Director of Public Prosecutions v Price
[2025] VCC 505
•23 April 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
GENERAL LIST
Case No. CR-24-01015
Indictment No. P11223002
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JAMES PRICE |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 1 November 2024 and 16 April 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 23 April 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Price | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 505 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing
Catchwords: Guilty plea - obtaining financial advantage by deception - obtaining property by deception - making a false document – total amount $51,750 – sent a false receipt to the victim – ‘Ponzi scheme’ – offending maintaining drug habit and lifestyle - diagnosis of ADHD – Limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins enlivened – very good prospects of rehabilitation – remorse for offending – no prior convictions – general deterrence.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991; Crimes Act 1958
Cases Cited:R v Elias [2007] VSCA 125; Maddock v The Queen [2020] VSCA 271; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342; DPP v Bulfin [1998] VSC 261.
Sentence: Combination sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment with a 18 Month Community Correction Order.
6AAA: Three and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr M. Cookson | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Mr L. Richter | Stary Norton Halpen |
HIS HONOUR:
1James Price, you have pleaded guilty to two rolled up charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception, one rolled up charge of obtaining property by deception, and one offence of making a false document. The maximum penalty for each offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2The facts relating to your offences are set out in the Prosecution Opening which was tendered as an exhibit on the plea. Those facts were not disputed.
3You were born in January 1994. Therefore, at the time of the offending you were between 23 and 26 years old.
4The first victim in this matter, Ella Parsons, was your girlfriend at the time of the offences. The second victim, Brett Parsons, is her father. He was 56 years old when the offending against him started. The third victim, Nicholas Parsons, is Ella Parson’s older brother. The Parsons family home was in Malvern East which is where the victims lived. You stayed there a lot of the time. You were almost part of the family.
5Your association with the Parsons family began in January 2014, when you met Nick Parsons in a bar in the CBD. You told Nick Parsons you were a financial advisor and made significant returns to your clients and you had a degree in finance and economics from Melbourne University. Through Nick Parsons you were introduced to the rest of the Parsons family.
6You met Ella Parsons in September 2016 and in February 2017, you started a relationship with her.
7In July 2017, you offered to invest in shares for Ella Parsons at a fixed rate of return. No documents were signed. Ella Parsons trusted you to invest her money. She withdrew $5,000 from her NAB account and gave it to you to invest. She made a further cash withdrawal of $5,500 on 4 December 2017 and gave that to you as well. You did not intend to invest this money, and you did not invest this money. This is the basis of Charge 1, obtaining $10,500 by deception.
8In 2018 and 2019, Ella Parsons transferred further cash amounts from her NAB bank account into bank accounts nominated by you. The dates and amounts of those transfers are set out in the prosecution opening. Seven transfers took place between 21 February 2018 and 21 August 2019. Five of the transfers were for $8,000, one was for $4,000 and another for $1,750.
9You did not invest the money transferred and nor did you ever intend to do so. The total amount of money transferred into your bank accounts was $51,750. This is the basis of Charge 2, obtain financial advantage by deception.
10In December 2019, Ella Parsons asked to withdraw her money. She also requested a written agreement confirming the conditions of the original verbal agreement. You did this by email on 30 June 2020.
11In 2019 you obtained employment with Escala Partners, a financial and investment advice company. You were listed on their website as a, 'strategist/fixed income markets'. The website suggested you had a Bachelor of Finance and Economics from Melbourne University and experience in domestic and global credit and hybrid markets with a focus on high yielding and distressed corporate credit.
12
You persuaded Brett Parsons to switch his superannuation funds to Escala Partners. In October 2019, you told Mr Parsons you could invest his money, or some of his money, in the US stock market and purchase Freddi Mac and Fannie Mae shares, and that they would yield higher returns than investing in the Australian share market. You said you would invest his money through a unit investment company you had set up called JA Price Angora Unit Trust. You used your work email and your Gmail address to communicate about this with
Mr Parsons.
13Between 16 October 2019 and 11 March 2020, Mr Parsons transferred $75,000 into the Angora Trust bank account you had set up with Macquarie Bank.
14You did not invest these monies, and you never intended to do so. These monies are separate to superannuation funds held with Escala.
15By 30 June 2020, you had withdrawn all the money which Brett Parsons had deposited into your Macquarie bank account, and you had closed that account.
16In relation to Nick Parsons, he started making investments with you on 24 June 2016. You told him you expected a return of between five and 10 per cent over a five-year period. It is not suggested by the prosecution that the money Nick Parsons gave you was improperly invested. These investments though are part of the background to the offending against Nick Parsons.
17Over the period Nick Parsons gave you money to invest, you provided him with several spreadsheets containing a running tally of money invested. Over time Nick Parsons noticed what he thought were inconsistencies in the spreadsheets. You assured him everything was in order.
18Nick Parsons expected the final balance of his investments would be a total of $193,405 at the end of the five years. Over the five-year period he withdrew $86,420 from the money invested.
19In 2019, Nick Parsons told you he wanted to withdraw the full balance. You agreed but then made excuses for delaying the withdrawal and you sent several emails to him. About 12 months later you allowed him to withdraw $35,000 of his money. He insisted he wanted to withdraw the remaining balance which was approximately $159,000. On 19 July 2020, you sent a Macquarie Bank payment receipt to Nick Parsons representing that you had transferred $159,000 into his ING bank account. This was a false document created by you. Nick Parsons later realised the receipt you had sent him was false when the $159,000 did not arrive in his bank account. This is the basis Charge 3, making a false document.
20On 22 July 2020, Ella Parsons told you she felt uneasy about investing with you. You admitted you had lied to her about the money that she and her father had given you, and that the money was never invested. Ella Parsons recorded this conversation.
21Later that same day, you sent an email to Ella Parsons admitting that the money had never been invested and that you had, 'lied to you about almost everything in relation to your money'. You asked her to keep the email strictly to herself with no exception. You described your actions as a Ponzi scheme. You emphasised that you needed to retain your employment, and that she should not show your admissions to anyone.
22On 27 July 2020, Brett Parsons had a meeting with you, Ella Parsons and an accountant, Arthur Brouwer. You admitted to taking the family money. You signed a confession detailing your, 'Ponzi scheme'. You undertook to repay the money to the Parsons family.
23You paid a total of $18,000 to Ella Parsons in late 2020. You paid $5,000 to Brett Parsons up to December 2020.
24In December 2020, or sometime after that, you ceased communicating with the Parsons family and made no further repayments.
25The Parsons family reported the matter to the police after you ceased contact with them. They made statements in June 2021. By that time, you had moved to New South Wales and the police file was moved to New South Wales. An interview was arranged for 17 June 2022, but you did not attend. Police were contacted by a solicitor who indicated you were declining to be interviewed.
26Enquires with Melbourne University revealed that you were enrolled in a Bachelor of Environment from 2013 to 2017, but you did not graduate in that course, or any other course. Your enrolment was withdrawn in January 2018. Some of the documents tendered on your behalf indicate that you later enrolled at Monash University in a business or finance course, but you did not finish that course.
27Additionally, I have heard evidence that since the plea was conducted last week, a further $15,000 has been transferred, increasing the compensation made. Of course you can make compensation now, but the victims have not had access to their money for quite a few years now, and they have lost potential returns that they might have achieved over that time if they had not given the money to you. Nonetheless, you have made some efforts at compensating the victims, and it seems to me if when you are ultimately released from prison you can obtain employment, there is a prospect of further compensation being made, albeit belatedly.
Procedural History
28You indicated your plea of guilty on 21 June 2024, prior to a contested committal hearing listed on that day. No witnesses gave evidence, and the matter resolved on that day.
29The matter was listed before me for a plea hearing last year and I heard the prosecution opening and the victim impact statements. There have been various difficulties with your representation and several adjournments prior to the plea proceeding on 16 April 2025.
30Your plea of guilty was not at the first reasonably opportunity, but I still regard it as an early plea, and no witnesses have ever been cross-examined in this case. Your plea of guilty indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. It has significant utilitarian value. You have spared the police, the prosecution, and the court the use of the resources required for a trial. You have also spared the victims the experience of having to give evidence about these matters and relive these experiences. I am satisfied your guilty plea also indicates remorse. Your plea of guilty is a significant matter in mitigation.
31Of course, from the moment you made your confessions in this matter, a guilty plea was inevitable, given what you had said, which had been recorded.
Victim Impact Statements
32Turning then to the victim impact statements in this matter. I would observe generally that the impact on the victims in this case has been very significant, Brett Parsons, Nick Parsons, and Ella Parsons all refer to the betrayal of personal trust involved in this offending.
33Brett Parsons, in his Victim Impact Statement, says that your offending has caused him many sleepless nights and ill health due to constant thoughts of anger, anxiety and frustration at what happened. He also feels devastated to see the impact of your offending on his wife and children. He felt ashamed when he had to admit to his wife that he had been deceived by you. He says she had entrusted him to look after their finances and future retirement. He feels ashamed to admit to family and friends he was deceived. The offending has destroyed his trust in people.
34He says you have forever tarnished the loving environment and memories created for his children in their home. He describes your presence in his home over two years as involving deceit and disgusting manipulation.
35He says the crime has caused immediate financial losses in respect of many years of hard work and savings had been stripped from him and his wife. At the age of 62 this has caused him financial hardship and severely impacted his ability to provide for himself and his wife's future retirement and financially assist his children.
36Nick Parsons says that his overall well-being and enjoyment of life has been severely impacted. He feels betrayed and manipulated. He says the weight of the financial and emotional consequences of the offending continue to burden him. Your offending has caused strained relationships in the Parsons family. It has deeply affected his interactions with his father, mother and sister.
37Initially, he was shocked, now he feels hurt, anger and frustration. He says he constantly battles anxiety and stress and has received professional help to address the emotional trauma caused by your offending.
38He believes that the stress he has experienced because of your offending has caused him ill health. Your offending has also had a substantial impact on his social life.
39Ella Parsons says this:
'The crime committed by James Price is the highest form of betrayal I have experienced. It has caused me severe emotional trauma, stress, anger and anxiety, of which I am still working to repair. I was in a relationship with James Price for approximately four years and learning of the deceit and betrayal of someone who I believed to be so close to me and over such a long time was devastating'.
40She said that she feels as though you manipulated and coerced her in the relationship and you have made her feel used and discarded. She believes the relationship was built on deception and lies. She says she has had many sleepless nights and poor health and continues to suffer from anxiety. She says:
'My family welcomed James Price into our home, fed him under our roof, included him in family events, celebrated his birthday. He took advantage of the generosity of my mother, father and brother, and my extended family also welcomed him. To return this generosity and kindness with such deceit and manipulation makes me ashamed to reflect on this and deeply saddens me how this has impacted them emotionally and psychologically'.
41She also talks about the financial impact of your offending, the impact on her wider family, and the impact on her physical health as well. It is obvious from these statements that the impact on the Parsons family has been profound, and the impact on the victims is a significant matter informing the need for just punishment for these offences.
Seriousness of the offending
42Each of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, which reflects the seriousness of the offences you have committed and is a guidepost towards the appropriate sentence.
43It is obvious that your offending has had a very substantial impact on Ella, Brett and Nick Parsons who trusted you and feel utterly betrayed by your conduct. Your victims were individuals without the financial resources of govt entities or corporations to absorb loss.
44Whilst it is true that in relation to Ella and Nick Parsons you were not in an official position as their financial advisor, your conduct was still an appalling breach of trust. In the case of Brett Parsons, in my opinion you had installed yourself as a type of de facto financial advisor and you did use your employment with Escala to induce him to invest in your scheme. You also used your personal relationship with him to obtain his money.
45The trust breach here has been acutely painful to the victims because of their close personal connection to you. In the circumstances of this case, I do not think it the fact that you were not in an official role such as a solicitor in relation to trust funds, or a company accountant, reduces to any significant extent the breach of trust involved, and general deterrence must still be given its proper emphasis.
46I accept there was a complexity to the offending in this case. You produced spreadsheets, you engaged in an ongoing deception as to how the supposed investments were performing, particularly in relation to Ella Parsons. You set up bank accounts. You utilised what knowledge you had about investments to induce Brett Parsons to think investing in the US market was an attractive proposition. The offending continued for about two years.
47This was serious dishonesty offending for several reasons, even though the quantum of what you obtained is at the lower end of matters dealt with in this court.
48Your counsel, Mr Richter, submitted the context of your offences was your cocaine use and your need to keep up appearances as someone who was, 'successful, generous, carefree and fun'. Mr Richter submitted that I should form the view that your use of cocaine in the context of your social difficulties which are described in Mr Patrick Newton’s psychological report, provide relevant contextual information to the offending. He said your limitations in the ability to form friendships and relationships and your unease in social situations go some way to explaining your need to be accepted by the Parsons family and present yourself in a positive light.
49I accept that your cocaine use was related to the offending in this case. I also accept that you were trying to present yourself in a certain light. None of that mitigates the offending, but it does provide some context.
50The complexity of the offending, the appalling breach of personal trust, and the duration of the offending, all indicate substantial moral culpability. You took substantial sums of money from people who had taken you in and whom you were very close to.
Personal Circumstances
51You are now 31 years old.
52You were born in Queensland. You are the oldest of your parents' three children. You moved to Melbourne at the age of one when your parents separated. Your mother re-partnered with a man named John Price. You began living with his family when you were about eight years old. When you were 12 to 13 years old the family moved to the United States for your stepfather's employment and then to South Africa, where you completed your secondary education at a boarding school.
53You then returned to Melbourne where you enrolled in an environment degree which you did not complete. You later spent one semester studying business at Monash.
54You report a history of substance abuse from your early teenage years until 2020. You report having abused alcohol from young age and since 2013, when you were 19 years old, you have been a prolific user of cocaine, which was a central part of your lifestyle. You say the offending was related to maintaining your drug habit and lifestyle and dealing with resulting financial problems.
55You obtained work in the financial services industry at various companies, eventually obtaining the job at Escala Partners where you were employed at the time of the offending.
56
When you lost your employment because of this offending you moved to New South Wales and lived on a farm. You received Centrelink payments. You
re-partnered and moved back to Melbourne. The relationship ended in the context of the legal proceedings in this case.
57You have taken courses in software engineering, and you have been employed by a company called Kraken as software engineer since 2022. You stopped working there in March because of this matter. I have assumed you understood a period of imprisonment was inevitable for this offending.
58In 2024, you started a new relationship. You have returned to your Christian faith and you, and your partner, are committed to the church. You attend a fortnightly bible studies group and go to church every Sunday. You have the support of your mother and siblings. You have a small social circle. Your sister and new partner have attended at the plea hearings in this matter, and I recall that your mother was also present at one of the earlier hearings in this matter.
59You have no criminal history and no matters pending.
Mental health
60Psychological reports from Mr Patrick Newton, from Boutique Psychology, and a letter from psychologist, Patricia Lu, were tendered on your behalf. You saw Patricia Lu between February 2023 and October 2024 for your mental health conditions, including ADHD.
61You were first diagnosed with ADHD in May/June 2020. You were then prescribed Ritalin. You say that this improved the clarity of your thinking. Mr Newton, in his report, describes your ADHD diagnosis as well established.
62In the psychological report from Boutique Psychology, dated 7 February 2025, you are diagnosed as having Autism Spectrum Disorder ('ASD'). However, Mr Newton said this with respect to the finding of Boutique Psychology:
'While Mr Price is emotionally distant and rigid in his interactions, he presents with a developed capacity to engage in perspective taking and is capable of sophisticated reciprocal interactions with others. Notwithstanding some eccentricity he has a developed capacity for communication and does not manifest the restricted repetitive narrowing of interest characteristic of those with ASD'.
63He also referred to your ability, ‘to independently perform tasks requiring detailed analysis and high-level integration’. He said that his findings do not support a diagnosis of ASD.
64Mr Richter accepted that the evidence is insufficient for me to find you have ASD. He did, however, submit that the psychological material establishes that you are, 'mildly eccentric', and you are rigid, easily unsettled and ill at ease. You find it difficult to form and maintain personal and intimate relationships. You struggle in social situations, according to the material. Mr Richter did not submit there is a causal nexus between these issues and the offending, but submitted they operate in the background and provide an explanation. I accept this.
65You suffered depression in 2015 when you struggled emotionally after your return to Australia.
66There is no dispute you suffer from ADHD. Mr Richter submitted there is a genuine risk that you will not be provided with Ritalin in custody, which will exacerbate your ADHD. Furthermore, Mr Richter submitted that your personality type will render you vulnerable in prison.
67Based on these matters, Mr Richter submitted that both Verdins’ principles 5 and 6 apply to you. I accept that the sentence I impose will weigh more heavily on you than it would on a person without your mental state issues (including your personality characteristics), and I accept there is a significant risk your mental health will worsen while in prison. I have taken these matters into account in mitigation.
68I do accept that the prison sentence I impose will weigh heavily on you.
Prospects of rehabilitation
69You have no prior convictions. You have not offended since being charged in this case. You were in your mid-twenties at the time of this offending, so you are still a relatively young man. It is now some five years or thereabouts since the last of the offences were committed in this case, so that is a not insignificant period that has gone by. You have a supportive partner and family support. You have good prospects of employment. Since you were charged, you have been able to reskill and obtain employment as a software engineer. You have also expressed some remorse for your conduct and made some restitution.
70Additionally, multiple character references were tendered on your behalf. Those references are from your stepbrother, Alexander Price; your younger sister, Bridget Price; your mother, Shaunagh McEvoy; your partner’s parents, and your new partner. These people speak positively of your character and efforts at rehabilitation. It is clear you have at least been upfront with those close to you about this offending. The references give me some confidence that you will not re-offend.
71Having regard to the steps you have taken, and the matters referred to in the character references, I am also inclined to accept that you have stopped using drugs now since 2020.
72In my opinion you do have good, perhaps very good, prospects of rehabilitation, but this was calculated offending involving an ongoing and egregious deception and betrayal of people you were very close to, and your drug problems were well entrenched, so I have exercised some caution in assessing your prospects of rehabilitation. I would stop short of describing them as excellent, as Mr Richter submitted.
73Additionally, the Community Correction Order assessment report describes you as a medium risk of reoffending, and I have also taken that into account. In the end, I reiterate I think you have good prospects of rehabilitation and if you can refrain from relapsing into drugs, I have some confidence you will not reoffend again in this way.
74As I said earlier, you made some compensation, and you do have the capacity to obtain employment, and there is a real prospect, in my view, that you ultimately will be able to repay the money. Having said that, I repeat that the victims in this case have lost the use of that money for many years, and the returns they might have made.
Remorse
75Mr Richter submitted that your remorse is genuine and profound. He relied on your guilty plea, your expressions of remorse to Mr Newton, and the other psychologists who have assisted you, and your efforts to make restitution and your confessions to Ella Parsons. He also relied on the letter of apology you have written, which was tendered. I have read that letter. It does strike me as authentic.
76The prosecutor, Mr Cookson, highlighted the content of an email you wrote at the time you ceased making payments in this matter as an indicator of a lack of remorse and a refusal to make further payments. Mr Richter’s submission was that email simply reflected the reality that, if you lost your job and the matter became public, you would not be able to make restitution. On balance I accept that explanation.
77I am satisfied that you do have remorse for this offending, and you do have insight into the pain you have caused the Parsons family; although it is always difficult to disentangle what is a genuine insight into the impact of the offending as opposed to regret at the position an offender has put himself in. Nonetheless, I have taken your remorse into account as a mitigating factor and a factor relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation.
78There has been significant delay in this matter that cannot all be attributed to you. That delay is relevant because, in the time you have been waiting for these matters to be resolved, you have demonstrated rehabilitation. I also take into account that you have had these serious charges hanging over your head with the prospect of a period of imprisonment.
79
It seems that in terms of the delay it took quite some time for the charges to be laid and then the matter has remained in the Magistrates' Court for some period.
Mr Richter explained that the matters were originally filed in the summary stream.
80Of course, the victims have had to wait for years as well to see this matter resolved.
Principles
81The sentencing authorities are clear that, for offences of this nature, general deterrence must play a central role. In this case, specific deterrence must also be given some emphasis, but you have no prior convictions, and prison will weigh heavily on you. I am satisfied in your case that even a short period of imprisonment would send you the message that any further offending will be met with significant punishment. I must denounce your offending on behalf of the community through the sentence I impose, and in my opinion just punishment is also important, given the substantial impact on the victims in this case.
82Given the absence of prior convictions and your relatively positive prospects of rehabilitation I must, as far as possible, impose a disposition which facilitates your rehabilitation. Ultimately your rehabilitation is in the interests of the community.
83The prosecution submitted I should impose a head sentence with a non-parole period. Mr Richter submitted that a combination sentence of imprisonment and a community correction order was appropriate.
84Two comparative cases were discussed on the plea. They are the matters of R v Elias[1] and Maddock v The Queen[2]. Those cases have some similarities to your offending, but, as always, there are significant differences. Current sentencing practices are a guide, but not a controlling factor in deciding the appropriate sentence. In the case of Maddock there was quite some discussion about the interaction between community correction orders and the decision of Bolton[3] relating to the punitive nature of a community correction order, and how that relates to decisions such as Bulfin[4], emphasising the need for general deterrence in dishonesty cases.
[1] [2007] VSCA 125.
[2] [2020] VSCA 271.
[3] [2014] VSCA 342.
[4] [1998] VSC 261.
85In the end, the court said that whilst the comments in Bolton remain apt in sentencing for offences such as this, but that Community Correction Orders are of course open in an appropriate case.
Aggregate sentence and totality
86Section 9 of the Sentencing Act allows me to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment in respect of offences which are found on the same facts, or form or a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character.
87In this case I have decided to impose an aggregate sentence, which means I will impose one sentence for all four offences, rather than separate individual sentences for each offence, and impose periods of concurrency or cumulation. That does allow me to reflect totality in the aggregate sentence.
88I ordered a pre-sentence report in relation to your suitability for a Community Correction Order because I had not ruled out the position of a combination sentence of imprisonment and a Community Correction Order. A sentence of imprisonment of up to 12 months can be coupled with a Community Correction Order. You were assessed as suitable.
89The other alternative is for me to simply impose a head sentence and fix a non-parole period. A non-parole period is the minimum period justice requires you to serve before being eligible for release, and it mitigates punishment in favour of rehabilitation. A combination sentence seems to me to have the same objective in your case.
90Mr Richter today emphasised the following matters in favour of a Community Correction Order. One, that it gives you certainty. Two, that it facilitates treatment and three, that it will not operate as much of a stigma and therefore will be less of an impediment to your rehabilitation. In the end, I have decided to impose a combination sentence in this case.
91Taking into account the comparative sentences that were put before me, it seems to me a period of around 12 months would be well within the range as a minimum period in this case. I can impose a sentence of 12 months today because, once I deduct the pre-sentence detention, there is less than 12 months remaining. That is another reason why I have decided to impose an aggregate sentence, because I am imposing a combination sentence of imprisonment.
92However, taking into account the need for general deterrence and just punishment, I intend to impose a sentence of 12 months today. I will also impose a Community Correction Order, which the duration of that order will be 18 months. The conditions will be supervision, 150 hours of community work, drug treatment as directed, mental health treatment as directed. Therefore, you will be released in 12 months from today, minus seven days of pre-sentence detention, and you will then be on a community correction order for a period of 18 months. What is the appropriate reporting? Where will he be?
93MR RICHTER: I think it is Melbourne according to the assessment because he was living in Carlton.
94HIS HONOUR: I will put that on. That order will last for 18 months. There are core conditions of any Community Correction Order. The first is that you report within two days of your release. You then must tell Corrections if you intend to change your address, or your employment. You must abide by all lawful requests or directions of Corrections. You must attend appointments as required. There are other core conditions, but they are the fundamental ones.
95On top of that you will have to attend for supervision. You will have to perform 150 hours of community work, plus drug treatment and mental health treatment as directed. I will allow 50 hours of program conditions to be deducted from the community work, so it is a sentence of 12 months, followed by an 18-month community correction order.
96I have made a compensation order already. Those are the orders that I will make in this case. Is there another order I need to make?
97MR COOKSON: Yes, 6AAA.
98HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. So but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of three and a half years with a minimum of two years. The Community Correction Order, I will sign it and it will be sent to you in the prison, and you will have to sign the document. Do you consent to a Community Correction Order?
99OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
100HIS HONOUR: I should also have said this. If you breach the order that I have imposed by offending or by not complying, you will be charged with a contravention offence, you will be brought back before me. I will then be in a position where I would have to resentence you for these offences. The time you have spent in custody would be deducted from any subsequent sentence, but if I am in position where I have to resentence, it would be a head sentence with a non-parole period at that stage. Do you understand?
101OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
102HIS HONOUR: Thanks.
- - -
0
3
0