R v Auld, Darryl

[2017] NSWDC 316

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v AULD, Darryl [2017] NSWDC 316
Hearing dates:	23 August 2017
Date of orders:	23 August 2017
Decision date:	23 August 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Referred to Community Corrections for the preparation of an ICO Assessment Report. For orders see [33]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – SENTENCE – aggravated break and enter and committing serious indictable offence – intimidation – armed with a steak knife and lunged at an occupant of the home – breaking into private home – the offender knew the occupants of the home – offender intoxicated – lengthy criminal history – history of alcohol abuse – has a full-time employment position arranged – remorse noted – full discount for the utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108 R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Darryl Auld (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Turner (DPP Solicitor) Mr Khan (Counsel)
File Number(s):	2016/00308184
Publication restriction:	Nil

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: Darryl Auld appears today for sentence in relation to a matter for which he was committed for sentence from the Broken Hill Local Court on 28 February 2017. The offence is an offence of aggravated breaking entering and committing serious indictable offence. The aggravation I will explain in a moment, the serious indictable offence is intimidation. This is an offence contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, it carries a maximum penalty of 20 years and has a standard non-parole period of five years imprisonment. There are no offences on a Form 1, there are no related charges to be dealt with, the prisoner did not commit the offence whilst subject to conditional liberty.

2. The offence in question was an offence committed on 16 October 2016. Having pleaded guilty in late February, the last day of February in fact in 2017, I accept that the prisoner entered his plea of guilty at the first reasonable opportunity and shall receive a discount of 25% upon the otherwise appropriate sentence for this offending. In that regard I am applying a discount for the utilitarian benefit of the plea in accordance with the guideline judgment from 1999 of Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309, also reported at 49 NSWLR 383. In 2009 Justice Howie shortly before his retirement in the decision of Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 summarised the relevant principles that played from Thomson and Houlton and subsequent cases concerning the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty and how it was to be assessed at [32] of that judgment.

3. The crime that the offender committed, particularised, is that the offender in the early hours of 16 October 2016 did break and enter the dwelling house of Tamicka-Jayde Pols, situated at 151 Burke Street, Broken Hill and then in the said dwelling house did commit a serious indictable offence to wit intimidate the said Tamicka-Jayde Pols in circumstances of aggravation, to wit he was armed with an offensive weapon, to wit a 21 centimetre serrated steak knife. The knife in question is photographed, the photograph being one of the exhibits on the sentence proceedings and is a type of knife that one would find in a domestic context in a kitchen or whatever as the charge states, used for cutting steak or meat.

4. The facts of the matter are set out in an agreed statement of facts. I will summarise them but there are some points to be made about it as they relate to assessing the objective gravity of this offence, bearing in mind it has a standard non-parole period in accordance with s 54A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. That is in Division 1A of Part 4 of that Act. I am required to assess the objective seriousness of the offence by relationship to an offence to be assessed within the middle range of objective seriousness. Although Way v R, the 2004 judgment of Chief Justice Spigelman, was in essence set aside by the High Court in the decision of Muldrock v R, thus leading to amendment to the legislation and our current provision to which I am about to refer, one of the things that the Chief Justice noted was that the middle range of objective seriousness was “not necessarily a narrow band”. Whether that dictum remains in light of the judgment of the High Court I cannot say with certainty, but it stands to reason that the middle range of objective seriousness may not involve a “narrow band” or a “line” but may cover a range of activities. It is still common for Judges in the Supreme Court and the District Court and Judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal to identify offences as fitting within the middle range of objective seriousness, either at the upper end of the band, in the middle of the band, or at the lower end of the band. Be that as it may I have concluded in this matter that the objective seriousness of this offending is below the middle range of objective seriousness, primarily for these reasons.

5. Firstly, dealing with the matter by reference to the pleadings the serious indictable offence that the offender committed was the offence of “intimidation”. That carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. I am not saying intimidation is not a serious offence in context, and his own counsel said that it was a “serious case” of intimidation, but the truth of the matter is there is a range of conduct contemplated to be committed as a serious indictable offence pursuant to s 112. Having regard to the issue of the maximum penalty of the relevant serious indictable offence then the serious indictable offence of intimidation can be seen very much at the very lowest end of the scale of offences contemplated. One could commit the offence of breaking and entering and commit the offence of sexual intercourse without consent, a far more serious offence in its terms and in its objective gravity, than the offence with which I am concerned by reference to its maximum penalty. There are many other examples that could be stated.

6. The other aspect of the matter that is important to bear in mind is whilst this was a forced breaking, as the facts make clear, and whilst in no way am I suggesting that the offender’s intoxication which was very heavy is a “mitigating factor”, the facts themselves speak of an important point to be made about the character of the intimidation and how it came to pass. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused’s broke into the premises in the forced way that he did in order to intimidate this particular victim. I make that finding based not on the say so of the prisoner who gave evidence before me but on the agreed facts that have been presented to the Court.

7. The prisoner earlier the day before 15 October had apparently been at some licensed premises or some other premises where people were celebrating the Grand Final of the local ‘8 ball competition’. I take this to be some sort of Pool competition. A group of people ultimately wound up at the home of Ms Pols. She had some young children in the house but there is no evidence that the prisoner knew at the time or even was concerned about the fact that she had children in the house. These people included a person called Travis Murphy, another person called Carlton Staker and another person called Andrew Jones. As the facts reveal Mr Murphy, at least, knew the accused. The accused forced his way in by breaking the lock and shattering the bottom door of the back door. I did not realise this, and it is not clear on the facts, but it transpires and I am prepared to accept it, the prisoner actually lived to the rear of the premises in which the victim lived. Apparently his premises were separated by a lane.

8. But the prisoner did not break in because he just happened to be a neighbour and wanted to go and intimidate Ms Pols. He came into the premises armed with the serrated steak knife intoxicated and slurring his words and waving the knife around in a reckless manner. Ms Pols felt immediate fear. Not only for her safety but for the safety of her two children. But as I said there is absolutely no suggestion the prisoner knew the children were in the house or in any way threatened them. What the prisoner then yelled, and this is part of the agreed facts, is “Who wants to fuck my missus”. Now it is a matter that common sense would dictate, in the circumstances, that there is no suggestion that anybody who said something about the accused’s partner earlier in the evening, which is the effect of the prisoner’s evidence, would have included Ms Pols. It is clear that the prisoner was directing that comment to the male people in the building or in the house. Ms Pols tried to be conciliatory. In fairness to her she was within her own home and the fact that this offence was committed within her own home I accept is an aggravating factor. But it is an aggravating factor to be seen in the context that it seems to me that the prisoner came armed with a knife to confront some males or a male, not the victim.

9. The victim said to the prisoner who obviously she knew, “Darryl, I don’t know what it is wrong man but I have kids”. That would be the first he became aware of ‘kids’ being present. He already had a knife there in the house, “Just put down the knife and go home”. Mr Murphy who apparently knew the prisoner tried to placate the offender to no avail. He said “Come on mate, it’s me Trav, let’s sit down and have a civil conversation, put the knife down”. Then Pols said “You’ve got to get the fuck out of my house man, you’ve got to go”. This comment apparently angered the prisoner. But he had no right to be angry. He said these words, “You think you’re fucking tough do you, I will show you who’s tough”, lunging with the knife and Pols stepping left to avoid being stabbed. This lunging with the knife is the relevant act of intimidation. It is a serious act of intimidation to intimidate someone with a weapon. But we come back to an assessment of the seriousness of this offending.

10. If the prisoner had entered the premises with the intention, in my view, of intimidating Pols at the point of breaking into her house then I might take a different view of the case. It seems to me that the breaking into the house was followed by the subsequent “lunging” at Pols in circumstances where it seemed, as I said, that the prisoner’s primary purpose was to confront somebody who made some insulting comment or made some statement that obviously offended the prisoner. He gave evidence to that effect and I accept, as best he could remember due to his intoxication, what he said about that aspect of the matter, that is that his confrontation at the house, arose out of an earlier incident on the night. In any event Mr Jones intervened as well, the prisoner yelled out “You want to have a fucking go mate” and ran towards Jones. Then Pols ran into the room and grabbed a baseball bat. But in the meantime Mr Murphy persuaded the prisoner to leave the premises although he must have gone reluctantly. Unfortunately for Mr Murphy who was a guest in the house Ms Pols pushed both Murphy and the prisoner outside and shut the door. Another point to be made about the facts of the case, the intimidation was completed at that point. There is no suggestion in the facts that the man Murphy and the prisoner were “pushed”...”outside” that the prisoner further threatened the victim with the knife so that the intimidation had finished.

11. The facts state that the prisoner somehow ended up in the alleyway at the back, the prisoner jumping over the back fence it would seem, jumped on the bonnet of a car, fell off the bonnet and onto the ground. The police came and arrested him and he made full admissions in relation to the offence which is to his credit. His plea of guilty was entered at the first reasonable opportunity. He apologised to this Court for his conduct and I accept that in those circumstances he has taken responsibility for his conduct and is relevantly contrite, a mitigating factor under s 21A(3) of the Act.

12. The prisoner has a criminal history that does not do him any credit. He has a criminal history that goes back to the Children’s Court in 2003, many of his offences are concerned with misconduct in relation to motor vehicles although he has a conviction for common assault in January 2014 in New South Wales for which he received an 18 month good behaviour bond. He has a conviction of resisting police for which he received a bond at the same time. He has a finding of guilt in the Children’s Court of a common assault, but I propose to disregard it given its age and the fact that he was a juvenile. He has findings of guilt in South Australia as well, I hasten to say many of these relate to conduct involving breaches of orders to keep the peace, trespass, some findings of guilt in relation to misuse of motor vehicles. He was in fact in 2011 in breach of a Community Service Order which led to a further Community Service Order being made. He does have findings of guilt in relation to carrying an offensive weapon in 2002. So ultimately, whilst his criminal history is not an aggravating factor, he has a criminal history which does him no credit, but does not necessarily disentitle him to some leniency in this matter. I note he has never previously appeared in the District Court either in New South Wales or in South Australia. The last finding of guilt that I have recorded in New South Wales is a conviction in July 2014 in the Broken Hill Local Court. His last conviction in South Australia, or last finding of guilt in South Australia, as many of the findings of guilt do not necessarily result in a conviction, is a finding of guilt in November 2014 in relation to driving with what we would call in New South Wales ‘a prescribed concentration of alcohol’ and the “unauthorised drive motor vehicle on road” for which he was convicted.

13. One feature of his criminal history, however, that is a common theme it seems, and it seems to be confirmed too by the evidence he gave before me, was that many of his offences are related to his abuse of alcohol. It is quite clear that his use of alcohol and the fact that he cannot handle his alcohol and the fact that he resorts either to violence or other criminal activity when affected by alcohol is a matter of considerable concern. He expressed some concern about it, but it should be seen as probably more of a concern to the community. Particularly having regard to the circumstances of the offence with which I am concerned because the victim did not deserve in any way to have her property violated.

14. Community Corrections have prepared for the Court two reports. The first report was less than helpful because it reflected on 10 March 2017 a lack of cooperation on the part of the prisoner. However there is a further report prepared for this sitting of the District Court of 18 August 2017. It notes what was confirmed by the prisoner in his evidence that he lives in Broken Hill with his partner, she has two children from a previous relationship, she is now pregnant with their first child. The prisoner has two children from previous relationships. He has, on his account, had an upbringing that involved some dysfunction in his background, particularly the abuse of alcohol by his father, some neglect and he experienced some domestic violence. This offence I am dealing with of course is not a domestic violence offence.

15. I accept that in between appearances in court he has from time to time been able to gather employment and has various what I would call “trade based skills” that make him attractive to employers and I accept from the evidence produced today in an application form he has prepared and in a reference that was provided by a job placement consultant of 21 August 2017, that he has employment as a roofing labourer which will enable him to work in the construction of some form of wind farm near Broken Hill over the next 12 months. However the Community Corrections Service, consistent with the prisoner’s own evidence, notes his longstanding history of binge drinking, bearing in mind he is 33 years of age, or thereabouts, and this is a history that goes back 15 years. It shows that throughout his adulthood he has abused alcohol and there are aspects of his abuse which have led to not only the commission of offences but blackouts on his part and also a number of physical injuries whilst intoxicated. It may be that in many respects he has done more damage to himself than to others over this period of time.

16. The prisoner relates his prior actions in terms of his criminal conduct, particularly offences committed in New South Wales at an earlier time, to a breakdown of a relationship he had. His present partner herself says that when intoxicated he can behave in what is described as a “nasty”, “threatening” and “intimidating manner”. He has really to change his conduct. Certainly he has to change his drinking habits. In fact the best advice I could give him, although I am not here to give him any advice, is to give up drinking alcohol altogether. He will save himself a lot of money and he will save himself the potential risk as is evidenced by his criminal history in this matter of committing criminal offences.

17. His partner has sought to give him ultimatums and the like. He has cut down his drinking, she says, to one or two stubbies of beer after work. But it seems to me, if I be so bold to say so, that if he is an “alcoholic” he should follow the mantra of all those that have had any association with Alcoholics Anonymous, which therapy he has been encouraged to undertake, although he refuses to do so, and admit that he is an alcoholic and understand that as long as he drinks alcohol he is at risk of relapsing back into further binge drinking and alcohol abuse.

18. I note the fact that despite his significant history of drinking and the effect upon him of drinking the prisoner undertook counselling only for a short period of time and has not availed himself of attendance at the local Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. I would encourage him to undertake that. It may well be that it will be a requirement of him of Community Corrections if he wants to keep his liberty. I understand, without accepting it as an excuse, that the prisoner explains that his ceasing of counselling and his failure to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings has been somewhat associated with the strain of trying to maintain employment. But there are matters where prioritising one’s commitments sometimes involves making sacrifices for the improvement of one’s personal circumstances.

19. He is assessed at medium risk of reoffending. He has previously successfully completed supervision and the assessment of the Community Corrections Office is that he presents with a chronic alcohol abuse problem characterised by a longstanding binge drinking pattern and despite acknowledging his use of alcohol as problematic he has displayed a lack of insight, minimising the effects of his drinking and ceasing attendance for counselling after the two appointments that I have referred to. However he is nevertheless assessed as being suitable for supervision by Community Corrections and is likely to benefit from counselling programs to address his alcohol abuse and associated violence.

20. My own view of the matter is that one of the reasons that Community Corrections feels that he is still capable of responding to supervision is the fact that he is a person who can find employment, which is a positive sign, and secondly it seems to be, on the evidence available to me, that he is in a stable domestic relationship, albeit that he was in that domestic relationship when he committed this offence.

1. I have had regard to the fact too, in his favour, that a condition of his current employment with the ‘ProTech’ organisation which is building the wind farm is that he is required to undertake daily drug and alcohol testing and a recent test that was undertaken, as I understand it, on 22 August 2017 reveals negative results. I do not have any real history of problematic drug use, although that could be in the background too. But certainly alcohol testing and drug testing is a good thing to convince him to remain on the straight and narrow in that regard. If he returns a positive test in the course of his employment he will lose his employment and that he understands.

2. In respect of the appropriate determination of this matter I am mindful of the fact that Div 1A Pt 4 reflects upon usually the need for a fixing of a non‑parole period in respect of an offence that has a standard non‑parole period in circumstances where term of imprisonment is to be imposed. It is the case, as his counsel conceded, that having regard to s 5 of the Act, having regard to both the character of the offending and his criminal history amongst other matters, a term of imprisonment is the only alternative available and there are no other “possible alternatives” that may be imposed.

3. In that regard I am required to consider s 3A of the Act and the various purposes of sentencing that arise here, which all have some role to play to varying degrees, there is a need for general deterrence in regulation to offences of this type and an element of personal deterrence required. There is some degree to protect the community from the offender. But I do not suggest that the prisoner is a person prone to randomly break into people’s houses so as to commit crimes. His criminal history does not suggest that although he has some trespass findings in South Australia.

4. I am required however to promote his rehabilitation although it must be fairly said, although he looks youthful he is not a young man any more. He is a man in his early 30s. He is older and he has to take responsibility for his actions. I have dealt with the issue of the aggravating factor under s 21A(2). I have already indicated there are few mitigating factors, but I am prepared to conclude that the injury, emotional loss and damage of the offence was not substantial, albeit that Ms Joels was greatly affected at the time. She had the presence of mind to arm herself with a baseball bat I have noted and successfully not only got rid of the prisoner but got rid of Mr Murphy, who was trying to help.

5. I am prepared to accept that the offence was not a planned offence. There must have been a degree of premeditation. The prisoner obviously was festering, or stewing over the insult to his partner, which I accept had been made by somebody, but more than likely not any of the people inside the house. It had angered him and he simmered, under the influence of alcohol. But such planning as occurred was relatively rudimentary and the knife that he produced was a kitchen, domestic‑type weapon, not some weapon that could be identified as primarily designed to intimidate or threaten people.

6. I cannot conclude he was a person of good character. Whilst he abuses alcohol I cannot conclude that he is unlikely to reoffend but he does have some prospects of rehabilitation, particularly if he can maintain employment, maintain his domestic relationship and not use alcohol. I have already concluded I accept that he is remorseful in the terms required by s 21A(3)(a). His plea of guilty is a mitigating factor and for that he receives a discrete discount.

7. In considering the relevance of the standard non‑parole period it does provide some guidance in the manner discussed by the High Court in Muldrock from 2011 and of course s 54AB(2) of the Act indicates the proper approach to considering the relevance of the standard non‑parole period. It requires consideration of matters beyond simply the objective seriousness of the offending. As I have said, the offence, by reason of the character of the serious indictable offence and the relationship of the aggravating factor to the commission of the serious indictable offence, is a matter, in my view, well below the middle range of objective seriousness but not the least serious offence of its type, clearly not. The maximum penalty is of course a relevant guide to the appropriate penalty to be imposed hence the requirement to impose some form of term of imprisonment.

8. I have already reflected upon the evidence of the prisoner. By and large I am prepared to accept most of his evidence. The Crown pressed him in relation to his insight and other related matters and I have taken that matter into account. I have taken into account the relevant submissions that have been made by Mr Kahn on his behalf. Many of them I have reflected upon in my remarks on sentence to this point.

9. With regard to the Crown’s submissions, the Crown submitted to me that I should impose a term of full-time custody which would require of course the fixing of a non-parole period. There was no argument by the Crown as to a finding of special circumstances although the Crown queried his prospects of rehabilitation. I have already made observations in relation to that. The Crown conceded there was a requirement for a discount for the utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty. The Crown correctly pointed out an aggravating factor was that the offence was committed in the victim’s home. As I have said one of the matters that emerges from the agreed facts in my mind is that the commission of the serious indictable offence involving the particular victim that is identified, was not the purpose of the prisoner breaking into the premises in the first instance. That does not excuse his behaviour as such.

10. Ultimately I have concluded however that all things considered, particularly given the prime balance that now exists between the prisoner leading a life in future years that is lawful or continuing to conduct himself in a way which will attract more and more stringent penalties from the court, the order that I have foreshadowed may turn the balance in a way which will not only work for the benefit of the offender but work for the benefit of the community. Chief Justice King in the decision of Yardley v Betts, a decision adopted in New South Wales in a number of cases, including the 2001 decision of Blackman and Walters, observed that,

“Sometimes courts in sentencing offenders are required to consider the fact that if an order assists in the rehabilitation of an offender that works not just to the benefit of the offender, it works to the benefit of the community.”

31. Because if people are deterred, or if people are persuaded from committing further offences then the community is a beneficiary of that. Of course we all know that there are some offenders who commit crimes of such seriousness that the issue of rehabilitation has very much a back seat to the true purpose of the sentencing exercise. But as I said earlier this matter was very finely balanced and I am prepared at this stage to give the prisoner the benefit of the - a greater weight to consideration of an order in due course that might permit the prisoner to remain in the community where if he does stay in employment; if he does support his family; if he does avoid further offending, will work not only for his benefit but work for the benefit of the community. Of course if he wants to continue offending well then obviously the burden will fall upon the community to maintain him whilst he is in custody. That is a price the community has to pay for particular offenders. At this particular point I have come to the conclusion it need not have to pay but still may fall to be the responsibility of the community if the prisoner is not assessed as being suitable for an intensive correction order or if the Crown appeals my order successfully, or if he fails to comply with the orders that I impose. If he fails to comply with the Intensive Correction Order, if I eventually make it, and that is not certain at this point, I still have a discretion not to make it in October this year. But if he fails to comply with the Intensive Correction Order it will not be a matter for me to determine whether he should go into custody. The Parole Authority will make that decision and he will go into custody and he will stay in custody until such time as the Parole Authority decides that he should be released, however, no later than the expiry date of the term of imprisonment that is imposed.

32. Thus in all those circumstances I have concluded that I should make the order that I foreshadowed. Thus, if you will just bear with me a moment, if I can find the order. I had a form of order here but I am not quite sure where I put it. Would you stand up please Mr Auld.

33. In relation to the matter of which you are for sentence, you are convicted. I have considered s 5(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and I am satisfied for the reasons given that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate and the sentence of imprisonment will be for a period of no more than two years. You are referred for assessment as to your suitability for an Intensive Correction Order as a means of serving the sentence. I refer you for assessment pursuant to s 69 of the aforementioned Act and order the preparation of an assessment report on or before 27 October 2017, that is the last Friday of October. I will continue your bail on the further condition that you attend the Broken Hill office of the Community Corrections Service before 5pm on 30 August 2017 for the preparation of the assessment report to commence. The matter is adjourned to 9.30am on Friday 27 October 2017 (as said) to enable the assessment report to be completed. I direct that you appear before me in the Sydney District Court at the Downing Centre via audio visual link at 9.30am eastern summer-time on 27 October 2017, that is 9am central summer-time. I assume it will be in summer-time by late October, it usually commences in the first weekend of October.

34. I want you to understand these things however. If the assessment report is unfavourable then I will be required to impose a term of imprisonment and I am not going to contemplate a suspended term of imprisonment, I wanted you to clearly understand that. Secondly, if the assessment is favourable I still have a discretion not to impose an ICO, I can still impose a term of full-time custody and then I will contemplate the fixing of a non-parole period and I will have to hear further submissions. If there is some complication in relation to the matter that requires further attention by both the Crown and myself and your counsel. It is possible the matter may need to be further adjourned for you to come to Sydney, but if I can deal with the matter via audio visual link I shall, subject to the convenience of the parties and the like. The only reason I am granting you the indulgence of appearing via audio visual link rather than appearing before me personally is simply because I have to recognise the fact that Broken Hill is a very long way from Sydney and it would involve, on your part and the community who is no doubt funding your representation, considerable expense in requiring you to attend at the court at Sydney on the date I have fixed. If you fail to co-operate with the Community Corrections Service the assessment by the Community Correction Service will not be positive, but you would expect that, but it is a matter for you but I can assure you of one thing. If you fail to comply with their directions as you did in the past in the preparation of the Community Correction Service report that was prepared for this court, you could almost certainly assure yourself of a negative assessment report. Frankly, if I get a negative assessment, if you are not suitable for an Intensive Correction Order, my hands are completely tied. I have got no discretion to make an order that you serve an Intensive Correction Order if you are not assessed as suitable. Just take a seat just for the moment thank you.

35. Madam Crown, any technical matters for you?

36. TURNER: No, nothing further, your Honour.

37. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Madam Crown, I appreciate your difficulties here in Broken Hill. You may or may not be able to appear. We’ll all have to just play it by ear on that occasion and feel free to contact my associate to see how things are going. We’ll make a not. We’ll have the file brought back to Sydney with us and I will ask my associate to make a note on the file that when we get a copy of the report we will forward it to you.

38. TURNER: Thank you, your Honour.

39. HIS HONOUR: I’ve been telling representatives of the Director of Public Prosecutions for 15 or 16 years to tell either Mr Cowdery or Mr Babb that from my perspective pre‑sentence reports should be provided to the Crown before they’re provided to the Court and I don’t know why that doesn’t happen.

40. TURNER: It’s difficult.

41. HIS HONOUR: I’m continually astonished that the Director of Public Prosecutions’ representatives who have to tender the reports only see them after they’re produced to the Court. I think they should all be sent to the Director’s office and the Director’s office can make further enquiries about them if need be and have time to consider them. I don’t think it’s quite fair that they’re sent to the Court beforehand. Anyway, nothing is happening in that regard, so the system continues as it is. I just don’t think it’s right.

42. Mr Auld, do you understand what I’ve done?

43. OFFENDER: You’ve extended my bond two months.

44. HIS HONOUR: No, no, I haven’t extended your bond for two months at all. I haven't given you a bond.

45. OFFENDER: I thought I’d get a bond to be of good behaviour.

46. HIS HONOUR: I beg your pardon?

47. OFFENDER: I thought the bond continued from what I had.

48. HIS HONOUR: No, what I’ve done is I’ve continued your bail for two months.

49. OFFENDER: Bail yeah, not a bond, sorry.

50. HIS HONOUR: On the basis that you report to Community Corrections within seven days. I would suggest that you report as soon as you can. Then cooperate with the Community Corrections Service in the preparation of a report, but you are to appear before me at 9am, central summer time, Friday, 27 October by audio-visual link. Your solicitor will have to bring you to Court and the appropriate arrangements will have to be made and we’ll see where we go from there. All right. Just take a seat for the moment. Thank you very much, Mr Auld, your bail continues, you don’t need to - I’ll get my associate to give you a bail continuation form and then you can leave. So just take a seat.

Decision last updated: 13 November 2017