Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith

[2024] ACTSC 99

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Smith

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 99

Hearing Date: 

25 March 2024

Decision Date: 

28 March 2024

Before:

Mossop J

Decision: 

See [44] and [48]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated robbery, theft and driving offences – offender stole car at knifepoint and drove car while disqualified and unaccompanied learner driver – offender released on Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order at time of offending – substantial criminal history – early pleas of guilty – offender sentenced to aggregate sentence of five years, six days' imprisonment – turns on own facts

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 80ZB, 80ZC

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 310(b), 318(2)

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32(1)(a)

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2000 (ACT), s 20(3)

Cases Cited: 

Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38

DPP v XK [2023] ACTSC 141

R v Collins (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 294

R v Serena [2019] ACTSC 231

R v Shearer [2020] ACTSC 100

R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions

Lachlan Smith ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

C Daly ( DPP)

A Doig ( Offender)

Solicitors

Director of Public Prosecutions

InPrivate Law ( Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 324 of 2022

SCC 292 of 2023

SCC 293 of 2023

MOSSOP J:  

Introduction

1․These are sentence proceedings in relation to offences committed by Lachlan Smith. The offences for which he is to be sentenced are as follows:

(a)Aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CAN 7487/2023). The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment or 2500 penalty units or both.

(b)Theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CAN 7488/2023). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment or 1000 penalty units or both.

(c)Drive motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CAN 7492/2023). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment or 500 penalty units or both.

(d)Drive while disqualified, contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (CAN 7489/2023). For a first offender, the maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment or 50 penalty units or both.

(e)Drive as an unaccompanied learner driver, contrary to s 20(3) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2000 (ACT) (CAN 7490/2023). The maximum penalty is 20 penalty units.

2․At the time of the offending, Mr Smith was serving a suspended sentence on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO). As a result of the further offending, Mr Smith was in breach of the DATO, and it was cancelled on 5 December 2023 by Refshauge AJ. The matter is now before me for imposition of the suspended sentence or resentencing.

The facts relevant to the new offending

3․The prosecution tendered an Agreed Statement of Facts. In summary, the facts are as follows.

4․At around 4:40pm on 24 July 2023, the offender and two female co‑offenders, both of whom are minors, were walking through the Canberra Centre. They went up to the rooftop Canberra Centre car park.

5․At around 5:49pm, the victim of the offending, Ms N, was walking through the car park towards her vehicle, a white Toyota Corolla. The offender followed Ms N to her vehicle while holding a mobile phone to his ear. Ms N entered her vehicle.

6․The offender opened the driver side door of Ms N’s vehicle, brandished a 12‑15 cm knife at Ms N, and demanded that she exit her vehicle and provide him with the car park boom gate ticket. Ms N exited the vehicle and ran away, leaving her laptop and wallet in the vehicle. The two co‑offenders watched the aggravated robbery occur.

7․The offender entered the vehicle and drove through the car park at a high speed. He drove to the entrance ramp of the car park and stopped to pick up the co‑offenders, who were waiting on the entrance ramp. He then drove out of the car park by tailgating a vehicle through the boom gate.

8․The incident was captured on CCTV footage, which was also tendered.

9․On 26 July 2023, the offender was arrested in relation to the offending. He participated in a recorded interview with police, during which he was shown the CCTV footage. He made the following admissions:

(a)he needed to “get back south” from Canberra City;

(b)taking the car “was just straightaway just – it was just an opportunity”;

(c)he drove the car with the two female passengers to a complex in Gordon;

(d)he believed the laptop and the wallet were still in the car;

(e)he knew he did not have permission to take the car and he did not know the victim; and

(f)he knew his licence was suspended.

10․On 28 July 2023, Ms N’s vehicle was located by police in Narrabundah.

11․At the time of the offending, the offender was subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment of two years and nine months, the balance of which was being served by way of a DATO.

Objective seriousness of the new offending

12․The robbery occurred during the day in a public car park. It was aggravated because it involved the use of a weapon: a knife. It was directed to a female stranger who was selected as the target from a number of people returning to their vehicles. The offender, having selected her as a target, took care as he approached her vehicle to ensure that there was no one else around who might interfere with the robbery. The robbery did not involve the infliction of actual violence; however, the victim was clearly terrified and ran from the scene. It involved the theft of an item of substantial value, namely, a motor vehicle worth approximately $20,000. The conduct occurred while the offender was on conditional liberty because he was subject to the DATO. The conduct is in the mid‑range of objective seriousness for an aggravated robbery.

13․The theft is a mid‑range offence closely associated with the robbery. The charge of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent is a mid‑range offence arising from the aggravated robbery. The charges of driving while disqualified and being an unaccompanied learner driver are both mid‑range offences.

The earlier offending the subject of the cancelled DATO

14․On 6 June 2023, Refshauge AJ convicted and sentenced the offender for the offences of aggravated robbery, going equipped for theft, and trespass as follows:

(a)Aggravated robbery (CAN 8908/2022): 28 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 7 April 2023 and ending on 6 August 2025.

(b)Going equipped for theft (CAN 8909/2022): 26 weeks’ imprisonment, commencing on 23 May 2025 and ending on 6 December 2025.

(c)Trespass (CAN 8910/2022): fine of $500 with three years to pay.

15․His Honour also cancelled a series of good behaviour orders imposed on 8 August 2022, and resentenced the offender as follows:

(a)[Redacted].

(b)Minor theft (CAN 4713/2022): three months’ imprisonment.

(c)Minor theft (CAN 4714/2022): three months’ imprisonment.

(d)Ride or drive motor vehicle without consent (CAN 5605/2022): three months’ imprisonment.

(e)Ride or drive motor vehicle without consent (CAN 5612/2022): three months’ imprisonment.

(f)Take a motor vehicle without authority (CAN 5622/2022): three months’ imprisonment.

(g)Take a motor vehicle without authority (CAN 4716/2022): four months’ imprisonment.

(h)Take a motor vehicle without authority (CAN 4717/2022): four months’ imprisonment.

(i)Burglary (CAN 4718/2022): four months’ imprisonment.

(j)Ride or drive motor vehicle without consent (CAN 5616/2022): four months’ imprisonment.

(k)Fail to stop for police (CAN 5619/2022): one month imprisonment.

16․All of the sentences arising from the cancellation of the good behaviour orders were in the backdate period and had been fully served prior to the sentence date of 6 June 2023.

17․The total sentence for all the offences amounted to three years and three months’ imprisonment.

18․The sentences on the aggravated robbery charge and the charge of going equipped for theft (which totalled two years and eight months) were suspended, and a DATO imposed for a period of two years, six months and one day: the balance of the sentence outstanding as at 6 June 2023. The offender entered a residential drug rehabilitation facility at Canberra Recovery Services. On 23 June 2023, the offender was discharged from the facility because of drug use, an inappropriate relationship, and positive urinalysis. He was held in custody as a result of a provisional cancellation of his DATO between 23 June 2023 and 7 July 2023, but subsequently returned to the community on the condition that he attend Canberra Recovery Hub. He returned a further positive urinalysis test on 14 July 2023. On 24 July 2023, he committed the fresh offences described earlier.

19․As a result of his conduct, the DATO was cancelled by Refshauge AJ on 5 December 2023 under s 80ZB of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), but the determination of whether to impose the sentence of imprisonment that was suspended under the custodial part of the treatment order or to instead resentence the offender was adjourned.

The facts relevant to the earlier offending

20․The facts of the offending in relation to which the DATO was made were summarised by Refshauge AJ as follows:

Mr Smith, with a co‑offender, entered a liquor store in Comrie Street, Wanniassa, at about 8.53 pm on 15 August 2022 as the employee there was restocking shelves having counted the till. Mr Smith had a bronze or gold knife, commonly known as a [kukri] knife; that is, a knife with a long blade, commonly 10 to 15 inches long and curved. The photographs show … quite a fearsome weapon.

The two men approached the employee. Mr Smith raised the knife and pointed it towards the employee and directed him to the employee counter where the till was located. Fearing for his safety, the employee complied. While Mr Smith was escorting the employee to behind the counter the other male removed a number of bottles of alcohol, mostly I think, or almost all, whiskey variants and placed them inside a duffle bag.

Mr Smith demanded the employee open the till … and he did so. Mr Smith then took the money in the till and placed it in his pockets with the hand not holding the knife. This was shown clearly on the CCTV footage. Mr Smith then asked the employee to open the other till, but the employee told him that there was no money in it. As Mr Smith approached it he opened it to show, as seen on the CCTV, that there was no money in it.

Mr Smith then asked the employee about money in the time delay safe, but the employee said that he was too new an employee to have the code to open it. Mr Smith then told the employee to drop to his knees. Fearing for his safety, as Mr Smith was pointing the knife towards him, he did so, and the two males began laughing at him. Mr Smith then opened a [drawer] containing cigarettes and took packets out stuffing them also into his pockets.

At about this time a customer came into the store and when he saw what was happening became visibly shocked and stood still as if frozen. The unidentified male ran out of the store followed by Mr Smith. The employee reported the matter to police who attended a little later and reviewed the CCTV footage. They found the employee still extremely disturbed, but he provided a statement.

Using a police canine the officers located a bottle of whiskey and cigarettes that had been … dropped by the robbers. The store itemised the goods taken which included $380 in currency from the till, 17 packets of cigarettes, plus 11 bottles of whiskey. The total value of what was stolen was $1,632.33.

These were the events that led to the charge of aggravated robbery, the circumstances of aggravation being both that it was committed in company and that Mr Smith had a knife with him being, of course, a weapon.

Two days later, on 17 August 2022, Mr Smith and an unidentified male went to premises in Kaleen at about 10.15 pm. They went to the carport and entered it. Mr Smith unsuccessfully tried to open the door of a motor vehicle there. He walked further and tried to open the driver’s side door of a second motor vehicle there. He then walked to the door of the residence and tried to open it, also unsuccessfully. They then left. The two men then left the premises.

The residents had a sophisticated series of detection devices. The entry of Mr Smith and the male were detected by a motion activated alarm through a ‘Ring’ branded doorbell camera. The male owner, not expecting visitors and surprised at the … detected entry to the carport, a private space, opened the external door and went outside. He saw the two males walking away up the driveway of the premises. The occupant tried to stomp loudly to scare them, but they left down the street.

The occupant viewed the CCTV footage from the doorbell camera and noticed that Mr Smith had the [kukri] knife with him. He contacted police who attended and also viewed the CCTV footage. The occupant had not given Mr Smith or his co‑accused permission to enter the carport.

On 7 September [2022] police attended Mr Smith’s residence where he lived with his family. They found him wearing the clothes seen on the CCTV footage at Kaleen. He denied, however, being involved in the aggravated robbery, even after being shown the CCTV footage of that event.

Police located a [kukri] knife, identical to that shown on the CCTV footage from Wanniassa and Kaleen, under the bed. Mr Smith said that he was holding it for a friend. These were the events that led to Mr Smith being charged with going about equipped for theft and trespass.

Later police analysed Mr Smith’s phone and found messages he had sent, including, ‘Fresh out of the pen, but still bad at it,’ and, ‘Got some goodies the other day too, LOL.’ He also sent messages including, ‘Recent out of the pen, but still back at it, yo.’ A message was also sent, ‘Back at it, bra. That’s the one.’ Still earlier a message was sent, ‘I’ll show you all the cash and bottle and smoke, LOL.’

Mr Smith was arrested and refused bail. While in the Alexander Maconochie Centre he made phone calls to his mother in which, amongst other things, he asked her to delete incriminating evidence on the electronic devices that could be damaging to his case. Mr Smith’s mother … was also heard discussing the forensics. She also appears to commend him for his offending, describing it as ‘pretty cool’. The evidence against Mr Smith, including DNA obtained from some of the clothes he had been wearing, was very strong.

Subjective circumstances

21․The offender is 20 years old. He is one of six children of his parents’ union. His parents are still married. They remain supportive. He has a complicated relationship with his mother. He was close to an uncle who died in 2022 from a drug overdose.

22․The offender left school in Year 9. He was not academically minded and was poorly influenced by older companions. He moved out of home. He worked with his father in an industrial abseiling and window cleaning business. He started stealing cars about 12 months after leaving school and, at about the same time, he started using drugs. He has had two significant personal relationships. He is currently single. He engaged in self‑harm in 2022 when, on a single day, his partner had a miscarriage and his uncle died from a drug overdose. A report before Refshauge AJ indicated that he suffered from an anxiety disorder, a persistent depressive disorder, and substance use disorder.

23․He used cannabis from the age of 14. He began using methamphetamine when he was 15 years old. He used heroin at about 17. He drinks alcohol and smokes cigarettes. He has also used Suboxone while in custody.

24․While in custody, he has taken the opportunity to participate in the Solaris Therapeutic Community program and is expected to complete the program in May 2024. He has also participated in work within the Alexander Maconochie Centre.

25․His father has indicated a willingness to re-employ him in his window cleaning business, with which he has been previously employed. A reference from a co‑worker supports the proposition that he can be a hard worker. A letter from the offender expresses sentiments appropriate for his rehabilitation but must be read in the context of his repeated failures to take the opportunities of lenient sentences that have allowed him to remain in the community.

26․He was assessed by the author of the intensive correction assessment report as being at a medium risk of general reoffending and unsuitable for an intensive correction order because of his degree of dependence upon drugs and alcohol, his criminal record, and his response to previous court orders.

Criminal history

27․The offender has a substantial criminal history. [Redacted].

28․His criminal history then largely comprises the offences referred to earlier for which he was originally sentenced by Magistrate Campbell on 8 August 2022 and then resentenced by Refshauge AJ on 6 June 2023 as a result of breaches of good behaviour orders.

Time in custody

29․By the time Refshauge AJ sentenced the offender on 6 June 2023, he had spent a substantial period in detention on remand. That meant that the sentences arising from the breach of good behaviour orders, which were backdated to take into account the time spent in custody, had been served prior to the sentence date. The only sentences imposed by Refshauge AJ which extended beyond the sentence date were the sentence for aggravated robbery (28 months from 7 April 2023 to 6 August 2025) and going equipped for theft (26 weeks from 23 May 2025 until 6 December 2025). Those sentences were the subject of a DATO for two years, six months and one day (6 June 2023 to 6 December 2025), the balance of those sentences outstanding at the sentence date.

30․Following the making of the DATO, the offender spent 14 days in custody as a result of a provisional cancellation (23 June 2023 to 7 July 2023). Following his arrest on 26 July 2023, he was refused bail and the treatment and supervision part of the DATO was provisionally suspended under s 80ZC(2). He was remanded in custody until 5 December 2023, when the DATO was cancelled, and remained remanded in custody until his sentencing hearing on the current charges. The period up until the cancellation on 5 December 2023 counts towards the sentence imposed under the DATO: s 80ZC(3).

31․The status of the period after 5 December 2023 up until the current sentencing date is less clear. That is because the court on 5 December 2023 cancelled the DATO but did not proceed to impose the sentence of imprisonment or resentence under paras 80ZB(1)(f) or (g). The terms of those sections indicate that the cancellation and either imposition or resentence must occur as part of a single order. The provisions do not contemplate a cancellation occurring prior to the imposition or resentence. However, given that an order cancelling the DATO was made on 5 December 2023 and that order has not been set aside, it is necessary to treat the DATO as being at an end and the period following that cancellation as being time spent on remand relating to the further offending.

Pleas of guilty

32․All pleas of guilty were entered in the Magistrates Court. All except the plea in relation to aggravated robbery were entered prior to a brief of evidence being required. They will be subject to a 25 percent discount. The plea in relation to aggravated robbery followed an initial plea of not guilty and the preparation of a brief of evidence. It will be subject to a discount of 20 percent.

Consideration

33․The pattern of offending reflects a young man introduced to illicit substances as a child, who remains prone to misuse of such substances and who has not obtained the maturity to take the opportunities given to him by past lenient sentences which have allowed him to remain in the community. The current offending is offending of a type where both specific and general deterrence are very significant, as is protection of the community. Self‑evidently, robbing people of their cars at knifepoint in a shopping centre car park must require a significant custodial penalty even where the offender is a young illicit drug user lacking maturity.

34․The personal circumstances of the offender remain largely as they were found to exist at the time of the sentencing proceedings before Refshauge AJ. What has occurred subsequently is the serious offending occurring very shortly after the imposition of the DATO. In his time in custody since then, the offender has made some progress, which is consistent with a desire to make the most of his opportunities in custody. He remains a young man for whom there must be significant prospects for rehabilitation as he matures.

35․Counsel for the offender accepted that the s 10 threshold had been passed. He submitted that the offender was still young and needed guidance and structure upon his release from custody. He submitted that the period of custody should only be as long as the court considered necessary so as to avoid crushing the offender’s desire for rehabilitation.

36․I have had regard to the sentences imposed in the cases involving aggravated robberies referred to by the prosecution: see DPP v XK [2023] ACTSC 141; R v Serena [2019] ACTSC 231; R v Collins (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 294; Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38 and R v Shearer [2020] ACTSC 100. In Barrett at [40], the Court of Appeal noted that most sentences for aggravated robbery in the Territory after a plea of guilty were in the range 30 months to four years.

37․In relation to the current offences, the following sentences are appropriate:

Offence	Maximum penalty	Reduction for plea of guilty	Starting point	Sentence	Cumulation
Aggravated robbery	25 years	20%	40 months	32 months
Theft	10 years	25%	24 months	18 months	0
Dishonestly drive motor vehicle	5 years	25%	12 months	9 months	2 months
Drive while disqualified	6 months	25%	3 months	2 months and 7 days	1 month
Total	35 months

38․An automatic period of disqualification of 12 months applies in relation to the drive while disqualified offence. The unaccompanied learner driver charge is a fine only offence and a fine of $1000 with no time to pay is appropriate.

39․The period spent in custody from 6 December 2023 until today, which, as explained below, is not to be taken into account by way of a reduction in the sentence imposed on the earlier offences, may be taken into account in relation to the current offences by backdating the sentence to 6 December 2023.

40․In relation to the earlier sentences that were the subject of the DATO, of the options in ss 80ZB(1)(f) and (g), it is appropriate to impose the sentence of imprisonment that was suspended under the custodial part of the treatment order: s 80ZB(1)(f), rather than resentence under s 80ZB(1)(g). That is essentially because there is no change in circumstances since the original sentence that would mean that a variation of that sentence is required: see the discussion in R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362 at [78]‑[79].

41․Time served on remand in relation to the current offences counts towards the sentence imposed under the custodial part of the treatment order: s 80ZC(3). This means that the period on remand from 26 July 2023 until 5 December 2023 (133 days) counts as time served under the DATO. Section 80ZB does not specifically require that time in custody as a result of a provisional cancellation of the suspension of a sentence must be taken into account or treated as service of the custodial portion of the treatment order. In this case, that was the period from 23 June 2023 until 7 July 2023 (14 days). However, it is appropriate to take that period into account. Both of these components of time served may be taken into account by exercising the power given by s 80ZB(1)(f) to impose only part of the sentence of imprisonment that was suspended under the custodial part of the treatment order (“imposing, in full or in part, the sentence of imprisonment”). Therefore, the starting point is the period of the DATO, namely, two years, six months and one day. This is to be reduced by 147 days (133 days + 14 days). This gives a total of 768 days or two years, one month and six days.

42․There is no reason, apart from totality, to make the sentences for the separate offending concurrent. I do not consider that totality requires the introduction of a degree of concurrency between the separate offending. The aggregate sentence is five years and six days. Having regard to the nature of the offending and the circumstances of the offender, that is not a crushing sentence. Further, when regard is also had to the earlier sentences imposed as a result of resentencing for breaches of good behaviour orders, although the overall effect of the sentences imposed is significant, it does not compel the introduction of concurrency between the separate occasions of offending.

43․The final question is the non‑parole period. In my view, the youth of the offender and the need for a significant period subject to supervision on parole in the community where there is potential for the revocation of that parole indicates that a shorter than usual non‑parole period is appropriate. I consider that a non‑parole period of two years and two months (approximately 43 percent of the aggregate sentence) is the minimum time required to be served in the circumstances of the case. Whether the offender is released at that time and remains on parole through the balance of his sentence will be a matter for the Sentence Administration Board.

Orders

44․For those reasons, the orders of the Court are:

1.On the charge of aggravated robbery (CAN 7487/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 32 months commencing on 6 December 2023 and ending on 5 August 2026.

2.On the charge of theft (CAN 7488/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months commencing on 6 December 2023 and ending on 5 June 2025.

3.On the charge of drive motor vehicle without consent (CAN 7492/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment commencing on 6 January 2026 and ending on 5 October 2026.

4.On the charge of drive while disqualified (CAN 7489/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two months and seven days commencing on 30 August 2026 and ending on 5 November 2026.

5.On the charge of drive as an unaccompanied learner driver (CAN 7490/2023), the offender is convicted and fined $1000 and allowed no time to pay.

6.In relation to the drug and alcohol treatment order imposed by Refshauge AJ on 6 June 2023 and cancelled by Refshauge AJ on 5 December 2023 that part of the sentence of imprisonment that was suspended under the custodial part of the treatment order which comprises two years, one month and six days is imposed, commencing on 6 November 2026 and ending on 11 December 2028.

7.The non-parole period commences on 6 December 2023 and ends on 5 February 2026.

Addendum

45․Following the making of sentencing orders in this matter, it was drawn to my attention that it was either necessary or desirable, for the purposes of preparation of the warrant of imprisonment, that individual start and end dates be given in relation to the sentences previously the subject of the DATO that were to be partially imposed. The DATO had the effect of partially suspending the charge of aggravated robbery (CAN 8908/2022) and suspending the sentence on the charge of going equipped for theft (CAN 8909/2022).

46․I proceeded to specify the start and end date using the following method:

(a)That part of the suspended sentences that were to be imposed was a period of two years, one month and six days from 6 November 2026 to 11 December 2028: see earlier reasons at order 6.

(b)It was appropriate to adopt the sentence structure imposed by Refshauge AJ, namely, that the charge of aggravated robbery ends four months prior to the end of the aggregate sentence.

(c)The end date of the sentence on the charge of going equipped for theft was the end date specified in order 6, namely, 11 December 2028. Given that the sentence was a sentence of 26 weeks, that gives a start date of 13 June 2028.

(d)The end date for the charge of aggravated robbery is four months prior to the end date of the charge of going equipped for theft, namely, 11 August 2028.

(e)Therefore, those parts of the sentences that are imposed have the following start and end dates:

(i)The sentence for the charge of aggravated robbery (CAN 8908/2022): 6 November 2026 to 11 August 2028.

(ii)The sentence for the charge of going equipped for theft (CAN 8909/2022): 13 June 2028 to 11 December 2028.

47․These dates were specified in chambers after the conclusion of the hearing so as to allow warrants to be prepared. In the event that the parties wish to be heard, they should give notice, by email, to my associate within seven days.

48․For those reasons, the further orders that I made on 28 March 2024 were as follows:

8.The sentences imposed by order 6 made on 28 March 2024 are as follows:

(a)Aggravated robbery (CAN 8908/2022): imprisonment for one year, nine months and six days from 6 November 2026 to 11 August 2028.

(b)Going equipped for theft (CAN 8909/2022): imprisonment for five months and 29 days from 13 June 2028 to 11 December 2028.

9.Any party wishing to be heard in relation to order 7 must notify my associate by email (copied to the other party) within seven days.

I certify that the preceding forty-eight [48] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop.

Associate:

Date: 18 April 2024