frisken). During this period, your victim would occasionally answer the phone calls due to an unknown caller ID, and would hang up upon hearing your voice.
35On 7 February 2024, Ms McDonald attended Broadmeadows Police Station to report the matter. Whilst providing her statement you called your victim, again. Ms McDonald answered your call, placed you on loudspeaker, and identified your voice to First Constable Healey.
36You engaged in a consistent, ongoing pattern of offending behaviour in which you insisted on resuming the relationship and attempted to guilt your victim out of reporting your breaches.
37On 14 February 2024 Police attended your address in Brunswick. Whilst outside they heard noise inside the apartment, however the door was not answered. (You do not accept that you were present in your apartment at this time).
38Police obtained keys from the real estate agency but you had changed the locks. Accordingly, entry was forced. You were not in the apartment at the time of entry. Police called to advise you of the outstanding County Court warrant. You told police that you had other things to do and that you needed to see your daughter first.
39On 15 February 2024, police were advised by the body corporate of the building that you had returned and asked other residents to let you in, as your access FOB was deactivated. You eventually gained access to the building, took your personal belongings, and left.
40On 19 February 2024, Police re-attended your address and you were located inside the apartment. Police seized two zip lock bags containing methylamphetamine (charge 6 informant Frisken), a glass pipe, 2 mobile phones, and a single silver knuckle duster (charge 7 Informant Frisken).
41You were conveyed to Broadmeadows Police Station for interview. During your interview you confirmed your current phone numbers and told police that you call Ms McDonald 1-2 times a day to talk about your daughter and seek support for your ongoing drug use and that on one occasion you flew off the handle.
42You were charged and remanded, where you have remained since that day.
43The focus of the plea was the FV offending.
44Exhibit 3 on the plea was a victim impact statement from Ms McDonald where she speaks of the impact of this offending upon her anxiety, her sense of self-worth, and her sense of safety. Whilst it cannot be allowed to overwhelm the sentencing process, there can be no doubt as to the traumatic event that your offending has had upon your victim.
45Exhibit 5 JR was a letter to the court from Brianna Caulfield[5] who has come to know you via the kindergarten Mia’s children attended. I also received (Exhibit 8JR) the original psychological report from Mr Ian McKinnon dated 2 December 2022 which set out your personal narrative, and an addendum report from Mr McKinnon (Exhibit 9JR) dated 9 June 2024, and a letter to the court written by yourself (Exhibit 6 JR).
[5] A pseudonym.
46You have a lengthy prior history going back to 2010. Most relevantly, and concernedly, these charges represent your 4th and 5th conviction for contravening a FVIVO where the victim is Ms McDonald. Whilst of course you do not fall to be sentenced again for matters in respect of which you have already been dealt with by the courts, your prior criminal history impacts my assessment of the need for specific deterrence, your prospects for rehabilitation, your moral culpability, and the need to protect the community from you.
Submissions
47Mr Grimshaw on your behalf conceded that only an immediate term of imprisonment sufficiently addressed all relevant sentencing purposes. He recognised that the persistent breach of an FVIVO represents serious offending, causing distress to the victim.
48In mitigation of sentence, he urged upon me:
(i)your plea of guilty, bringing with it the practical benefit of saving the community the time and costs, and for your victim the trauma, of a trial;
(ii)your disadvantaged childhood reducing your moral culpability;
(iii)that the two charges of persistent FVIVO contravention were close in time requiring significant concurrency of sentence; and
(iv)that you now had a new partner who was a positive influence for you, and thus reduced risks of any future contact.
49As to the circumstances of the offending, he submitted that you were deeply distressed that your relationship had ended and equally distressed at the separation this entailed from your daughter. This had prompted your relapse, as was evidenced by the contemporaneity of the positive UDS screens, and was the context for the offending.
50He later clarified your state of mind in these terms: that you believed you had been badly treated by a Child Protection system which had separated you from your daughter; that further you believed Ms McDonald to be a (bad) actor in that process; that when you heard that Seinna was no longer in the care of Ms McDonald (due to her ill-health), and could possibly be in out of home care you were triggered and that drove your actions. Had you not been using you would not have offended.
51His ultimate submission was that any term of imprisonment should be subsumed within the remaining custodial part of the DATO and that you should be permitted to continue on the order: ‘if he has the opportunity in future he will approach the order differently”.
52Ms Worrell on behalf of the Director submitted that this was serous offending, persistent and purposive, with calls made at all hours of the day and night over a period of three weeks. She conceded that your plea of guilty was entered at an early opportunity. She questioned whether it was appropriate to subsume any custodial term under s 18ZO.
Objective gravity
53Family Violence offending will always be regarded as serious offending by the courts and general deterrence will always have a significant role to play. There is a clear need for all to understand that FVIVO’s are there to protect from family violence, and those who breach them can expect to be dealt with severely by the courts. That message must be understood.
54Over a period of 3 weeks in contravention of clear court orders you contacted your victim. I do not accept the reasons you have advanced for the making of the calls. The fact that your offending consisted in multiple phone calls is not a lesser form of FV: such contact has the clear capacity to traumatise and trigger the victim, as is clear from the Victim Impact Statement of Ms McDonald.
55The offending in Charge 1 Frisken is aggravated by the fact that it was committed whilst you were on bail for earlier offending in respect of the same victim, that you were a respondent in a full no-contact FVIVO, and that you were on a County Court of Victoria DATO.
56It may be that you were ruminating on the perceived wrongs that the system had done to you fuelled by the substance use to which you had returned; It may be that you were concerned for the whereabouts of your child; but calls are not simply made in the early hours of the morning to discuss childcare arrangements.
57It is difficult to see what possible purpose could be served by your conduct other than to impose your will upon your victim and to let her know that she had not got away from you or your control. You knew full well what you were doing, and I find you knew full well that what you were doing was wrong. You had ample opportunity to cease your conduct but did not. Your moral culpability for this offending is high.
General principles
58Mr Parsons in sentencing you I must have regard to a range of different factors. I must give effect to the principal of general deterrence that is, to deter others from behaving as you did, and to specific deterrence, that is to deter you from ever repeating such offending. I must consider the need to protect the community. I must express the community’s denunciation of your conduct. I must take into account the effect of your crimes upon the community. I must have regard to current sentencing practices and the statutory maximum penalties for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. I must ensure as far as possible that you are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
59In short, I must try to balance your personal circumstances with the circumstances of your offending. I must also pass no greater sentence than is necessary in all the circumstances of the case as I find them to be.
Sentence
60On Charge 6 Informant Frisken you are convicted and discharged.
61On Charge 1 Informant Milburn – driving whilst suspended, you are sentenced to 2 months imprisonment.
62On Charge 7 Informant Frisken – possess a prohibited weapon without an exemption, you are sentenced to 2 months imprisonment.
63As to the above charges 1 and 7, I have no hesitation is subsuming them within the remaining custodial term of your DATO.
64As regards the FV offending, sentencing purposes of general and specific deterrence and protection of your victim must all have a significant role to play.
65In sentencing you I have had regard to all the matters urged upon me by your counsel. For the avoidance of doubt I have particular regard to:
(i)Your plea of guilty – as an indication of your willingness to facilitate the course of justice and as saving the community the time and expense of a trial;
(ii)To your disadvantaged childhood and how that framed much of your adolescent and adult life;
(iii)I have regard to the principle of totality which requires suitable moderation of individual sentences and any cumulation.
66Nonetheless having regard to the objective gravity of the offending as you must be aware and as your counsel conceded, the only appropriate sentence disposition is a term of imprisonment.
67In regard to the FVIO offending, Charge 1 Informant Holmes and Charge 1 Informant Frisken, I sentence you to an aggregate sentence of 10 months imprisonment.
68Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), had you not pleaded guilty, a total effective sentence of 16 months imprisonment would have been imposed.
69The key question that falls now for determination is whether this term of imprisonment may be subsumed within the remaining custodial term of the DATO pursuant to s 18ZO.
70To give meaning to S18ZO(2)(d) namely that - the offence is a kind of offence in respect of which the Drug Court could make a DATO if the offender were not already subject to one - requires consideration of the foundational requirements for a DATO, both prescriptive and proscriptive, as set out in S18Z. In particular, the need for the court to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender’s drug or alcohol dependency contributed to the commission of the offence.
71The question of contribution had been flagged as a question of relevance and concern for the court’s determination from the outset of the plea proceedings, (the accepted orthodoxy being that family violence is not driven by substance dependence (Exhibit 1)).
72Ms Worrell submitted that there was no evidence before the court that your substance dependency contributed to the offending. Whilst it was accepted that you had relapsed (Exhibit 1 and 2 ATC) she submitted, correctly, that it was not enough for the defence to say that the offending coincided with a relapse. There must be some demonstrated contribution of the dependency to the offending before the court. The plea was then adjourned to 14 June 2024 for further submissions.
73On the adjourned plea the defence filed a further report from Mr McKinnon dated 9 June 2024 (Exhibit 9JR) and based on a video consult conducted on 31 May 2024. That report was an almost complete facsimile of Mr McKinnon’s earlier report (Exhibit 8JR), save for the addition of a passage directed at this very issue of contribution, based entirely on your self-report, fully understanding the importance of establishing a connection between your substance dependency and the new offending.
74Relevantly, you told Mr McKinnon that: “…then in January I heard my daughter wasn’t with Mia any more. DHHS wouldn’t tell me where she was, who she was with, I got into a feedback loop. My anxieties, my depression got worse. I’d smoke ice because of it, then get worse. I was gambling a lot, on pokies. I can relate that to the phone calls (which contravened the FVIVO). Persistent thoughts. I’d call, I’d be on autopilot. No aggression, no malice. If I didn’t smoke drugs, I wouldn’t have called her. Consequential thinking isn’t there when you’re smoking ice.”
75As self-serving as that report may be, and noting that no evidence was called, I nonetheless cannot find, on the material in front of me, an absence of a connection between your relapse into Drug use and the offending. Accordingly, I find the requirement of contribution is met.
Exercise of Discretion
76To order that a sentence be subsumed within the existing custodial part of a DATO is an exercise of the court’s discretion. It is clear, and accepted by the parties, that in exercising this discretion the court may have regard to more than the mere circumstances of the offence. It may be that the broad discretion contained in S 18Z(3) namely that the Drug Court must not make a DATO unless (a) it is satisfied in all the circumstances that it is appropriate to do so serves a guide.
77Factors such as: whether the offence was committed during the currency of the order or before the DATO commenced, the progress of the offender whilst on the order, and whether the risk profile of the offender has elevated to the point where their continuing on the DATO could not keep them or the community safe, would all be highly relevant matters for consideration in the exercise of the court’s discretion.
78Mr Grimshaw submitted on your behalf that the court did have the capacity to mitigate any risk of future offending – particularly FV offending. That this offending was committed within a specific setting that was unlikely to be repeated, and that you now had a new partner, which in itself was a mitigating factor for future risk.
79I do not share such confidence.
80As stated above, these charges represent your 4th and 5th conviction for contravening a FVIVO where the victim is Ms McDonald. The offending in Charge 1 (Informant Frisken) was committed whilst you were on bail for earlier contraventions in respect of the same victim, and whilst you were a respondent in a full no-contact FVIVO, and whilst you were on a County Court of Victoria DATO. In this regard, the progress report (Exhibit 1 ATC) is very relevant.
81Mr Harrison Suidgeest, your Case Manager, states: “During this time (from the point of relapse), Mr Parsons was heavily fixated on the status of his relationship with Mia during Case Manager sessions. He gave regular attention to the perceived pressure being placed on his relationship and often attributed their relationship breakdown to Mia’s own struggle with mental health. For the remainder of Mr Parsons’s time....on his DATO it became increasingly difficult to direct his attention onto his own substance use and mental health concerns.”
82Ms Roos stated: “from the first appointment onwards, Mr Parsons questioned being considered a perpetrator of family violence and reflected on his past behaviours in this context. Initially he expressed misogynistic themes and thinking patterns. He thought himself as the main provider for the family as well as taking on a carer’s role for Mia. Mr Parsons was often focused on discussing the wellbeing of Mia and was regularly required to be redirected to focus on his own recovery trajectory.
83Ms Jones commented that: “his risk to the community via ongoing (alleged) breaches of his FV order has increased. The recent MARAM safety assessment warrants serious consideration in the formulation of appropriate interventions and determining whether a DATO plan can provide adequate family violence interventions to mitigate risk, where substance use is not the precursor to the use of violence.”
84In view of your progressive disengagement your counselling team urged you to focus on your own recovery, but you failed to respond or listen to their cautions and counselling.
85You struggle with attachment and have an intense fear of abandonment and rejection (Exhibit 8JR). This is a consequence of your fractured and disordered childhood upbringing. It however elevates the risk to your intimate partners when any relationship comes to an end.
86You told Mr McKinnon that you since December 2023 you had been involved with another partner, nine years your senior, adding: “She’s very mature. No arguing, respectful, no co-dependency. We’ve got a really healthy relationship. Some of my phone calls (that contravened the FVIVO) I intended to let Mia know I’d moved on with (my new partner). I think Mia must have not accepted, and is angry, over me moving on. I’ve learnt from my mistakes. I can’t go backwards. I won’t do anything to jeopardize my relationship with my daughter.”
87The date of your new relationship does not explain the Frisken offending (which began in January 2024). You appear to demonstrate no insight into your offending. You appear to blame your victim and present a motive for her making false allegations against you. It is of great concern.
88You present as a risk of re-offending: neither a DATO nor custody has prevented your offending. It is a risk that cannot be managed on the DATO, as this offending makes abundantly clear.
89Having regard to these matters, the term of 10 months imprisonment is not ordered to be subsumed within the remaining custodial term and thus the Treatment & Supervision part of your DATO is cancelled under S 18ZO(3).
0