In the Estate of Mary Ellen Robbie

[2024] ACTSC 208

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Cichacz

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 209

Hearing Date: 

28 May 2024

Decision Date: 

28 June 2024

Before:

Baker J

Decision: 

See [69]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – possessing a declared substance – possess/sale/supply a drug of dependence – breach of suspended sentences and good behaviour orders – illicit substance abuse – difficulty attending supervision appointments due to vision impairment – PTSD from prior relationships of domestic violence – Verdins considerations  –  prospects of rehabilitation – no action taken on breach of good behaviour orders – sentences of imprisonment suspended upon entry into good behaviour orders.

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 33(1)(za)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 603(7)

Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), ss 164, 171

Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (ACT), s 36

Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT), s 5

Cases Cited: 

DPP v Myers (a pseudonym) (No 5) [2024] ACTSC 109

DPPv Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428

Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

Nchouki v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 28; 13 ACTLR 168

R v Cichacz [2022] ACTSC 28

R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550

R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53; 19 ACTLR 223

Parties: 

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT DPP)

Rosalind Cichacz ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

S Janackovic (ACT DPP)

P Edmonds ( Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Paul Edmonds & Associates ( Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 315 of 2023

SCC 316 of 2023

BAKER J:      

Introduction

1․The offender, Rosalind Cichacz, has pleaded guilty to the following offences (the “index offences”):

(a)Count 1 (CAN2023/10956): possess a declared substance (CAN10956/2023), contrary to s 36 of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (ACT).

(b)Count 2 (CAN2023/10735): possess/sale/supply drug of dependence, contrary to s 164(2) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT).

2․The maximum penalty for the offence of possess a declared substance is 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $32,000. The maximum penalty for the offence of sale or supply of a drug of dependence contrary to s 164(2) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) is 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $80,000.

3․In committing the index offences, the offender breached two suspended sentences that were imposed by Mossop J on 22 February 2022 in respect of a count of trafficking (CAN2020/4512), and a count of receiving stolen property (CAN2020/6925) (“the previous offences”): R v Cichacz [2022] ACTSC 28. The offender also breached three good behaviour orders that were imposed by Hunter SM on 24 March 2022 in respect of a count of possess drug of dependence (CAN2020/6026) and two counts of drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid (CAN2020/6957) and CAN2021/3206).

4․The Court must now sentence the offender for the two index offences and determine the action to be taken with respect to the two suspended sentences imposed for the previous offences.

Background

The index offences

5․At about 6:32pm on 3 October 2022, ACT Police executed a search warrant of the offender’s home. During the search, police located and searched the offender’s handbag. Police discovered a satchel inside the handbag containing zip lock bags and several substances, including a crystalline substance (dimethylsulfone), a fine white powder (caffeine), capsules weighing 0.511g of pregabalin (possess declared substance) and pills weighing 0.342g of diazepam (possess declared substance). Police also found $380 in cash.

6․Police also searched the drawers of the coffee table in the living room and found various drug paraphernalia inside. Police found zip lock bags containing a crystalline substance (dimethylsulfone), a crystalline substance weighing 7.511g (methylamphetamine at less than 0.5% as the base was detected in the substance) (sale/supply of drug of dependence), a crystalline substance with no drugs detected, and a crystalline substance weighing 0.926g (methylamphetamine) (sale/supply drug of dependence).

7․The offender also declared a larger zip lock bag, concealed inside a panty hose box in her bedroom. The zip lock bag contained a larger amount of crystallised substance (dimethylsulfone) and a steel shovel to transfer the substance from one bag to another.

8․The offender told police that the seized items were all fake drugs which she gave to people who robbed her.

9․At about 8:21pm, the offender was arrested and taken to the ACT Watch House, where she remained overnight.

The previous offences

10․The circumstances of the previous offences were summarised by Mossop J at [3] to [7] of Cichacz. In brief, on 30 September 2019, on an execution of a search warrant of the offender’s house, police located a total of 26.267g of a substance containing methylamphetamine, 9.297g of a substance containing MDMA, an extendable baton and various items that belonged to other people, including a government identification card, a mountain bike and stolen tools valued at $6,042.

11․The offender was charged with trafficking a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT); possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT); possessing a prohibited substance (MDMA), contrary to s 171(1)(b) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT); and receiving stolen property contrary to s 313 of the Criminal Code.

12․On 22 February 2022, Mossop J sentenced the offender for those offences as follows:

(a)For the charge of trafficking a controlled drug, the offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months, commencing on 29 January 2022 and ending on 28 January 2023;

(b)For the charge of dishonestly receiving stolen property, the offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 months;

(c)For the charge of possessing a prohibited weapon, the offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 21 days; and

(d)For the charge of possessing a prohibited substance, the offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 42 days.

13․Taking into account time served, the sentences were fully suspended on the following undertakings:

(a)For the offence of trafficking a controlled drug other than cannabis, the offender entered into a good behaviour order for a period of two years;

(b)For the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property, the offender entered into a good behaviour order for a period of one year;

(c)For the offence of possessing a prohibited weapon, the offender entered into a good behaviour order for a period of two months; and

(d)For the offence of possessing a prohibited substance, the offender entered into a good behaviour order for a period of two months.

14․The index offences were committed in breach of the good behaviour orders that attached to the suspended sentences for the offences of trafficking and receiving stolen property. The sentences imposed for the remaining offences had expired at the time of the index offending.

15․The index offences were also committed in breach of the three good behaviour orders imposed by Hunter SM on 24 March 2022 for possess drug of dependence and two charges of drive with a prescribed drug in oral fluid (methylamphetamine). The good behaviour orders were to be served concurrently for a period of 12 months from 24 March 2022.

Subjective Circumstances

16․The offender’s subjective circumstances are summarised in a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) dated 20 May 2024.

Childhood and adult relationships

17․The offender was born in Darwin. She moved to the Australian Capital Territory after her parents separated, when she was about 8 years old. She reported having a positive relationship with her mother. Her mother worked two jobs, leaving the offender unsupervised at various times when she was a child and teenager. However, the offender did not engage in anti-social behaviour as a result of being left alone. The offender’s mother passed away in 2016. She reported that her father had “abandon[ed]” her and that she has not had contact with him since she was 19 years old. The offender has two adult children. She reported that they have drifted apart over time.

18․The offender left school after Year 10. Her most recent employment was eight years ago as an office manager. As outlined further below, the offender has failing vision. She explained that this condition was “instrumental” to why she ceased work.

19․The offender told the PSR author that she has been involved in four significant romantic relationships, each of which has involved family violence. Three of her ex-partners have received custodial sentences for violent offending, including the commission of a family violence common assault offence against the offender.

20․The offender currently resides in an ACT Housing property. She advised that whilst she has been a resident there, she has been a victim of theft, property damage and other antisocial behaviour.

21․The offender also told the PSR author that she has a mix of antisocial and pro-social associates, including some friends who she engages in substance use with.

Substance use

22․The offender began using illicit substances relatively late in life, when she was 37 years old. She told the PSR author that she started smoking methamphetamine “as a response to her ex-partners coercive and controlling behaviours”. She said she has been trying to reduce the amount of methamphetamine she uses since 2019, and currently uses methamphetamine occasionally, when “someone shouts [her]”. The offender reported she has at times used medications that were not prescribed to her, including Xanax. She also advised that she may have misused medication prescribed for her, including Valium. She claimed that she only uses drugs socially. She disclosed that she had used methamphetamine two days prior to being interviewed for the PSR.

23․The offender has previously engaged in counselling with Karralika to address her use of illicit substances.

24․The offender was referred for assessment for the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List (DASL) in December 2023. The report concluded that the offender had a “mild disorder with the presence of only two or three symptoms” and did not fit the criteria for a suitability assessment.

Physical health

25․The offender has a diagnosed eye condition, Pan-uveitis, which causes her difficulty with sight. The offender’s limited eyesight causes her anxiety and has forced her to rely on other people to assist her to attend supervision appointments and to engage with interventions. She also reported that she has HLA-B27-related reactive arthritis and Sarcoidosis, an auto-immune condition that affects her joints. A letter from Dr Matthew Cook, Senior Staff Specialist at Canberra Health Services, dated 2 December 2021 confirmed that the offender “requires expert medical management, regular assessment, sophisticated therapies and monitoring pathology tests” for her autoimmune condition, which would “likely … be jeopardised by imprisonment”.

Mental health

26․The offender reported that she has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. In a forensic mental health report dated 7 December 2021, Ms Leesa Morris, a forensic psychologist, stated that the offender’s PTSD developed from an abusive and controlling relationship, in which the offender feared for both her emotional and physical safety. Ms Morris stated that “while untreated (the offender) remains at risk for substance use relapse”.

Criminal History

27․The offender’s criminal history began in 2012, when she was convicted for an offence of drive with alcohol in blood or breath. At this time, she was 38 years old. In 2016, she was convicted of possess drug of dependence, drive while disqualified and possess prohibited substance. In 2017 she was convicted of drive while disqualified. Her more recent offending includes drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid/blood (2021), possess drug of dependence (2020), possess prohibited substance (2019), possess/use a prohibited weapon without authorisation (2019), traffic in controlled drug other than cannabis (2019), and receiving stolen property (2019).

Response to supervision

28․An affidavit of Ms Forsyth of ACT Corrective Services, affirmed on 24 January 2023, summarised the offender’s response to supervision. In that affidavit, Ms Forsyth reported that the offender had failed to attend supervision on a number of occasions in 2022 and early 2023. The affidavit concluded:

Although [the offender] is polite during supervision, she has had a poor response to supervision, as she fails to engage consistently, failing to report either by phone or in person for a total of 12 times since being sentenced to this Order in February 2022. [The offender] re-engages with this Service briefly when a warning is given that breach action will be initiated.

[The offender]’s lack of compliance and engagement is a concern to this Service due to the assessment outcome of high risk of general reoffending and further charges received whilst on this order.

29․However, as discussed further below, it appears that the offender’s medical condition accounts for a large part of her failure to engage with supervision conditions. As noted above, the offender has a medical condition that affects her eyesight. She is forced to rely on other people to attend supervision appointments and to engage in interventions. 

Sentencing considerations

The nature and circumstances of the offending

Possess/ sale/ supply of a drug of dependence

30․The factors that are relevant to an assessment of the nature and circumstances of an offence of possess/ sale/ supply a drug of dependence contrary to s 164 of the Drugs of Dependence Act include the quantity of the drug, the purity of the drug (where the drug is of very low purity) and the motive of the offending (for example, whether the possession was for sale for profit or for the sharing of a drug in a non-commercial social context): Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53; 19 ACTLR 223 at 232 – 233 [40] – [42]; Nchouki v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 28; (2018) 13 ACTLR 168 at 194 – 195 [71] – [73].

31․In the present case, the offender possessed two quantities of methylamphetamine (admixture). The larger of the two (7.511g) was slightly more than the trafficable quantity of 6g. However, the purity of that methylamphetamine was only 0.5%. As the prosecutor observed in her written submissions, this means that only “0.038g of this substance was pure methylamphetamine (which is less than a point of methylamphetamine)”. The purity of the smaller (0.926g) quantity of methylamphetamine found is unknown.

32․As to the motive for the offending, as noted above, the offender told police during the execution of the search warrant that each of the drugs [possessed] were “fake drugs” which she gave to people who robbed her. The offender’s legal representative submitted that I would accept this explanation, noting that in the PSR, the offender reported that she had been the victim of intimidation, property damage, and other antisocial behaviour at her ACT Housing Property.

33․The prosecution submitted that I would reject this explanation. Noting that the methylamphetamine was divided up amongst 10 individual ziplock bags, and that police had also found empty ziplock bags, cutting agents, caffeine and dimethylsulfone (packaged in multiple different ziplock bags), as well as $380 in cash, the prosecutor submitted that “the only reasonable inference” to be drawn was that the offender was “selling this very low-grade methylamphetamine for profit”.

34․The prosecutor submitted that it was unlikely that the offender would give robbers “fake drugs”. She contended that it would be “highly counterproductive to provide very poor and fake product to what one might think are dangerous and violent people who would then become even angrier with her for supplying them with this poor or fake product”.

35․A finding that the drugs were possessed for the purpose of sale for profit would be an aggravating factor, which must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt: R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270 at 282 [31] and 293 [57]. Acceptance of the offender’s explanation would be a mitigating factor which would require proof on the part of the offender on the balance of probabilities: Olbrich at 281 [27].

36․I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender possessed the drugs for the purpose of sale for profit. The presence of ziplock bags, cutting agents, and a relatively small amount of cash, is consistent with the offender’s explanation that the drugs were to be given to any person who came to rob her. The extremely low purity of the drugs that were analysed is consistent with the offender’s explanation to police that the drugs were “fake drugs”.

37․As for the prosecutor’s contention that it would be “highly counterproductive” to provide “fake product” to persons who sought to rob the offender, it may be observed that it would also be counterproductive to provide fake product for the purpose of obtaining a profit. In other words, the risks that were attended in providing fake drugs do not weigh either in favour of the offender’s submission or against the offender’s submission. It is a neutral consideration.

38․The offender told police that the drugs were fake and were to be provided to people who robbed her at the time of the execution of the search warrant. I was initially concerned that the offender did not repeat the explanation when she was interviewed by the PSR author. Rather, as noted below, when the PSR author asked the offender about the offending, the offender said that she did not agree with the Statement of Facts, and that she had been advised to plead guilty by her legal representative. However, there is no indication in the PSR as to which aspect of the Statement of Facts the offender denied. The offender’s legal representative explained that at the time that the offender was interviewed, she did not understand the admixture provisions, and that it was this reason that she said that she did not agree that with the Statement of Facts. This explanation, which I accept, is not inconsistent with the contemporaneous account that the offender provided to police at the time of the execution of the search warrant.

39․Further, for the reasons outlined below, there is evidence that the offender has PTSD arising from her prior relationships of domestic violence. I accept that the PTSD affected the offender’s capacity to engage in logical and rational thinking about her response to fears of future violence.

40․In these circumstances, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the offender’s explanation.

Possessing a declared substance

41․The offender possessed two forms of prescription only medication for which the offender had no prescription at the time. The offender told the author of the PSR that she previously held scripts for pregabalin medication to assist in her management of her associated joint and nerve pain. Although she provided no evidence of these scripts, there is evidence that she suffers from this condition. The prosecution concedes that the quantities of medication held were not significant.

42․Again, this offence was committed whilst the offender was subject to two suspended sentences, as well as three good behaviour orders imposed by Hunter SM. This is an aggravating circumstance on sentence.

Mental health (Verdins)

43․As outlined above, the offender has been diagnosed with PTSD, depression and anxiety which developed from an abusive relationship.

44․The offender’s counsel submitted that the offender’s mental illnesses are such as to engage Verdins considerations and, in particular, lower her moral culpability for the offending: R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 at 276 [32].

45․In reply, the prosecutor submitted that there was no evidence of any causal connection between the offender’s PTSD and the current offending. The prosecutor accepted that there was evidence that the offender commenced using methylamphetamine in the context of a dysfunctional relationship, but submitted that there was no link between the PTSD and the offender’s use of methylamphetamine. Nonetheless, the prosecutor accepted that the offender’s PTSD would render any full-time custody more onerous: Verdins at 276 [32].

46․Care must be taken in relation to the prosecutor’s submission that the offender’s PTSD is not “causally connected” to the offending. As the Judicial College of Victoria, Victorian Sentencing Manual states at Ch 6.2.2:

… one way that moral culpability may be reduced is where there is a causal connection between the offender’s impairment and the offending conduct. While a causal connection is not required by Verdins to reduce the offender’s culpability (or to moderate or eliminate general and specific deterrence), some connection is still required. If the impairment existed at the time of the offending there must be a ‘realistic connection’ between the two, or the impairment must have ‘caused or contributed to’ or be ‘causally linked’ to the offending. (citations omitted)

47․Whilst there must be expert evidence to demonstrate the impairment (here, PTSD), expert evidence is not required to demonstrate the “realistic connection” between the offending and the condition. I have accepted that the offender’s PTSD affected her capacity to think logically and rationally about her response to her fears of future violence (see [39] above). In these circumstances, I am satisfied that there is a “realistic connection” between the offending and the offender’s PTSD. It follows that the offender’s moral culpability is reduced, to a degree.

Remorse and prospects of rehabilitation

48․As noted above, the offender denied liability for the offending in her interview with the PSR author. As outlined above, I accept that this was in the context where she did not appreciate that supply of drugs of low purity constituted an offence. However, it remains the case that there is no substantial evidence of remorse.

49․In the proceedings relating to the previous offending, Mossop J was of the view that, “with appropriate assistance, [the offender] has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation”: Cichacz at [28].

50․As outlined above, whilst the offender has had a poor response to supervision, it appears that her medical condition accounts for a large part of her failure to comply with supervision conditions. In view of the current offending, the assessment of the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation must be more guarded than when this issue was considered by Mossop J. However, noting the offender’s limited present drug use (a matter which has rendered her ineligible for referral to the DASL), and the fact that she has not come to attention of police in the 18 months since the index offences were committed, I consider that the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation remain sufficient for this factor to carry weight in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

Current sentencing practice

51․I am required to have regard to current sentencing practice: s 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). Neither party provided any comparative cases for the Court’s consideration. In any event, it is important to bear in mind the limitations of relying on comparative cases in sentencing: R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 at 560 [29]; DPP v Dagliesh(a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at 445 [51] – [53]; Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [48]. Those limitations are heightened in a case such as the present, which involves unusual offending and an atypical offender. Given the unique subjective and objective circumstances of the offender and offending in this case, I do not consider that comparative cases provide any assistance to the sentence to be imposed: Pham at 560 [29]; see also Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at 535 [49].

Discount for guilty plea

52․The offender was initially charged with two counts of trafficking a controlled drug and one count of possessing a prohibited substance. She pleaded not guilty to both offences and a trial date was listed for 3 November 2023.

53․On 3 November 2023, following negotiations with the prosecution, the offender entered a plea of guilty to a count of possess/sale/supply a drug of dependence. On 23 November 2023, she entered a plea of guilty to a count of possession of a declared substance.

54․Although the pleas were both late, both pleas were made to significantly less serious offences than those that were initially charged. The prosecution concedes that it “could never have proved the erroneous charge of possession of a prohibited substance”. In these circumstances, the prosecution accepts that a “decent discount” should be applied to the possess/sale/supply charge and a “full discount” should be applied to the charge of possession of a declared substance.

55․Accordingly, I will afford the offender a 25% discount for the charge of possessing a declared substance. I will afford the offender a 20% discount for the charge of possess/sale/supply a drug of dependence.

Time in custody

56․The offender spent one day in custody referrable to this offending. The sentence imposed will be backdated to take this period into account.

Determination

57․The most concerning aspect of the index offences are that they were committed in breach of suspended sentences that had been imposed by this Court. This is a matter to which I have given careful consideration in determining both the sentences to be imposed, and the action that should be taken on the suspended sentences in response to the breaches.

58․Whilst there is no presumption in this jurisdiction in favour of the imposition of a sentence that was suspended, in determining the action to be taken in response to a breach of a suspended sentence, it must be recognised that the offender avoided serving a period of full time imprisonment as a result of entering into the good behaviour order: DPP v Myers (a pseudonym) (No 5) [2024] ACTSC 109 at [16] – [18].

59․Nonetheless, on balance, I have determined that the offender should be provided one last opportunity to continue her rehabilitation. The matters which have been most influential in reaching this decision are as follows.

60․First, the offending is at the lower end of objective seriousness. The most serious of the offences is the offence of possess/ sale/ supply drug of dependence (methylamphetamine). The 7.511g methylamphetamine was of exceptionally low purity. The prosecutor accepted that this admixture would not provide the toxic effects that would usually be expected from ingestion of that drug. I have taken into account that the supply of drugs of low purity still has adverse consequences for the public: Nchouki at 194 [69]. However, it must also be recognised that by reason of the exceptionally low purity, the drugs supplied did not pose the same risk to the community as would otherwise arise from offending of this nature.

61․Second, I have accepted that there is some reduction of moral culpability that arises from the offender’s mental illness (see at [47] above). It follows that somewhat less weight should be given to the need for denunciation, punishment and general deterrence.

62․Third, as the prosecution properly accepted, the offender’s medical and psychological conditions, that is her PTSD, her anxiety, her vision impairment and her arthritis would render her experience of custody more onerous.

63․Fourth, for the reasons outlined at [50] above, I consider that the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation remain sufficient for this factor to carry weight in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The offender’s prospects of rehabilitation would be compromised by the imposition of any period of full-time custody.

64․In view of the above, whilst the s 10 threshold is clearly crossed for the offence of possess/ sale/ supply a drug of dependence, I consider that the purposes of sentencing can be met by the imposition of a suspended sentence for this offence.

65․The s 10 threshold is not crossed for the offence of possessing a declared substance. I will impose a good behaviour order for this offence.

66․I will cancel the suspended sentences for the prior offences, but will impose new suspended sentences, taking into account the period that the offender served on those sentences without breach, but also taking into account the need for the new sentences to continue to meet the need for deterrence, denunciation and punishment. I will not take any action on the breach of the good behaviour orders imposed by the Magistrates Court.

67․The prosecution did not oppose the above course of action. The prosecution accepted that suspended sentences were amongst the sentences that could validly be imposed in all of the circumstances.

68․The offender’s legal representative invited me to consider ordering that any fresh suspended sentence not carry a supervision condition. Bearing in mind the commission of the fresh offences, and the issues which the offender must overcome to achieve her rehabilitation, I do not consider that it is appropriate to dispense with a supervision condition. However, noting the difficulties that the offender faces in complying with supervision by reason of her medical condition, I will order that any supervision condition only be for the time deemed necessary by ACT Corrective Services.

Orders

69․For the above reasons, the following orders are made:

Breach offences

(1)I cancel the Good Behaviour Orders imposed on 22 February 2022 in respect of the following offences:

(a)CAN2020/4512 (trafficking).

(b)CAN2020/6925 (receiving stolen property).

(2)I re-sentence the offender to the following sentences:

(a)For CAN2020/4512 (trafficking): a sentence of imprisonment for 10 months, commencing on 28 June 2024 and expiring on 27 April 2025.

(b)For CAN2020/6925 (receiving stolen property): a sentence of imprisonment for 8 months, commencing on 28 June 2024 and expiring on 27 February 2025.

(3)I order that those sentences be wholly suspended with immediate effect upon the offender entering into an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations from the giving of the undertaking until 27 April 2025, with the additional condition that she be subject to supervision by ACT Corrective Services only for the period deemed necessary by ACT Corrective Services, and that she report to the ACT Community Corrections office at Level 1, 249 London Circuit within 48 hours of entering that Order.

The index offences

(4)For the offence of possess/sale/supply drug of dependence (CAN10735/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months’ and 18 days imprisonment (reduced from 12 months imprisonment on account of the offender’s guilty plea), commencing on 27 March 2025 and expiring on 13 January 2026.

(5)The sentence of imprisonment is to be wholly suspended with immediate effect upon the offender entering into an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations from 27 March 2025 until 13 January 2026, with the additional condition that she be subject to supervision by ACT Corrective Services only for the period deemed necessary by ACT Corrective Services, and that she report to the ACT Community Corrections office at Level 1, 249 London Circuit within 48 hours of entering that Order.

(6)For the offence of possess a declared substance (CAN10956/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to a two month and 7-day good behaviour order (reduced from 3 months on account of the offender’s guilty plea), commencing on 27 March 2025 and expiring on 2 June 2025, with the additional condition that she be subject to supervision by ACT Corrective Services only for the period deemed necessary by ACT Corrective Services, and that she report to the ACT Community Corrections office at Level 1, 249 London Circuit within 48 hours of entering that Order.

I certify that the preceding sixty-nine [69] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker

Associate:

Date: 8 July 2024