Director of Public Prosecutions v TI (a pseudonym)

[2024] ACTSC 391

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v TI (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 391
Hearing Date:	18 November 2024
Decision Date:	9 December 2024
Before:	Christensen AJ
Decision:	See [77]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – attempted
arson – offender seeks drug and alcohol treatment order –
whether treatment order capable of addressing attitudinal factors
and risk to community safety – treatment order not appropriate or suitable – term of imprisonment with nonparole period imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Pt 4.4, ss 7, 12A, 63, 80O Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 311, 312, 403, 404
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 DPP v Perry (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 204 DPP v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379 R v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18 R v Sean (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 132 R v TI (No 3) [2015] ACTSC 405 R v TI [2017] ACTSC 129
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
TI (a pseudonym) (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
C Daly (Crown) S Baker-Goldsmith (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Bevan & Co (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 205 of 2024
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
Introduction
1․	TI (a pseudonym) is to be sentenced for offences relating to the entry of two residences
in March 2024. The offences are as follows:

(a) aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

(Criminal Code), carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, 2000

penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/3195),

(b) attempted arson, contrary to s 404 of the Criminal Code, by virtue of s 44,

carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, 1500 penalty units, or

both (CAN 2024/4306); and

(c) burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), carrying a

maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, 1400 penalty units, or both (CAN

2024/3197).

2․	An additional offence of damage property (CAN 2024/3195), contrary to s 403 of the
Criminal Code, and carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, 1000 penalty
units, or both, is to be taken into account pursuant to Pt 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing)
Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act).
3․	TI accepts that imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence, and he seeks a drug and
alcohol treatment order (treatment order): s 12A Sentencing Act. TI has been found
suitable for a treatment order by ACT Health, but unsuitable by ACT Corrective Services.
The prosecution opposes the imposition of a treatment order.
4․	As will become apparent, the sentencing purpose of community protection has primacy
in the decision. The nature and circumstances of the offending, and TI’s subjective
circumstances, are such that in order to give effect to this sentencing purpose a
treatment order is not an appropriate sentence order. Rather, a nonparole period is to
be set, and the rehabilitation intentions that TI holds will need to be supported in the
custodial setting and through the parole regime.

The offending

5․	The offending involves two different forms of entry to residential premises. The nature
and circumstances of each of these will be considered separately.

First residence – 9 March 2024

6․	On Friday 8 March 2024, at about 6:30pm, the victim of the offence left her house in
Ngunnawal. It was securely locked and in a clean and orderly condition.
7․	The victim was leaving her residence to spend the night at her partner’s residence. The
agreed facts provide that normally, the victim drives herself to her partner’s residence.
However, on this occasion, the victim’s partner picked her up. The victim’s vehicle was
left in the driveway, and the lights on inside the residence.
8․	The following morning, at about 10am on Saturday, 9 March 2024, the victim observed
a notification on her mobile phone from her security camera application. The notification
showed two video recordings, one at 12:48am and the other at 12:51am on 9 March
2024. Both videos depicted a male figure dressed in light coloured clothing exiting from
the front door of the residence.
9․	At about 11am, the victim returned to her residence, in the company of her partner. Upon
returning home, she observed her front door to be open. The victim entered the
residence and observed the living room area to be ransacked with draws emptied out
and contents strewn across the floor. The victim noticed several items to be damaged
including a television that had been knocked over with the screen smashed.
10․	Moving through the residence, the victim observed other rooms to be in a similar
condition. Further, the internal door to her garage was open. The victim observed her
“sex toy” to be on the floor by the garage door, in the front walkway of the residence. It
was broken in multiple pieces. This item was normally stored in a beside drawer in the
victim’s bedroom.
11․	The victim entered her kitchen and noticed her microwave broken on the floor below the
gas stove. Upon closer inspection, the victim observed a destroyed Glen 20 spray can
next to the microwave. This can was normally kept in the garage.
12․	The can appeared to have exploded. The victim also noticed at this time that all of the
gas burners of the stove had been turned on fully. The internal glass plate of the
microwave had been shattered and was scattered across the floor. The victim located
the door of the microwave on the other side of the open kitchen/dining room area with
pieces of the Glen 20 can beside it, approximately seven metres away from the body of
the microwave.
13․	The victim entered her bedroom and observed it to be ransacked with all of her clothing
thrown around the room. All of the draws were emptied out and her bedside table was
damaged and flipped upside down.
14․	Police were contacted.
15․	The victim and her partner then viewed additional security footage of the residence. One
video, timestamped at 12:07am, depicted the same male in the same clothing walking around the backyard of the residence. This male attempted to gain entry to the residence
via a back door. He was carrying a knife in his mouth.
16․	The victim recognised the male in the footage to be her neighbour, TI.
17․	At about 1:35pm, police arrived at the residence and spoke to the victim and her partner.
18․	A short time later, the victim noticed a knife under the broken television in her living room.
The victim informed police that she had never seen the knife before, and that she did not
own it.
19․	The agreed facts provide that the victim informed police that TI had left her sexually
explicit handwritten letters in the past. These were shown to the police and the facts
provide that they state the following:

MILF [First name of victim] please keep us a secret if you get offended tell me when I come over, please

[First name of victim] you’re a milf and every milf need a bbc [sic]

20․	On another occasion, TI had asked to use the victim’s mobile phone. Whilst on her
phone, TI set an alarm from 9pm with the title “let [an abbreviation of the offender’s first
name] make you squirt”.
21․	At about 3pm, police viewed the security footage that the victim had available. A video
timestamped at 12:08am on 9 March showed TI in the same clothing walking around the
backyard of the residence. Police observed TI approach a window on the side of the
house and force entry into the residence via that window.
22․	The victim informed police that TI lived over her back fence, and informed police as to
the residence she believed he resided in. Police then conducted investigations to
confirm the identity of TI as the person depicted in the video footage.
23․	At about 4pm on 9 March, police attended at a residence believed to be TIs. They spoke
to a woman who identified herself as TI’s on-again-off-again partner. Police received
consent to enter the residence and search for TI. He was not located in this residence.

Assessment of 9 March 2024 offending

24․	The burglary is an aggravated form of the offence due to the possession of the knife.
This accounts for the applicable maximum penalty. While carrying the knife, TI was
persistent and determined in his efforts to enter the residence. It is not clear if any
damage was caused in effecting entry. The entry was at a time when the occupant was
likely to be home, but fortunately was not. I accept the prosecution submission that there
was no evidence of planning or organisation, but there are suggestions of a level of premeditation having regard to the timing of when the entry occurred. The entry was
done, as particularised, with an intention to commit a property offence.
25․	Once inside, his movement throughout the house was clearly extensive and it occurred
for a relatively lengthy period. He entered multiple areas, including areas of particular
privacy, being the bedroom. The invasion of the victim’s privacy even extended to going
through the victim’s bedside draws and to having retrieved a “sex toy”. And further, to
engaging in a disturbing invasion of the victim’s privacy by damaging this item.
26․	The victim had seemingly in the past extended a generous neighbourly friendship to TI,
with this evidenced by her at least allowing him to use her phone on a previous occasion.
In this sense, by invading the privacy of a neighbour, TI has breached the victim’s trust.
The victim’s sense of safety and security will have been significantly disrupted by the
offending conduct. In addition, financial implications and the inconvenience of needing
to restore the home environment, will have been impacts experienced by the victim.
27․	The additional offence to be taken into account relates to the damage caused to the
microwave, the television, and the sex toy. The combined value of these items was
$2,900.00. I have taken this conduct into account in the manner provided by Mossop J
in DPP v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379 at [64]. In doing so, I observe that the
damage caused to the microwave was conduct that formed part of the attempted arson.
28․	The attempted arson is a serious example of this offence. It appears that it was only due
to good fortune, rather than any actions of TI, that it was not a completed offence. The
prosecution submissions provide that the conduct for this offence relates to TI having
turned on the gas burners of the stove, and having left an aerosol can in the running
microwave, in an attempt to cause damage by explosive.
29․	There are aspects of planning and sophistication to this offence, albeit it was also
seemingly opportunistic and had aspects of being rudimentary. I accept, as submitted
on behalf of TI, that there is a level of impulsiveness evident, with, for example, the can
used in the offence coming from the victim’s own home.
30․	That the attempted arson was done in a residential premises, in a suburban setting, is of
concern. While the conduct occurred at a time when TI must have, by that stage,
appreciated that no one was home, had the intended consequences of his actions
occurred, there was a risk to persons in neighbouring houses. The potential for
significant damage, with financial and sentimental loss to the victim’s residence and
property, and the property of other community members, was high. The offending
behaviour is indicative of a concerning disregard for the safety and welfare of other
community members, and their property.

Second residence – 10 March 2024

31․	On Sunday 10 March 2024 at about 10:13pm, police attended at the address that they
had previously attended when looking for TI. There had been reports of a suspicious
male at that location. Police were advised that a male and female were heard arguing
at that location and the male involved was possibly the offender.
32․	A female resident answered the door. After a short conversation, police heard loud
banging sounds from the next door neighbour’s residence. TI was observed to be
jumping fences. Police identified themselves and told TI to stop.
33․	TI jumped the fence into the backyard of a property next door, and then into an area
adjoining a unit of another property. A short time later, police attended at this unit. They
heard the sounds of breaking glass and observed TI in the front courtyard. TI punched
the rear glass laundry window causing it to break. He then reached inside and unlocked
the door and entered the residence.
34․	TI walked into the kitchen and grabbed a knife and a pair of scissors. A short time later,
he was confronted by the residents. He then dropped the scissors and ran into the front
courtyard. Police located him.
35․	He threatened police with broken glass, which he had in possession from the residence.
He is not charged in relation to this conduct. A short time later, he ran from police and
jumped the fence into another unit in the complex. Police again identified themselves
and told TI to stop. At this time, he entered the residence and took a bottle of water from
the fridge. The agreed facts provide that he then hid in a small garden to avoid detection.
36․	At about 10:19pm the same day, police located TI hiding in the garden. They observed
him to have a large orange coloured kitchen knife and the bottle of water in his
possession. He was placed under arrest. The knife was later identified as having come
from the first unit that he entered.

Assessment of 10 March 2024 offending

37․	The burglary charge for this incident relates to the entry of the first unit, having done so
with an intention to commit theft of property. In effecting entry, TI caused damage to a
window. He entered at a time when the residents were present, and it was relatively late
at night. He undoubtedly caused these victims significant alarm and distress.
38․	In addition to having the intention to cause theft, TI’s conduct in committing this offence
has indicia of an opportunistic attempt to avoid apprehension by police. This is a relevant
consideration as to TI’s prospects of rehabilitation and willingness to comply with
directions.

Subjective circumstances

39․	TI’s antecedents in that regard, that is, his willingness to comply with orders, does not
give confidence as to his prospects of rehabilitation. He has an extensive criminal history
and has been subjected to various forms of sentencing orders in the past. This includes
that at the time of the offending the subject of this sentencing exercise, he was subject
to a parole order, which is an aggravating factor on sentence.
40․	His criminal history commences with offending as a young person. This included serious
offending that was the subject of sentence in the Supreme Court (see further below at
[62]). As an adult, TI has been convicted in the ACT and in New South Wales of
numerous offences including assault, burglary, ride/drive motor vehicle without consent,
and driving offences. He has failed to appear at court on occasion, and has breached
suspended sentences and good behaviour orders. He has been imprisoned, on TI’s own
description, “on and off” for approximately nine years.
41․	TI’s criminal history, and his response to police and court orders, ought though be
considered in the context of his experiences from when he was an infant and throughout
his childhood and adolescence.
42․	TI is now 27 years of age. He is an Aboriginal man from Bundjalung and Wiradjuri
Countries. Having been born to a young mother who was experiencing challenges, TI
was adopted as an infant by an aunt and moved to Canberra. He first met his birth
mother as a young adult. He did not know his birth father until his later teenage years
and had remote contact with him until his father’s death.
43․	He is the seventh child in a family of eight siblings and has a close relationship with his
adoptive family. However, when he was 12 years of age, his cousins informed him of
his adoptive status. He describes that from this, “everything went downhill”. He felt that
“everything was a lie”.
44․	He came to be exposed to “drugs and crime”. The information provided to the Court,
across the various reports, includes that TI reported early exposure to substance misuse.
He first consumed cannabis at the age of 12, with progression to daily use from 15 years
of age. He first consumed alcohol at age 12, progressing to daily use between the ages
of 14 and 16 years. He first used cocaine at approximately 14 years of age and describes
this substance as his “first major habit”. He first used methamphetamine as an
adolescent, escalating to regular intravenous use by approximately 19 years of age. He
began using heroin from 18 years of age.
45․	In the context of this early substance use, he would regularly “skip” school. He did though
engage in schooling through to year 10 and has engaged in various employment both in
the community and while in custody.
46․	It is not readily apparent to me that TI’s childhood circumstances enliven the principles
from Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 (Bugmy), which were submitted
on his behalf to apply. This is not to say that in order for Bugmy to apply, a childhood of
“profound” deprivation or disadvantage is necessary, nor that there be a causative
aspect. However, it appears to me of more relevance when considering TI’s subjective
circumstances that the sentencing exercise have regard to the challenges he
experienced from 12 years of age when he became aware of his adoptive status. It was
from around this age that he was exposed to substances, being an early introduction,
and one that began a life trajectory involving drug dependency and offending behaviour.
Further, the information before the Court speaks of his intergenerational trauma. It is
appropriate to assess TI’s moral culpability with these matters in mind, and, in the
application of this in the circumstances of this matter, the sentencing purposes of general
deterrence and punishment will be ameliorated to an extent.
47․	TI’s more recent subjective circumstances include that he has a supportive partner. They
have been in a long-term relationship, having first met when they were adolescents.
They have three children. TI’s partner has written a letter to the Court in which she
expresses her belief that TI now genuinely wants to change and do better for himself and
their children. She speaks of the important role he has as a father, and the challenges
she is experiencing in raising the children without his support. TI’s partner speaks of the
need for him to engage in rehabilitation and her confidence that, with the right support,
he has real prospects of achieving this.
48․	Similarly, a letter from his mother speaks of his kindness and the help he provides to
family and friends, and the assistance she would have with her son out of custody. TI’s
mother pleads for him to be sent home to the family. Further, a letter provided by a family
practitioner who provides support to the family speaks of his strengths as a father and
his previous engagements in men’s programs. This is confirmed by Winnunga
Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health and Community Services who also provided a letter as to
the rehabilitation support they can provide to TI.
49․	TI has some physical health challenges that he receives support with from Canberra
Health Services. He has previously been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder and is interested in pursuing medical advice for management of this. He has
no current symptoms indicative of any major mental illness or disorder. He is currently
prescribed opioid maintenance treatment and medicinal cannabis. The latter of these is for treatment of anxiety, but TI expresses an understanding of the need to discontinue
this if a treatment order were imposed.
50․	In evidence during the sentence hearing, TI spoke of his rough journey after finding out
at twelve years of age that he was adopted. He was angry at the world, and felt lost and
confused. He developed a “don’t care” attitude, which remained with him. TI said that
“I’ve always had everything I’ve wanted, and I didn’t need to steal or do the crime and
offences that [I have] done”. But he became reliant on substances, and consequently,
offending behaviour. He described that when he came to be detained in the Alexander
Maconochie Centre he learnt more about a life of crime, including being introduced to
more serious substances. In custodial settings, he was exposed to violent incidents that
have impacted him.

51․ TI expressed in his evidence his strongly held belief that the strict regime and

requirements of a treatment order are what he needs to address his problems. He asked

for a last chance to show that “I’m not the monster that these crimes make me out to be”.

He intends to support his partner in their care of their children upon his release from

custody, as well as his mother who is aging. He also reports having available to him an

apprenticeship to “maintain a golf course”.

52․	The evidence adduced on the sentence hearing included a report dated 12 November
2024, and sworn evidence, from a psychologist, Ms Leesa Morris. Ms Morris finds that
TI was clearly affected by substances at the time of this offending, and that TI meets the
criteria for substance use disorders.
53․	Ms Morris finds TI to be a moderate risk of reoffending. Her opinion was that his
likelihood of reoffending would reduce significantly with substance use rehabilitation
available under a treatment order.
54․	As to the reason for the offending, TI described to Ms Morris that “I was on the drugs. I
was cutting her grass and took everything the wrong way”. When asked why he broke
into the victim’s home, he said “for the sake of it. I don’t know why I did that. I remember
what I was doing but I couldn’t control it. I think maybe I was in psychosis. I pretended
I wasn’t when they assessed me in the cells [to avoid hospitalisation]”. The psychologist
further provides that when “asked about the aerosol can in the microwave, TI was unable
to explain his behaviour, or the apparent rage in the property damage”.
55․	The Canberra Health Services report provides that TI attributes substance use of
methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol as contributing factors to his conduct on the day
of his arrest. He had commenced drinking alcohol at a party approximately five days
earlier, and was “using ice secretly”. In the twenty four hours prior to his arrest, he had
injected heroin. He describes symptoms of substance related psychosis at the time of
his arrest.
56․	TI informed the ACT Corrective Services that he “blacked out” and “it was like [he] was
not in control”. It felt like he “could see what [he] was doing but could not do anything”.
He has no explanation for why he would have tried to set the house on fire.
57․	TI is described in this report as acknowledging the impact of his offending on the victims.
He has understanding as to why the victim from the first residence has requested a
protection order. As to the victim from the second residence, TI expressed that he could
see fear in the victim’s eyes. Consistent with this apparent insight, TI has expressed an
interest in engaging with restorative justice.

Pleas of guilty

58․	TI first appeared before the court on 11 March 2024. He pleaded guilty to the charges
the subject of sentence in the Magistrates Court after several mentions and negotiation
with the prosecution. The charges the subject of sentence were never the subject of a
not guilty plea. The matters were committed for sentence to the Supreme Court. A
reduction to reflect the early pleas of guilty in the order of twenty five per cent is
appropriate.

Consideration

59․	It is plain that, having considered alternatives, the only appropriate sentence is one of
imprisonment with respect to each of the charges. This was conceded on behalf of TI.
In determining the appropriate terms, the totality principle is applicable, having regard to
the offending having occurred across essentially one spree of offending, although
different victims and the differing nature and circumstances of the offending is relevant.
60․	It is also to be taken into account that TI has spent a total of 234 days in presentence
custody (10 March 2024 to 18 March 2024; 29 April 2024 to 9 December 2024): s 63
Sentencing Act.
61․	The real issue for determination becomes whether the treatment order that TI seeks is
imposed. The prosecution did not make a submission that the terms of imprisonment to
be imposed exceed the legislated ceiling for a treatment order: s 12A(1)(b) Sentencing
Act. There was also, appropriately, no submission that TI is not dependent on a
controlled drug: s 12A(2)(a)(i) Sentencing Act. He plainly is. Rather, it was submitted
by the prosecution that a treatment order was not appropriate having regard to TI’s
significant history of noncompliance with community-based orders and persistent
relevant reoffending.
62․	This reoffending includes offences committed by TI as a young person. The offending
that occurred in those matters involved burglary and theft offences, with some examples
of the offending being:

(a) TI saying repeatedly to female occupants who were woken by his entry to the

house and had to barricade themselves from him, “I just want to fuck you” (R v

TI (No 3) [2015] ACTSC 405 (R v TI (No 3)) at [17]-[24]);

(b) TI entering a house and assaulting the female occupant when he disturbed her

in the laundry (R v TI (No 3) at [26]); and

(c) TI calling through a bedroom window to a female occupant of a house he broke

into “I want to lick your pussy” (R v TI (No 3) at [28]-[31]);

(d) During a subsequent breach proceeding following family violence offences

committed during the term of the orders imposed for the burglary and theft

offences, Penfold J observed that there was a need for TI to address his alcohol

and drug use, and to engage in programs to assist with family violence and, to

an extent, sexual behaviours (R v TI [2017] ACTSC 129 at [21], [43], [47]).

63․	It was submitted on behalf of TI that the Court must be cautious in placing weight on
offending behaviour by TI when he was adolescent. I accept this. There must be a
hesitation in concluding that the conduct of an adolescent can be predictive of
subsequent behaviour: R v Sean (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 132 at [16].
Further, the Court must not punish TI for his past offending. Nonetheless, the Court
cannot ignore that the offending behaviour by TI as an adult is not the first occasion of
offending behaviour by him that has, as both parties described, attitudinal factors.
64․	This elevates the role of community protection in the sentence to be imposed. Precisely
what attitudinal factors are said to arise from the current offending were not defined by
either party. It may be regarded that there are characteristics of sexual motivation to the
offending, or otherwise characteristics of retaliation for rejection.
65․	It is unnecessary to define the behaviour, beyond observing that TI’s offending behaviour
is not simply offending solely attributable to substance abuse. It is unnecessary, for the
imposition of a treatment order, that substance use be the sole contributing factor.
Section 12A(2)(a)(ii) of the Sentencing Act provides only that the dependency
“substantially contributed to the commission of the offence”. But the attitudinal factors
that also have a role in TI’s offending behaviour are of concern and raise for
consideration whether a treatment order is an appropriate order for him: s 12A(2)(b)
Sentencing Act.
66․	A treatment order typically involves the release from the custodial environment of a
person who has ongoing substance misuse challenges. That would certainly be the
circumstance for TI if he were to be released from custody. The disciplinary issues he
has had while in custody are reported to have included engagement in substance use,
and he is diagnosed as having substance use disorders. He has had limited engagement
with substance use rehabilitation services in the past. TI clearly requires assistance to
address his drug dependency. Ordinarily, the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List
recognises this with a level of tolerance of minor substance lapses during the early stage
of the order, reflective that recovery is typically a non-linear journey. I accept the
submission on behalf of TI that there is benefit from such an approach if rehabilitation is
to be achieved by TI.
67․	The difficulty though in accepting such a course with respect to TI is the risk he poses to
the community when he does engage in substance use. He himself describes the
offending the subject of sentence, which occurred while he was under the influence of
substances, as involving behaviours that he could not control while he was substance
affected. He is to be commended for his honesty in this regard, but it highlights the risks
involved in reliance on community based drug and alcohol rehabilitation for TI.
68․	The information before the Court includes that he has not engaged in comprehensive
alcohol and drug rehabilitation while in custody. He has completed two short addiction
programs, but not the Solaris Therapeutic Community Program. While I accept that TI
reports a concern as to conflict with other participants in the Solaris program with this
being the reason he could not participate, the ACT Corrective Services report includes
information as to TI having declined to engage with the director of that program. This
non-engagement, along with TI’s history of noncompliance and reoffending while subject
to community-based orders, led Corrective Services to a conclusion that TI may have
difficulty with complying with the onerous requirements of a treatment order. He is
assessed by ACT Corrective Services as having a high risk of reoffending with substance
use as one of his primary criminogenic risk factors.
69․	While ACT Health Services did find TI suitable for a treatment order, it was cautioned
that he has a number of risk factors with reference to his criminal history, his limited
history of employment, and his long-term history of polysubstance dependency. The
support available through a rehabilitation program and the treatment team were
recommended as important for his capability to achieve rehabilitation.
70․	To this end, arrangements have been made for TI to engage with a rehabilitation day
program and he has such a program available to him if sentenced to a treatment order.
Additionally, TI is able to reside with his mother, ensuring that he is not residing proximate
to the victim’s residence. There is a protection order in place, that TI intends to respect,
such that I do not hold concerns as to victim protection to the extent it is to be considered
in the imposition of a treatment order: s 12A(2)(b)(ii) Sentencing Act.
71․	Nonetheless, I cannot conclude that a treatment order is an appropriate order for TI. The
considerations for the imposition of such an order include as an object of a treatment
order the promotion of community safety, in addition to the protection of the community
being a sentencing purpose to be considered: ss 7(1)(c), 12A(2)(b)(i), (iii), 80O
Sentencing Act.
72․	A treatment order is capable of being effective in addressing drug dependency, and
serious recidivist criminal offending. There are examples of treatment orders having
been effective in this regard even when addressing criminal offending involving family
violence. But, as has been observed in DPP v Perry (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 204
at [152], a treatment order is not a panacea.
73․	While addressing TI’s drug dependency may very well be critical to addressing his
attitudinal factors, I cannot ignore that a treatment order would involve TI being in the
community while this drug dependency, and attitudinal factors, are addressed. A
treatment order does not, under the available terms of such an order, allow for
preliminary progress to occur in the custodial setting, before there is a release from
custody. In the circumstances of this matter, this results in an unacceptable risk to the
community were a treatment order to be imposed.

Nonparole period

74․	It follows that it is then to be considered when it is appropriate for TI to instead become
eligible for parole. Community protection remains an important consideration. As does
rehabilitation: R v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18 at [20], [99], [111], [115].
75․	There is a solid basis upon which to conclude that TI has real prospects of rehabilitation,
if he is appropriately supported in this regard:

(a) TI has solid and achievable goals, such as wanting to “learn different ways to

deal with problems”, “to find a job”, and to “learn how to control my habit, my

use of drugs”. He wants to “do all those normal things” that he has not done yet

and to be there for his family;

(b) The psychologist, Ms Morris, finds TI at a higher risk of reoffending without

structured supports upon release. Ms Morris says that TI’s prospects of

rehabilitation would be greatly enhanced by a structured routine that bypasses

boredom and need for stimulation (as an element of his neurodivergence), engagement with prosocial peers and activities, and strengthening his

relationships with family in sobriety. He would likely also benefit from some

psychological intervention/education around managing anxiety and engaging in

healthy relationships;

(c) ACT Health Services describe TI as displaying insight into the contributing

factors for his substance use. TI has himself made contact with rehabilitation

services, as well as requested support through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Cultural Specialist Service. He is described as having frequently

expressed his motivation to address his substance use and incorporate positive

lifestyle changes; and

(d) TI has protective factors available to him in the form of family members who will

support him in his rehabilitation, and he has a strongly motivating factor in his

children.

76․	For those reasons, a nonparole period that prioritises rehabilitation, and an extended
period of community supervision, is appropriate. The nonparole period to be set is the
minimum period of imprisonment that justice requires. In making such an order, I urge
the relevant authorities to support TI’s rehabilitation while he remains in custody,
enabling him a solid foundation to continue his rehabilitation upon release on parole.

Orders

77․ For those reasons, the following orders are made:

(1)	On the charge of aggravated burglary (CAN 2024/3195), the offender is
convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, reduced from 24 months
of account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 19 April 2024 and end on 18
October 2025.
(2)	On the charge of attempted arson (CAN 2024/4306), the offender is convicted
and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, reduced from 20 months of account
of the plea of guilty, to commence on 19 January 2025 and end on 18 April
2026.
(3)	On the charge of burglary (CAN 2024/3197), the offender is convicted and
sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, reduced from 12 months of account of
the plea of guilty, to commence on 19 April 2026 and end on 18 January 2027.
(4)	The total period of imprisonment of 2 years and 9 months will commence on 19
April 2024 and end on 18 January 2027.
(5)	A nonparole period of 18 months and 13 days is imposed, to commence on 19
April 2024 and end on 31 October 2025.

78․	It is noted that the additional offence of damage property (CAN 2024/3196) was taken
into account in making the sentence order in relation to the offence of aggravated
burglary (CAN 2024/3195) and the list of additional offences is scheduled to these
orders.

I certify that the preceding seventy eight [78] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen

Associate:

Date: 12 June 2025