R v Akauola

[2021] NSWDC 767

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Akauola [2021] NSWDC 767

Hearing dates:

17 September 2021

Date of orders:

17 September 2021

Decision date:

17 September 2021

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Neilson DCJ

Decision:

Imprisonment for four years. Non-parole period 3 years (Aggregate Sentence).

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE

Three substantive offences:

(1) Enter a dwelling house in company with intent to steal.

Indicative sentence: 9 months with 25% discount.

(2) Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm in company.

Indicative sentence: 9 months with 25% discount.

(3) Wounding a police officer in the execution of his duty.

Indicative sentence: 3 yrs 9 months with 25% discount. Non-parole period 2 yrs 9 months.

44 year old man from Tonga with extensive criminal history.

Backdating of sentences.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

R – Crown
Offender – Daniel Akauola

Representation:

Crown – Rogers, M. instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Offender – Shaw, M. instructed by Jeffreys Lawyers

File Number(s):

2020/00295317; 2020/00304618

Publication restriction:

Nil.

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Daniel Akauola stands for sentence as a consequence of having pleaded guilty to three substantive charges. He also asks me to take into account on a Form 1 a further offence of lesser moment. The first two offences occurred on 22 August 2020. The first offence was entering a dwelling house in company with intent to steal. That is in an offence contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years. The second substantive offence was assault occasioning actual bodily harm whilst in company. That is an offence contrary to s 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years.

Facts

2. At the relevant time the offender was in company with Acheampong Boakye-Yiadom, who is known, thankfully, as “Prince”. The other person with whom he was in company was Hassam Ibrahim, who was known by the nickname of “Ibra”. It appears that amongst this group the offender was himself known as Damo or sometimes Demo. Ibra was the owner of a white Mitsubishi Lancer motor car. The complainant concerned in these matters is Naer Twfiek, who is generally known as Hani or Henny. Hani lived in a home unit in Randwick with a friend, Mr Bob Domaradski. Prior to the events in question Hani knew Prince through a friend. That acquaintanceship had been of about three months duration with Hani meeting Prince approximately monthly.

3. The events in question, as I said earlier, occurred on 22 August 2020. At approximately 9:00am Mr Domaradski opened the front door of his home unit in answer to a buzz at the door. He saw the three men there who were the offender, Prince and Ibra. The three men walked in and went towards Hani’s bedroom. Mr Domaradski did not follow them. Whilst the group of men were standing in the corridor, I infer outside Hani’s bedroom, this offender said “Where’s all your cash”. The three men then moved into Hani’s bedroom and this offender started to search the victim.

4. Mr Domaradski heard a conversation between the three men who had come together, and the victim, to this effect:

“What you sold us was junk. It was shit”. and, “We want our money, or we want drugs”.

The inference to be drawn is that Hani had previously sold drugs to the three visitors and they wanted a drug which was effective in lieu of the drug that did not have the required effect or they wanted their money back or perhaps both.

5. Hani was wearing a bag which contained his wallet. He tried to leave the apartment because he did not want to hand over his wallet to the three visitors. This offender picked up the complainant’s portable speaker and held it up to his chest with two hands and motioned it towards Hani and said “don’t move”. Hani then jumped on the bed to get away from the offender and his two “mates”.

6. Prince then said, “Fucking settle down. Nothing’s going to happen, sit down, down”. Hani then said, “Fuck you, you come to my home”. It appeared to Hani that Prince rather than the current offender was the leader of this gang of three and was controlling the situation.

7. Mr Domaradski heard Hani say, “I have got nothing. Search me. Go on. I have got nothing”. According to Mr Domaradski the exchange between Hani between the three intruders went on for about five minutes but was going around in circles. Hani then called out to Mr Domaradski for help and eventually Mr Domaradski saw Hani run out of the unit and all three intruders gave chase.

8. In pursuit of Hani they caught him on the grassed area at the front of his apartment. The three intruders, including this offender, punched and kicked Hani in the head and dragged him around, ripping the knees of his trousers and cutting his right elbow. The punches caused his mouth to bleed. At some stage each of the three intruders struck the victim, Hani. Whilst he was being assaulted the complainant was screaming out and did not resist the assault. At one time during the assault one of the three offenders, which one is not known, grabbed hold of three chains around Hani’s neck and ripped them from his neck. One chain was gold, another was silver to which a silver ring was attached, and the third chain was of stainless steel.

9. Eventually the three men, intruders and assailants, left and ran towards Ibra’s white Mitsubishi Lancer. A witness saw the three men running towards the Lancer and one male starting to drive it toward Clovelly Road, whilst the other two were getting into the car whilst it was moving.

10. The complainant returned to his apartment and called the police. There is photographic evidence of a minor cut to the victim’s lip and what appears to be a relatively mild round abrasion on one of the complainant’s arms near the olecranon.

Arrest and Charge

11. Ibra was arrested at 11:45am, I assume on the following day. He admitted that he had been to Randwick with a “couple of guys” who had been sold “junk stuff” rather than drugs in the past. Prince was arrested on 2 September 2020 and participated in an electronically recorded interview. A lot of what he said was self-serving and cannot in any way bind the current offender. The current offender was arrested for this offence on 23 October 2020. After his arrest in Riverwood he was taken to Kogarah Police Station but he declined to participate in an electronically recorded interview.

12. At the time of his arrest the current offender’s mobile telephone was seized and was subjected to analysis. Phone messages were addressed to him as both Daniel and Damo. The messages included references to drug use and drug supply. There were messages received from both Ibra and Prince. On the day before the offences in Randwick Mr Akauola sent messages indicating that he was “desperate for drugs and money”. At the time of the offence his mobile phone “pinged” at phone towers at Clovelly, Kensington and Randwick indicating that he was present in the vicinity of Randwick.

Wounding a Police Officer

13. The circumstances of the offender’s arrest give rise to the third substantive offence which is wounding a police officer in the execution of his duty. That is an offence contrary to s 60(3) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 12 years. Parliament has prescribed a standard non-parole period of five years. In connection with this offence the offender asks me to take into account on a Form 1 a charge that on the same day at Riverwood he resisted Julian Cooney and Brad Yusuf, being senior constables of police executing their duty. The resistance was to the offender’s being arrested. The wounded senior constable was Senior Constable Julian Cooney.

14. On 28 September 2020 a warrant was issued for the arrest of the offender in connection with the offences at Randwick on 22 August 2020. On Friday 23 October 2020 at around 3pm Senior Constable Julian Cooney and Leading Senior Constable Brad Yusuf, each from Hurstville Police Station, were driving a police vehicle along Washington Avenue, Riverwood. As they were driving Senior Constable Cooney saw the offender cross the road in front of the police car. The offender did not appear to notice the car and continued to walk across a grassed area towards residential towers at 2 Washington Avenue.

15. Senior Constable Cooney recognised the offender from previous interaction earlier in the year and knew that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The police stopped their vehicle and reversed and pulled into the carpark of 2 Washington Avenue. Senior Constable Cooney alighted the vehicle and began following the offender at a distance. He then began to jog towards the offender and he reached within 15 metres of him. Leading Senior Constable Yusuf was some distance behind Senior Constable Cooney.

16. Senior Constable Cooney hailed the offender using his first name, Daniel. The offender stopped and turned and looked towards Senior Constable Cooney. Senior Constable Cooney pulled out his identification as a police officer and said “St George Police, Stop there”. The offender started screaming loudly, turned, and then ran across a park towards another carpark. Senior Constable Cooney gave chase, continually shouting out, “Stop, police”.

17. Senior Constable Cooney chased the offender through a carpark and across Roosevelt Avenue, towards the front yard area of 45 Roosevelt Avenue. They ran towards a low-rise metal fence, approximately one metre high. The offender attempted to jump over the fence but he stumbled over the other side. At this point Senior Constable Cooney caught up and took hold of his shoulders with each of his hands.

18. The offender was shouting incoherently and sought to pull away from Senior Constable Cooney’s grasp. He twisted around and starting flailing his arms in the air with both arms swinging towards Senior Constable Cooney’s head. The Senior Constable pushed his arms away and attempted to pull the offender to the ground in order to arrest him. As that was happening the offender knocked Senior Constable Cooney’s police radio from his belt and it fell on the ground. The senior constable pulled the offender to the ground and the offender was lying on his back. Again, Senior Constable Cooney told the offender that he was under arrest and told him to stop resisting that process. The Senior Constable sought to handcuff the offender by grabbing his hands however the offender grabbed the police radio from the ground next to him and swung it towards senior constable’s head. Senior Constable Cooney ducked but the radio hit the left side of his head causing immediate pain.

19. The Senior Constable knocked the radio out of the offender’s hand and pulled him onto his stomach and held him on the ground. The offender attempted to bite Senior Constable Cooney’s right arm but he pulled away in time to avoid that attack. The offender continued to struggle and yell. As he was attempting to subdue the offender Senior Constable Cooney could feel blood running down his face.

20. By this stage Leading Senior Constable Yusuf had arrived at the scene and attempted to assist in handcuffing the offender. The offender continued to resist both Senior Constable Cooney and Leading Senior Constable Yusuf. It took Senior Constable Cooney about one minute to take hold of the offender’s hands and to place them in handcuffs behind his back. The offender continued to resist the police as they were doing that. All three men were on the ground at this time. Leading Senior Constable Yusuf being on his knees, he felt some pain in his right knee and left hamstring afterwards, but there was no charge concerning that made against the accused.

21. Within a few minutes other police arrived, I assume that they were uniformed constables, in a caged police truck. An ambulance also attended and the ambulance officers told Senior Constable Cooney that he would need to go to hospital to have the damage to his head stitched.

22. There was a five centimetre wound to the left-temporal area. The wound was cleaned at St George Hospital and four sutures were used to close the wound. The agreed facts contain photographs of Senior Constable Cooney’s face with blood on it from the wound and a photograph of the top of his head showing the laceration which it is agreed penetrated both layers of the skin in the temple area of his skull, behind his left ear.

Seriousness

23. In the grand scheme of offences that can be committed against s 111(2) of the Crimes Act the entering into this dwelling house in company was not of any great moment. There was no violent entry nor was there any damage to any part of the dwelling house. It was merely an invasion of privacy for a reason that was not lawful. It is towards the bottom of a range for that sort of offence. The assault occasioning actual bodily harm was also towards the bottom of the range although the verbal description of the offence that makes it sound prolonged. The extent of the injuries suffered by the victim was not of any great moment. It was clearly actual bodily harm but relatively minor bodily harm.

24. The offence against Senior Constable Cooney was of greater significance. The Crown has submitted that this was “around the middle of the range of objective seriousness”. Learned counsel for the offender submitted that it was “a tad under” the midrange of objective seriousness. Considering the nature of the wound, and in particular that it was a wound to the head I accept that this was in the midrange of objective seriousness.

Criminal History

25. The offender has a criminal history which indicates that the Court is unable to give him any leniency. At the age of 18 he committed two counts of robbery in company, one count of kidnapping and one count of taking a person for advantage, which sounds like kidnapping. For those offences the former Chief Judge of this Court, Justice Blanch, sentenced the offender to imprisonment for four years and fixed a non-parole period of two years, commencing on 12 October 1995, and expiring on 11 October 1997. His Honour also took into account certain matters on Forms. Those offences appears to have occurred on or about 12 October 1995 when the offender was 18 years old.

26. His next offences were committed on 10 July 1999, when he was 21 years old, and shortly to turn 22. The offences were goods in personal custody reasonably suspected of having been stolen, for which there were two counts; possession of equipment for administering prohibited drugs, self‑administration, or attempted self-administration of prohibited drugs, possession of a prohibited drug for which there were two counts and driving a motor vehicle whilst suspended. Leaving aside the driving offence, the offender was placed on a recognisance to be of good behaviour and placed under supervision of the then New South Wales Probation Service. There was a further minor offence in 1999 of possessing housebreaking implements for which the Downing Centre Local Court imposed a fine.

27. Leaving aside some traffic offences, on 7 November 2006 the offender was sentenced for possessing a prohibited drug. He was given a fine. The next substantive offences, leaving aside traffic offences, occurred on 19 July 2017. The charges at that time were possession of equipment for administering prohibited drugs, two counts of possessing prohibited drugs, and one count of goods in custody suspected of being stolen. For those offences a s 9 bond was imposed but it was breached and on call-up the bond was revoked and the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for one month.

28. On 6 September 2017 the offender committed a number of offences. There were two counts of possession of a prohibited drug, one count of dealing with the proceeds of crime, and one count of stalking or intimidation with intent to cause fear of physical or the like harm. For that offence the offender was given a Community Corrections Order (“CCO”) for a period of 11 months. However, he breached that CCO and on call-up it was replaced with a six month Intensive Corrections Order (“ICO”).

29. On 4 October 2017 at the age of 40 the offender was charged with larceny and goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen, for which there were three counts. For those offences he was imprisoned for two months. On 21 November 2017 he was charged with 14 counts of larceny for which he was imprisoned for two months. On 26 May 2018, at the age of 41, he was charged with goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen, giving a false name to police and travelling or attempting to travel without a valid ticket. For those offences he was sentenced to imprisonment for three months. On 2 July 2018, shortly before his 41st birthday, he was again charged with goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen and again a three-month period of imprisonment was imposed.

30. On 5 April 2019 he committed a crime of larceny for which he was fined. On 15 May 2019 at the age of 41 the offender was charged with common assault and destroying property for which he was given an aggregate sentence of six months imprisonment commencing on 26 August 2019.

31. On 25 July 2019 he was charged with five offences, the most significant of which was supplying a prohibited drug for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for five months commencing on 16 September 2019 and concluding on 15 February 2020.

32. On 7 August 2020 he was charged with dishonestly obtaining property by deception, two counts of larceny and a second offence contrary to s 114 of the Crimes Act 1900, that is being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence or having in possession without lawful excuse any housebreaking or safe breaking implement or implement being capable of being used to enter and drive a motor vehicle or having his face blackened or otherwise disguised with intent to commit an indictable offence or entering or remaining upon any building or land with intent to commit offence therein. For those offences he was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 months with a non‑parole period of five months. It has been noted that those offences occurred on 7 August 2020 at the age of 42, very shortly before the events of 22 August 2020.

33. The current offences were committed whilst the offender was subject to an ICO. Because of a number of failings the ICO was revoked and a period of imprisonment was served, commencing on the date of his arrest for these offences, 23 October 2020, which did not expire until 8 March 2021. Furthermore, the sentence for the offences committed on 7 August 2020 did not expire until 23 March 2021.

Personal Circumstances

34. The offender has not given any evidence nor has any affidavit from him been read. The only evidence given on his behalf has been the tender of a report with a consultant psychologist, Mr Anthony Diment. Mr Diment interviewed the offender via AVL on 18 August 2021 for approximately two hours. The offender was then, and is now, incarcerated at the Mid North Coast Correctional Centre at Kempsey.

35. The offender is now 44 years old. He is from Tonga. He had two brothers, an older brother Nicholas and a younger brother named Tennessee. I have been told that his elder brother Nicholas died from heart problems in July 2016. The report made by Mr Diment also tells me that his younger brother, Tennessee, had a drinking problem which is a reason why the current offender does not imbibe alcohol. However it is clear that he takes, and has been taking since at least 2017, illicit drugs.

36. It would appear that the offender’s mother was a single mother. The offender does not know his father. His mother and his brothers came with him to Australia in 1984. He would have been about seven years old at the time. He then attended Crown Street Primary School and later Randwick Boys High. He left school when he was in Year 11 and started a TAFE course in computer software and gained a Certificate III in that field as well as a Certificate IV in MYOB. According to Mr Diment’s report the offender’s work history includes warehousing, food and vegetable wholesaling, and eventually becoming a manager for a hotel for a period of eight years until approximately 2017. This was not a “pub” but a residential hotel in the CBD of Sydney. That would appear to have been responsible work.

34. In his late teens the offender met a lady described in Mr Diment’s report as Rodjana Soonphainan, and they spent about 20 years together. I have been told from the Bar table that there are five children aged between 21 years and nine years, four of them daughters. It is clear that the offender developed relationship difficulties with his partner and he sought counselling but the inference to be drawn from the report of Mr Diment is that the relationship between the offender and his partner failed and there is no evidence before me that the offender has any ongoing relationship at this stage with his children.

35. Mr Diment took this history about drug use:

“For about three years I was smoking heroin and ice - never injected and this was on and off. I was also dabbling with cannabis in a small way. Would go for about four months then stop for two months. It became more regular before I came into custody. I saw a counsellor at the Langton Clinic in Surry Hills but didn’t stay with that”.

The history goes on to suggest that the offender has been off drugs and had a clearer mind since the commencement of his current period of incarceration in October 2020. However, there have been periods of incarceration between 24 November 2017 and 22 January 2018, between 3 July 2018 and 4 December 2018, between 26 July 2019 and 27 March 2020. It appears that after each of those periods of incarceration the offender reverted to using illicit drugs.   

39. I do not know whether the offences for which the offender appeared before Justice Blanch on 16 August 1996 were drug related but clearly there was drug use in 1999, when the offender was about 22 years old, and there was also a drug conviction in 2006 which is inconsistent to the submission put to me that essentially from being released on parole on 11 October 1997 until 2017 the offender was leading a drug free life, in a stable relationship with his then partner, the two of them raising their children, and having the sort of employment to which I have already referred.

40. In the circumstances a lot of what the offender said to Mr Diment may have been self-serving. I do not know. For example, one of the things that Mr Diment records having been told was that after the death of his elder brother Nicholas from heart problems in July 2016 the offender’s life went downhill. The offender told Mr Diment that that was “a big factor” in his going downhill and the commencement of his problems, but whether it was or not I do not know because the assertion contained in Mr Diment’s report cannot be tested.

41. One would think that the death of a brother of natural causes would not carry great significance for a man in a stable relationship with five children. What caused the relationship to fail is not clear either in Mr Diment’s report, and were it the death of the offender’s brother from natural causes, would appear to be, applying common sense, unlikely.

42. I again can only refer, as I have on many occasions, to what fell from Wilson J in Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 at [57]. That has been cited in full in the Crown’s written submissions and ought to be known to both the offender and his counsel. It is clear from the matter contained in the offender’s mobile phone that at the time of the offences committed at Randwick on 22 August 2020 the offender was “desperate for drugs and money” and obviously was one of the matters that caused the interaction between the offender and his two co‑offenders and the gentleman known as Hani.

43. The submissions on behalf of the offender had been largely based on Mr Diment’s assessment. He diagnosis a “persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress” which he appears to believe was moderately severe. He also diagnoses a substance use disorder which any person can diagnoses once one obtains a history of drug use and drug dependency. Essentially the offender suffers from anxiety and depression. I have pointed out on numerous occasion that any person standing for sentence who did not suffer from anxiety and depression would probably be abnormal. It is what one would expect somebody to suffer when there is potential for a lengthy gaol term to be imposed.

44. Mr Diment acknowledges that on p 8 of his report, when he said this:

“Whilst some of this is due to his current legal matters there is evidence that his depression and anxiety in particular has been longstanding and that he has had a difficult childhood and adolescence following the abandonment of his family by his biological father who he has never met. He unfortunately used illicit drugs as a way of coping emotionally as his long-term relationship deteriorated and his older brother, with whom he was very close, died”.

I again point out that Mr Diment only interviewed the offender on 18 August 2021, last month, and he is postulating a longstanding anxiety and depression based upon the history given to him by the offender which history cannot be tested in any fashion.

45. Many people turn to drugs because they enjoy the psychotropic effect that they cause. Some people use drugs to self-medicate because they perceive themselves as having problems, problems which are not necessarily as bad as the person thinks. In other words, the vicissitudes of life can provide an excuse which is not valid for a person taking up drug use. Again, without the offender’s history being tested it is difficult to ascertain what has gone on in the past. All I can say is that the offences committed on 22 August 2020 were motivated by the offender’s need to obtain drugs, or money with which to buy drugs, because he was addicted and “desperate” to obtain drugs. What caused him to become addicted to drugs is really a matter for speculation.

46. It is clear that the offender has during his period of incarceration undertaken the EQUIPS Foundation course and completed it. That is recorded in the records of the Department of Corrective Services. According to what Mr Diment recorded that has served the offender well, which is promising for rehabilitation but what is also needed is intensive rehabilitation to wean the offender off drugs and to get him back into the workforce to lead a positive life and perhaps to make contact with, and significant valuable contact with, his children.

Remorse

47. One of the other matters discussed in addresses was whether the offender is remorseful or not for his conduct. The report of Mr Diment contains this matter:

“He told me that, ‘I was hanging around people who had problems so I felt more normal as I felt I was drowning in pain. We all used drugs together. When you are around others with problems you get too bound up with them. Basically all of this was to get money to pay for drugs which were getting expensive. I shouldn’t have made that sort of choice though’.

Mr Akauola told me, ‘I do regret what happened at that time’.

Mr Akauola stated, ‘I do realise the seriousness of drugs in society. After I was arrested I was in gaol. That was a very tense time. You do get a very good picture of the problems drug cause people and the rest of society too, being in gaol. I saw first-hand others who were in trouble with drugs”.

48. There is also a reference to the offender’s letting his family down. Clearly letting his family down would cause him remorse. Clearly finding himself in custody would cause him remorse. However, the remorse the Court looks for is victim empathy. He has nowhere expressed any regret or sympathy or understanding of the problems faced by someone such as Hani and in particular the problems experienced by Senior Constable Cooney after the offender’s wounding of him.

49. Furthermore, the offender has spent two years in gaol between 1995 and 1997, must have know the effect of drugs on our society then, and has spent lengthy periods of time in gaol between 2017 and 2020 before going into custody on this occasion after his wounding of Senior Constable Cooney.

50. He has had a large number of opportunities to realise the scourge that drugs create in our society. I cannot find any evidence of real victim empathy before me. It is something that Mr Akauola will need to grapple with and comes to terms with; what his essentially selfish behaviour does to those that he hurts by his actions.

Backdating?

51. One thing that has concerned me is the fact that according to the Crown the offender has only been in custody for these offences since 23 March this year, rather than back to the date of his arrest on 23 October 2020. That is because of the period of incarceration following the revocation of the intensive corrections order and also the sentence passed for the offences of 7 August 2020. In essence, I have been asked to backdate prior to 23 March 2021 however to do so would be negate the purpose of the revocation of the ICO and the sentence imposed for the offences of 7 August 2020. I shall approach the matter on the basis of not loading up the current sentences because of the breach of the ICO.

Aggregate Sentence

52. This is an appropriate matter in which to pass an aggregate sentence. For the offences of 22 August 2020, for the offence contrary to s 111(2), I start with a head sentence of one year. I discount that by 25% because of the utilitarian value of the offender’s plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity. That reduces that sentence to nine months. For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed on 22 August 2020 I again start with a one year head sentence. I reduce that to nine months for the early plea of guilty.

53. For the offence of wounding Senior Constable Cooney, I start with a head sentence of five years imprisonment. A 25% reduction in that indicative head sentence gives an indicative head sentence of three years and nine months. Because there is a standard non-parole period for that offence I am required to state what the non-parole period for that offence would have been had it been a question of a separate sentence. The non-parole period would be two years and nine months.

54. The cumulative total of the three head sentences is five years and three months. I have reached the view that the appropriate aggregate head sentence should be four years with a non-parole period of three years. That will commence on 23 March 2021.

55. Does anyone want any further reasons assisting from passing the sentence?

ROGERS: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Shaw?

SHAW: I’m sorry, I was on mute. No thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

56. Daniel Akauola, on each of the three charges to which you have pleaded guilty you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of three years commencing on 23 March 2021 and expiring on 22 March 2024. I impose a further period of imprisonment of one year, to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period, and expiring on 23 March 2025. The total sentence is therefore four years, comprising the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. I have not found special circumstances. You are eligible to be considered for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period. I have taken into account the matter on the Form 1.

Decision last updated: 23 March 2022