Police v Pedro Swain (a pseudonym)
[2024] ACTCC 1
•24 January 2024 and 06 February 2024
CHILDRENS COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title:
Police v Pedro Swain (a pseudonym)
Citation:
[2024] ACTCC 1
Hearing Date:
16 January 2024 (oral) and 24 January 2024
Decision Date:
24 January 2024 and 06 February 2024
Before:
Magistrate Stewart
Decision:
See [69]-[87]
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Australian Capital Territory Childrens Court - sentencing of young offenders – sentencing practice – relevant considerations – parity – offending whilst on conditional liberty – totality – Aboriginal offenders – Bugmy – Verdins – imprisonment only appropriate option on some charges – significant time in custody – partially suspended sentence - absence of bail support program for Aboriginal young people or children
Legislation Cited:
Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Kelly v Ashby [2015] ACTSC 346
Police v Axl Joseph (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTCC 1
R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269
Texts Cited:
Bugmy Bar Book Project Committee, Bugmy Bar Book (November 2019)
Parties:
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Prosecution)
Pedro Swain (a pseudonym) (Young Person)
Representation:
Counsel
E. Narouz ( Prosecution)
P. Edmonds (Young Person)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Canberra Criminal Lawyers
Informants:
Leigh Robert Cantle, Scott Thomas Heyne, Katie Nixon, Katelyn Julie Pomroy and Mark Wadley
File Numbers:
CH 1411 of 2022; CH 956-958 of 2023; CH 949-951 of 2023; CH 953 of 2023; CH 1349-1350 of 2023; CH 1014-1015 of 2023; CH 1498 of 2023; CH 299 of 2023; CH 1289 of 2023; CH 1291-1292 of 2023; CH 289-290 of 2023; CH 452-453 of 2023; CH 668 of 2023; CH 830 of 2023
MAGISTRATE STEWART:
Introduction
1.This is a sentencing decision of the Australian Capital Territory Childrens Court (ACTCC). A pseudonym has been used in the hope that the young offender is not identified, embarrassed or prejudiced by this decision.
Who is Pedro Swain?
2.Pedro is aged 17 years and one month. He is a proud Wiradjuri young person and is learning more about his Aboriginality every day.[1] Our legislation defines him as a ’young person’ because he is 12 years or older, but not an adult.[2] I decline to make any observations about his physical appearance or attributes, because that would only assist in identifying him.
[1] Cultural Care Plan dated 03 August 2023.
[2] A child is defined to be aged under 12. See s 11-12 Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT).
3.Pedro did not choose to be born into the social deprivation that he has experienced since birth. Pedro’s ‘subjective features’[3] are worth re-reading and considering in light of the expected lived experience of an average Australian 17 year old. Pedro:
[3] This information is derived from the comprehensive pre-sentence report (PSR) dated 24 August 2023 and the Child and Youth Protection Services Case Plan dated 24 August 2023 except where otherwise footnoted.
a.Was born in late 2006;
b.Has seven other siblings from his parents jointly and separately, all of whom are understood to be in the care of the state across the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and New South Wales (NSW);
c.Was the subject of multiple child concern reports alleging pre-natal and post- natal neglect, parental alcohol abuse, exposure to family violence, medical neglect, homelessness, parental mental ill-health and physical abuse until January 2008 when his mother signed a voluntary care agreement and placed Pedro and his closest sibling into foster care. That arrangement turned into a placement with a grandparent within a few days;
d.In March 2010 was placed into foster care in NSW along with his closest sibling;
e.In March 2010 was the subject of a NSW Children’s Court order placing him into care until age 18. That order was transferred to the ACT in 2012;
f.Was in a foster placement with some of his siblings from 2011 until 2017 when that placement broke down for him;
g.Has remained in residential care facilities since 2017;
h.Thinks that he has only met his mother once. On that occasion she requested some help at her home and rewarded Pedro with a ‘bong’ for his physical efforts; and
i.Aspires to work for a living, earn an income, be financially independent and put criminal activity behind him.
Remorse[4]
[4] Remorse is a relevant consideration for sentence under the considerations at s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
4.Pedro has written a letter to the Court that sets out his desire for change. He has entered pleas of guilty to all of the matters before the Court and by doing so has admitted guilt beyond reasonable doubt to each offence. He has not put victims and witnesses to the trouble and trauma of giving evidence. Some of his offences were committed whilst he was on bail and his remorse needs to be considered in light of his failure to stop offending whilst already before the Court.
5.I intend to afford such a young person the full benefit of his pleas.
Pre-Sentence Report
6.A comprehensive and most helpful 15 page pre-sentence report dated 24 August 2023 and an 18 page update filed 30 November 2023 were prepared for this sentence. I thank the authors for their diligence. The initial report sets out Pedro’s performance and engagement whilst on remand at the Bimberi Youth Justice Centre (BYJC) at page 3:
[Pedro was described as] ‘absolutely fabulous, nothing but a pleasure’.
7.At the same page the following was said about Pedro and his performance at Murrumbidgee School whilst in custody:
‘[Pedro] is slowly settling into education at Murrumbidgee School. This term he has actively engaged in Year 10…He is working well on English and math units of work. [Pedro] enjoys art, particularly focusing on indigenous art and working with Gugan Gulwan on their weekly visits to our school.’
8.These positive reports should be balanced with an attempt to climb a fence and a threat to assault staff early in his remand. Privileges were lost as a result of those behaviours.
9.Further, there was an earlier release on bail on March 30 2023 to attend the Ted Noffs PALM residential rehabilitation program which was not successful and resulted in Pedro being remanded back into custody in April after a warrant was issued by the Court.
10.I accepted these mixed reports as some evidence of potential for rehabilitation for Pedro. It appears that he can settle down and thrive when he has appropriate support around him but that should be viewed through a prism of his limited demonstrated success where Pedro is not heavily supervised.
Criminal History
11.Pedro has a limited relevant criminal history at the time of sentence including a sentence of one month’s imprisonment for Joint Commission Aggravated Robbery in November 2022. He cannot be treated as a first offender.
The Charges
12.The charges that the Court must deal with are set out in the table below:
| CHARGE | DESCRIPTION | MAXIMUM PENALTY |
| 23 April 2022 | ||
| 1411/2022 | Attempt aggravated robbery (offensive weapon) S 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) as per s 45A (joint commission) | 2 500 penalty units, imprisonment for 25 years or both |
| 27 November 2022 | ||
| 299/2022 | Joint commission aggravated robbery S 310(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) as per s 45A (joint commission) | 2 500 penalty units, imprisonment for 25 years or both |
| 25 June 2023 | ||
| 956/2023 | Ride/drive motor vehicle without consent S 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) | 500 penalty units, imprisonment for 5 years or both |
| 957/2023 | Obtain property by deception S 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) | 1 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both |
| 05 July 2023 | ||
| 949/2023 | Take motor vehicle without authority S 318(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) | 500 penalty units, imprisonment for 5 years or both |
| 950/2023 | Take motor vehicle without authority S 318(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) | 500 penalty units, imprisonment for 5 years or both |
| 951/2023 | Aggravated burglary – intent to steal S 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) | 2 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both |
| 953/2023 | Fail to appear after bail undertaking S 49(1) of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) | 200 penalty units, imprisonment for 2 years or both |
| 06 July 2023 | ||
| 1014/2023 | Attempt Aggravated Burglary S 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) as per s 44 (attempt) | 2 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both |
| 1015/2023 | Aggravated burglary – intent to steal S 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) | 2 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both |
| 1498/2023 | Aggravated burglary – intent to steal S 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) | 2 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both |
| 1350/2023 | Joint Commission Aggravated Burglary – Intent to Steal S 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) as per s 45A (joint commission) | 2 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both |
| 1349/2023 | Joint Commission Aggravated Burglary – Intent to Steal S 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) as per s 45A (joint commission) | 2 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both |
| 15 September 2023 | ||
| 1289/2023 | Provide false name/address S 211(2)(e) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) | Maximum penalty: $500 |
| 1291/2023 | Assault occasioning actual bodily harm S 24(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) | Imprisonment for 5 years |
| 1292/2023 | Assault frontline community service provider S 26A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) | Imprisonment for 2 years |
The 23 April 2022 offending
17.In this charge the young person and a co-offender held an Uber driver at knife point and took his vehicle. Some hours later a police vehicle gave chase and then terminated that chase when the car went over the border into NSW. The car was the subject of a loss of driver control and it then travelled down an embankment.
18.Damage was caused to the car and the uber driver suffered psychological harm and financial loss. He provided a victim impact statement to the Court that set out the significant harm caused to him.
19.The co-offender was aged 16 at the time. He was sentenced to a conviction and good behaviour order.
20.The objective seriousness of offending falls in the mid-range or just below it.
21.Defence conceded that this offending called for a sentence of imprisonment notwithstanding the sentence imposed on the co-offender.
22.It should be noted that this offence occurred prior to the sentence imposed on Pedro in November 2022 and in that sense Pedro had not yet been fully appraised by the court of the seriousness of this type of offending. In those circumstances I thought that a short sentence of imprisonment was appropriate.
The 27 November 2022 offending
23.This offending involved Pedro and two co-accused young persons turning on another young person who had attempted to befriend them with gifts in return for company and friendship. The offending was brutal and almost wholly captured on telephone footage.
24.One co-offender held a knife to the victim’s back and a demand for $4000 was made. The co-offender then held the knife to the victim’s throat and said “That’s ok, we’re just going to fuck you up a bit and take your shit”.
25.What followed was the victim surrendering a chain from his neck, a beating resulting in the victim falling to the ground and subjected to multiple punches, kicks and stomps to the head. Further footage shows the victim being forced to kiss the shoe of a co-offender.
26.The victim was cornered and outnumbered by the offenders. He had no chance of defending himself. The offending was violent, harmful and belittling.
27.Photographs show the grazing and swelling suffered as a result. It is fortunate that greater injuries were not caused given the application of force to the victim’s face and head region.
28.The victim impact statement tells of the ongoing suffering and embarrassment caused by the offending.
29.It should be noted that Pedro did call out for the offending to stop by using the words “leave him, leave him”. In that sense it was clear that by then Pedro no longer agreed with the offending behaviour. Some difference in sentence should be considered in those circumstances.
30.The objective seriousness of offending falls above the mid-range.
31.This was serious personal violence performed by a group against a defenceless young person. It involved a gross breach of trust. It called for a sentence of imprisonment and no party submitted otherwise.
32.One co-offender has been sentenced to a sentence of six month’s imprisonment. I thought that given Pedro had no physical involvement in the actual violence that six months was an appropriate start point for him.
The 25 June 2023 offending
33.These charges relate to Pedro being the driver of a previously stolen motor vehicle and using the same victim’s credit card to pay for fuel.
34.I have already sentenced Pedro for the accompanying offence of driving whilst unlicensed.
35.The offending was relatively benign as Pedro is not alleged to have been the original thief of the car or card. It falls towards the lower end of the range of objective seriousness.
36.Both parties submitted that a sentence of imprisonment was not the only sentencing option and I ultimately agreed.
The 05 July 2023 offending
37.This offending involved Pedro and another young person going on to the premises of a gym at Gungahlin. Pedro took a handbag containing car keys and used the keys to take the owner’s car.
38.A leisure centre some 300 metres away was then the subject of a further entry and again the taking of a handbag containing car keys.
39.The offending itself was not serious, but the inconvenience caused to the second victim was significant. Her victim impact statement was read out in Court. It eloquently sets out just how difficult this offending made her life and how much distress she and her children were caused.
40.The prosecution conceded that the offending did not call for a sentence of imprisonment and the defence submitted that it was a ‘line-ball’ question.
41.The objective seriousness of offending falls at the lower end.
42.There was an accompanying fail to appear charge from 01 May 2023. It was conceded that a sentence of imprisonment was not necessary and that a lesser sentence was within range.
The 06 July 2023 offending
43.This was a series of offending on commercial premises during the early hours of the following morning. Footage was tendered of some of the offending.
44.The offences involved using force by way of heavy objects or feet to gain access to these premises and steal items from within.
45.The premises were the Village Café at Waramanga (1014), the Grind Café at Kambah (1015), the A Bite Eat Café at Chifley (1498), the Canberra Café at Tuggeranong (1350) and Urban Fresh Sushi at Tuggeranong (1349).
46.Charge 1014/2023 represents the only unsuccessful attempt at gaining entry.
47.The other four aggravated burglaries are also the subject of scheduled offences pursuant to Part 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
48.These schedules allow accompanying offences of theft and property damage to be taken into account on the principal aggravated burglary sentences. This is a convenient ‘global’ manner in which to sentence that avoids ‘loading up’ young people’s criminal histories with multiple offences. Pedro has consented to this process.
49.The objective seriousness of offending falls below the mid-range for offending on commercial premises.
50.It is properly conceded that each offence in this series calls for a sentence of imprisonment. I agree – no other lesser sentence would be appropriate – however, totality should have a significant part to play in the overall outcome for these five offences given that they occurred within quick succession of each other.
The 15 September 2023 offending
51.These are charges that were the subject of guilty pleas on the day of hearing. A more serious charge was contested and dismissed. It will not be taken into account in any way on sentence.
52.A slightly older adult and Pedro set out to take a persons’ car by pretending to be interested in buying the car. No intention to steal was proved.
53.The adult offender told the car owner that she was feeling unwell and requested that he buy her a drink. She was in the driver’s position and Pedro was seated behind the owner who was in the front passenger seat.
54.A scuffle over keys ensued and Pedro assaulted the owner of the car from behind by hitting him once in the head and twice to the shoulder area. He suffered abrasions and bleeding with photos being tendered to prove these injuries.
55.Eventually Pedro was apprehended outside of the car by members of the public.
56.Pedro was intoxicated. He was arrested and gave a false name. Later, after a demand was made for his clothing, he struck out with his feet and kicked an officer in the shoulder.
57.The defence do not concede that a sentence of imprisonment was called for on any of the charges. I agree except for the Assault. It was actual violence on an innocent victim in the course of pursuing the dishonest taking a of a car. Injuries were occasioned. Nothing short of a sentence of imprisonment is called for on that charge.
The decision of Bugmy and Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders
58.Pedro has endured an extremely traumatic upbringing which undoubtedly engages the principles discussed by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 (‘Bugmy’).
59.Bugmy confirmed that when sentencing Aboriginal offenders "full weight" should be given to an offender's deprived background in every sentencing decision. I am compelled to give full weight to Pedro’s ‘subjective features’ that I set out at the beginning of this decision.
60.The Bugmy Bar Book[5] sets out in detail some of the experiences relevant to many Aboriginal people:
[5] Bugmy Bar Book Project Committee, Bugmy Bar Book (November 2019).
a.Foetal alcohol spectrum disorders;
b.Exposure to domestic and family violence;
c.Incarceration of a parent or care-giver;
d.Interrupted school attendance and suspension;
e.Out of home care
f.Childhood sexual abuse;
g.Early exposure to alcohol and other drug abuse,
h.Stolen generations and descendants;
i.Acquired brain injury;
j.Hearing impairment;
k.Homelessness;
l.Unemployment;
m.Cultural dispossession;
n.Social exclusion;
o.Low socio-economic status; and
p.Impacts of imprisonment or remands in custody.
61.It is clear that Pedro has been exposed to many of those experiences, or his personal history is relevant to them.
62.The prosecution submitted that the Bugmy principles do operate in this matter. What that means is that the Court should moderate the young person’s moral culpability for his offending and limit the weight to be given to general deterrence. This needs to be balanced with the fact that general deterrence still has a moderated role to play given the seriousness of the offending conduct.
The decision of Verdins and Impaired Mental Functioning
63.Verdins[6] is a Victorian case that helpfully set out sentencing principles for criminal offenders suffering from impaired mental functioning:
[6] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 at paragraphs [31]-[32].
Impaired mental functioning, whether temporary or permanent ("the condition"), is relevant to sentencing in at least the following six ways:
1. The condition may reduce the moral culpability of the offending conduct, as distinct from the offender’s legal responsibility. Where that is so, the condition affects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances; and denunciation is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective.
2. The condition may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions in which it should be served.
3. Whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of sentence or both.
4. Whether specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration likewise depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms of the condition as exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of the sentence or both.[40]
5. The existence of the condition at the date of sentencing (or its foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal health.
6. Where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender’s mental health, this will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment.
64.The most recent pre-sentence report states that Pedro “...is diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Reactive Attachment Disorder”. [7]
[7] PSR at page 8.
65.Ultimately, I find that there is no evidence of or obvious causal connection between Pedro’s mental health and his offending – however it is a relevant consideration for sentence per s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). It is reasonable for the Court to proceed on the basis that because of his mental health issues and youth Pedro is not a suitable person to make an example of for the purpose of general deterrence. In combination with the operation of the Bugmy principles this means that general deterrence has a limited role to play in this sentence.
Offending whilst on conditional Liberty
66.With respect to all but the first series of offences, Pedro was on conditional liberty at the time of the commission of the offences. That is, he was subject to bail conditions and expected to not re-offend.
67.Being on conditional liberty at the time of the commission of the offences is a serious aggravating feature at sentence, but care is required to avoid double punishment: Kelly v Ashby [2015] ACTSC 346 at [61].
68.It saddens the Court to repeat[8] the fact that there was no culture specific bail support service for Aboriginal children and young people charged with criminal offences in the ACT when Pedro re-offended whilst on bail. Such a service might have improved his chances of not reoffending and of appearing in Court. I gave that fact significant weight when considering the seriousness or aggravating nature of offending whilst on bail.
[8] See Police v Axl Joseph (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTCC 1 at [113].
Sentences of the Court
69.Pedro’s sentence can be backdated to 20 March 2023 because Pedro has been in custody for a total 311 days up until midnight last night.[9]
[9] S 63 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
70.On charge 1411/2022 the Aggravated Robbery, it is conceded by the Court that a sentencing error was made on 25 January 2024. Due to an error on the Court file this offending was originally sentenced as an attempt. This was erroneous. The parties brought this to the Court’s attention, the proceedings were re-opened[10] and the error was corrected on 06 February 2024. I convicted Pedro and started at a sentence of two months. I reduced that by about 25% to one month and 15 day’s imprisonment. It will commence on 20 March 2023 and finish on 04 May 2023. That time is served.
[10] S 61 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
71.On charge 299/2022 the Joint Commission Aggravated Robbery I convicted Pedro and started at a sentence of six months imprisonment. I reduced that by about 25% to four and a half months imprisonment (four months and 15 days). It will be cumulative as to four months so as not to offend the totality principle. It will commence on 20 April 2023 and finish on 4 September 2023. That time is served.
72.On charges 956 and 957/2023 the Ride/Drive Without Consent and Obtain Property by Deception imprisonment is not called for. I convicted Pedro on both and imposed identical Good Behaviour orders for 10 months to ensure that Pedro has the benefit of supervision until he is almost 18.
73.On charges 949 and 950/2023 the Take Motor Vehicle Without Consent Charges it was conceded that imprisonment was not necessary. I convicted Pedro on both and imposed identical Good Behaviour orders for 10 months for the same reasons as above.
74.On charge 951/2023 the Aggravated Burglary with Intent to Steal I convicted Pedro and started at 2 months imprisonment and reduced that to one and half month’s imprisonment (one month and 15 days). It will be cumulative as to one month and concurrent as to 15 days on the previous sentence. It will commence on 20 August 2023 and finish on 4 October 2023. That time is served.
75.On charge 953/2023 the Fail to Appear, I impose a conviction and no further penalty.
76.The Joint Commission Aggravated Burglary, Aggravated Burglary (and one attempt) charges all resulted in a conviction and sentence of imprisonment. It was agreed that nothing less would suffice. Convictions are recorded on each.
77.On 1014/2023 the attempted burglary on the Village Café I started at two months imprisonment and reduced that to one and a half months (one month and 15 days) on account of the plea. It will be concurrent as to 15 days and cumulative as to one month on the previous charge. It will commence on 21 September 2023 and finish on 4 November 2023. That time is served.
78.On each of the other Burglaries I convicted Pedro and started at the same point – three months imprisonment reduced to two and a quarter months (two months and seven days) each. On 1015/2023 the Aggravated Burglary on the Grind Café the sentence of two months and seven days will be cumulative as to one month on the previous charge and concurrent as to one month and 7 days. I have taken the uncharged Theft and Damage Property offences into account as per the schedule signed by me today. The sentence will commence on 28 September 2023 and finish on 04 December 2023. That time is served.
79.On 1498/2023 the Aggravated Burglary on a Bite to Eat Café I impose the same sentence - a reduced sentence from three months to two months and seven days will be cumulative as to one month on the previous charge and concurrent as to one month and 7 days. I have taken the uncharged Theft and Damage Property offences into account as per the schedule signed by me today. The sentence will commence on 29 October 2023 and finish on 4 January 2024. That time is served.
80.On 1350/2023 The Joint Commission Aggravated Burglary on the Canberra Cafe even though the offence was aggravated by joint commission, I impose the same sentence - a reduced sentence from three months to two months and seven days will be cumulative as to one month on the previous charge and concurrent as to one month and 7 days. I have taken the uncharged Theft and Damage Property offences into account as per the schedule signed by me today. The sentence will commence on 29 November 2023 and finish on 04 February 2024.
81.On 1349/2023 The Joint Commission Aggravated Burglary on Urban Fresh Sushi even though the offence was aggravated by joint commission, I impose the same sentence - a sentence reduced from three months to two months and seven days will be cumulative as to one month on the previous charge and concurrent as to one month and 7 days. I have taken the uncharged Damage Property offence into account as per the schedule signed by me today. The sentence will commence on 27 December 2023 and finish on 4 March 2024.
82.On the final series it is only the charge of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm that calls for a sentence of imprisonment. I note the submissions of the parties but I am of the view that it was a serious assault given the circumstances in which it was committed. Any other sentence would not adequately represent the criminality and all of the circumstances of the offending. On that charge 1291/2023 a conviction is recorded. I started at two months imprisonment and reduced it to a month and a half (one month and 15 days) it will be cumulative as to one month and concurrent as to 15 days on the previous offence. The sentence will commence on 21 February 2024 and finish on 4 April 2024.
83.On charge 1289/2023 the Provide False Name a conviction is recorded with no further penalty.
84.On charge 1292/2023 a conviction is recorded and a 10 month good behaviour order is imposed in the same terms and for the same reasons as the other similar orders.
85.There is a total sentence of one year and 16 days running from 20 March 2023 to 4 April 2024. I have considered whether to suspend the remaining 71 days of Pedro’s sentence.
86.On one view of it, it is in his best interests to not have a suspended sentence hanging over him and it is better for him to use that time to marshal resources and support and prepare himself for an organised departure from custody. However, I am sure that he is anxious for release and keen to prove his good behaviour.
87.On that basis and the hope that he will, indeed, be of good behaviour, I will suspend the balance of Pedro’s sentence from today, 24 January 2024, and require him to enter a suspended sentence order for 10 months in the same terms as the other good behaviour orders.
I certify that the preceding eighty-seven [87] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Decision of his Honour Magistrate Stewart
Associate: Jonathan Pears
Date: 28 March 2024
Corrigendum
11 March 2025 Removed “and therefore concurrent with the previous charge as to 15 days” Paragraph: [71]
11 March 2025 Replaced “28 November 2023” with “29 November 2023” Paragraph: [80]
11 March 2025 Replaced “29 December 2023” with “27 December 2023” Paragraph: [81]
11 March 2025 Replaced “19 February 2024” with “21 February 2024” Paragraph: [82]
2
5
4