R v Bloxsome
[2019] ACTSC 217
•15 August 2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Bloxsome |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 217 |
Hearing Date: | 15 July 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 15 August 2019 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [54] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – intentional wounding – forcible confinement – sexual intercourse without consent – aggravated robbery – take a motor vehicle – aggravated burglary – damaging property – sentencing of co‑accused – offender played lesser role in offences – sexual assault occurred during forcible confinement – extensive criminal history |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 21(1), 34, 54(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310, 312, 318(1), 403(1) |
Cases Cited: | R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Rodney Bloxsome (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel A Williamson (Crown) P Skehan (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 184 of 2018 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
After a jury trial, the offender, Rodney Bloxsome was found guilty of the following offences:
(a)intentional wounding contrary to s 21(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2018/5383);
(b)forcible confinement contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act (XO2018/31433);
(c)sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act (XO2019/31472);
(d)sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act (XO2019/31473);
(e)aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT) (CC2018/3371).
Following the verdict of the jury, convictions were entered in relation to each of these charges.
At the commencement of the trial he had pleaded guilty to a number of other charges:
(a)SCCAN23/2019: taking a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code;
(b)XO2018/31436: aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code; and
(c)XO2018/31437: damaging property contrary to s 403 (1) of the Criminal Code.
At the conclusion of the trial the jury found him not guilty on a number of other charges.
The maximum penalty for the offences are as follows:
(a)s 21(1) of the Crimes Act: imprisonment for five years;
(b)s 34 of the Crimes Act: imprisonment for 10 years;
(c)s 54(1) of the Crimes Act: imprisonment for 12 years;
(d)s 310 of the Criminal Code: 2500 penalty units, imprisonment for 25 years or both;
(e)s 312 of the Criminal Code: 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both;
(f)s 318(1) of the Criminal Code: 500 penalty units, imprisonment for five years or both; and
(g)s 403(1) of the Criminal Code: 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both.
Facts
The offending occurred between 26 February 2018 and 28 February 2018. It involved a methamphetamine‑fuelled crime spree undertaken by Mr Bloxsome and Damien Featherstone and a number of other persons.
Mr Featherstone and his wife had come to Canberra on 1 February 2018. Mr Bloxsome had arranged accommodation for them. Mr Bloxsome is the uncle of Mr Featherstone’s wife. Mr Featherstone was a methamphetamine dealer and user.
As at 25 February 2018, Mr Featherstone and his wife were staying at the house where Justin Diaz lived in Narrabundah. MX, a friend of Justin Diaz’s, came to visit him. She was dropped off by a vehicle that contained a number of men. Mr Featherstone, who had a significant quantity of methamphetamine in his possession, believed that the men in the vehicle that had dropped off MX were going to rob him by doing “a run through” of the house.
He contacted Mr Bloxsome and asked him to come and help him. Mr Bloxsome in turn rang Dominic Dimitrov, a young man who was the friend of one of his sons, and asked him to drive him somewhere urgently. Mr Dimitrov and his sister drove to Mr Bloxsome’s house. Mr Dimitrov and his sister then drove Mr Bloxsome and his three sons in two cars to the Narrabundah house.
At the Narrabundah house was Mr Featherstone, his wife, NQ (the younger sister of Mr Featherstone’s wife), Mr Diaz and MX. Mr Bloxsome told Mr Dimitrov’s sister and two of his sons to go home. Mr Dimitrov was told to stay because he was needed. One of Mr Bloxsome’s sons, Raymond Russell, also stayed.
During the time there, MX attempted to inject Mr Diaz with methamphetamine. She was unsuccessful and Mr Diaz was agitated. Mr Bloxsome finished the job. Both Mr Featherstone and Mr Bloxsome had consumed methamphetamine. Mr Featherstone was agitated about the possibility that there was going to be a “run through” of the premises by the men in the vehicle that dropped off MX. A shotgun had been seen on the front seat of the car in which MX arrived.
In the early hours of 26 February 2018, Mr Featherstone instructed people in the house to collect weapons and go to the car. Mr Russell was carrying a machete. Mr Diaz asked him to return it as it was his. Mr Diaz who was at that point sitting in a wicker chair in the living room said that he did not want to go with them. Nor did MX, who wished to stay with her friend Mr Diaz. Mr Bloxsome and Mr Featherstone were getting annoyed with Mr Diaz’s refusal to depart with them. Mr Featherstone told Mr Diaz to get in the car. Mr Diaz stood up with the machete in his hand, which was by his side. Mr Featherstone shot Mr Diaz in the left thigh with a .32 calibre pistol that he was holding in his hand. This gives rise to a charge against Mr Featherstone. Mr Diaz cried out in pain. Mr Bloxsome told him to shut up but he did not. Mr Bloxsome then stabbed him with the knife that he was holding, causing a laceration to the inside of his right forearm and to his left hand below the thumb. It is this stabbing which gives rise to the offence of intentional wounding (CC2018/5383).
The verdict of the jury necessarily involves a conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Crown had excluded self-defence in relation to the shooting and the stabbing.
It is not possible to exclude beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that Mr Featherstone in his drug affected state perceived Mr Diaz standing up in the manner that he did to be a threat and believed that it was necessary to take violent action against him. The possibility was that he believed that he or Mr Bloxsome was going to be assaulted in some manner using the machete. However I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Diaz did not “lunge” at them with the machete.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown has excluded the possibility that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the shooting was necessary for the purposes of Mr Featherstone defending himself or defending Mr Bloxsome. The Crown has proved that the act of shooting Mr Diaz was clearly excessive for the purposes of defending himself or Mr Bloxsome in the circumstances as Mr Featherstone perceived them to be.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the stabbing occurred after the shooting. As a result, any possibly perceived threat had passed because Mr Diaz had slumped back into the wicker chair and was no longer holding the machete. The Crown established beyond reasonable doubt that even in his intoxicated state, Mr Bloxsome did not believe that the conduct was necessary in order to defend himself or Mr Featherstone. Further, even if the Crown had not established that fact, the Crown had established that there were not reasonable grounds for Mr Bloxsome to believe that the stabbing was necessary for the purposes of defending himself or Mr Featherstone.
Mr Bloxsome and Mr Featherstone then left the house along with the others and drove to an address in Casey. When leaving the house Mr Russell had grabbed MX and forced her into the car. Mr Diaz was left in the house and subsequently obtained medical help.
From this point on the morning of Monday, 26 February 2018, MX was detained against her will by Mr Bloxsome and Mr Featherstone, acting jointly (XO2018/31433).
At the Casey house, MX was told to sit at the kitchen table and not say a word. At some point, Mr Featherstone, his wife and NQ went for a drive.
When they were gone, Mr Bloxsome told MX to go to the garage with him. In the back of a vehicle which was parked in the garage Mr Bloxsome tied MX’s hands together using cable ties. He then committed an act of sexual intercourse without consent by penetrating her vagina with his fingers. This gives rise to the offence of sexual intercourse without consent (XO2019/31472).
When MX returned to the house, Mr Featherstone interrogated her in relation to her ex‑partner. She was struck in the face by Mr Featherstone with a broom. She was struck on the head by NQ and Mr Featherstone’s wife. Associated with this process of violence and interrogation, Mr Russell put a knife to her throat in a manner sufficient to break the skin and leave marks across her neck.
Later she was directed by Mr Bloxsome to go upstairs into a spare bedroom. Mr Bloxsome told her to undress and then engaged in penile-vaginal sexual intercourse without her consent. During this interaction he had a pistol with him. A condom was not used. He did not ejaculate. This gives rise to the second offence of sexual intercourse without consent (XO2019/31473).
On the afternoon of 26 February 2018, Mr Bloxsome, NQ, Mr Featherstone and MX had driven to Ernest Jacky’s house. Mr Jacky was outside the house. There was an argument with Mr Bloxsome or Mr Featherstone. Mr Featherstone got out of the car and pointed his gun at Mr Jacky. Mr Featherstone subsequently said, in the presence of Mr Dimitrov, that he did not shoot Mr Jacky because his son was there and he regretted not shooting him. The evidence of this incident was given only because the Crown alleged that during this period MX was still forcibly detained by Mr Bloxsome and Mr Featherstone. MX’s evidence, which was challenged in cross-examination, was that when in the passenger seat of the car her hands were cable‑tied during this incident. Having regard to the failure to refer to the tying of her hands using cable ties on this journey in her evidence in chief interview conducted with police, I am not satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. However, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she continued to be forcibly detained during this period.
The car used in the expedition to Mr Jacky’s house was abandoned at the Lyneham shops. The party returned to another house in Lyneham.
On Tuesday, 27 February 2018, MX offered to assist Mr Featherstone and Mr Bloxsome to steal a car. Her evidence was that this was done because Mr Featherstone and Mr Bloxsome asserted that she “owed them” a car and she formed the view that cooperation with them was the best way out of her situation. The attempts to steal a car involved cruising inner north suburbs of Canberra looking for vehicles to steal. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that MX remained confined during this period. That is not because I do not accept her evidence generally, but because the uncertain chronology of events, the period spent roaming through Civic that day, the provision of Suboxone to her by Mr Featherstone that day and her participation in the attempted thefts, the robbery and the subsequent burglary give rise to a doubt about the nature of the relationship between her and Mr Bloxsome and Mr Featherstone after the Monday.
Two attempts were made by MX to hotwire cars but with no success. Initially, Mr Dimitrov was driving the black Commodore but then Mr Bloxsome drove. There was a brief period during which the group was at the house in Lyneham. The group then travelled in the black Commodore to an area outside Ainslie Football Club. At about 3:29pm the closed‑circuit television (CCTV) shows three elderly people leaving the Ainslie Football Club and walking to their car. The black Commodore can be seen driving along the road in the distance. Mr Bloxsome was driving. Mr Dimitrov was in the front passenger seat. Mr Featherstone, NQ and MX were in the back seat. There was discussion about obtaining a vehicle. Mr Bloxsome identified the vehicle knowing that one or other of the elderly people had possession of the vehicle. The discussion in the vehicle was sufficient to give rise to a verbal agreement or non-verbal understanding that the taking of the vehicle would involve a robbery. NQ and MX approached the group of elderly people and NQ threatened them with a knife. Mr Featherstone ran up to the elderly people brandishing the pistol. At the request of one of the persons being robbed, Mr Featherstone threw her handbag out of the vehicle. These events give rise to the offence of aggravated robbery (CC2018/3371) and the offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent (SCCAN23/2019).
The group then went back to the Casey house. There they planned to rob what Mr Featherstone believed to be a gun shop in Fyshwick.
Shortly after 3.00am on Wednesday, 28 February 2018, Mr Bloxsome, Mr Featherstone, NQ, Mr Russell and MX drove in the stolen vehicle to the Military Shop in Fyshwick. Mr Dimitrov had previously transferred from that car to the Black Commodore. Mr Featherstone broke the glass of the shop and then MX and Mr Featherstone entered the shop followed by NQ and Mr Russell. Mr Bloxsome remained in the car. The glass display cabinets were smashed and knives obtained. MX exited the premises first followed by NQ, Mr Russell and Mr Featherstone. The whole incident only took a few minutes. These events give rise to the offences of aggravated burglary and damage property against Mr Featherstone and Mr Bloxsome (XO2018/31436 and XO2018/31437).
Mr Bloxsome was arrested at the Casey house later on the 28 February 2018.
Objective seriousness
In assessing the objective seriousness of each of the offences committed by Mr Bloxsome except those involving sexual intercourse without consent, it is relevant to take into account the fact that Mr Featherstone was the leader of the enterprise and Mr Bloxsome, while also a leader of the group, performed a lesser role than Mr Featherstone. He had come to help Mr Featherstone at the Narrabundah house at Mr Featherstone’s request. While he was older than Mr Featherstone and clearly an adult leader within the group, it was Mr Featherstone’s plans which were implemented and with which Mr Bloxsome assisted.
In assessing the objective seriousness of the intentional wounding inflicted by Mr Bloxsome on Mr Diaz (CC2018/5383) it is relevant to take into account the means by which the wound was inflicted, the extent of the wounding and the reason for it. The wounding was done with a knife. The wounds inflicted upon Mr Diaz were a laceration to the inside of his right forearm and to his left hand below the thumb. While they were serious, they might have been much more serious. The purpose was to shut Mr Diaz up or to follow up on Mr Featherstone’s attack. I assess it as being in the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.
He was also found guilty of forcible confinement (XO2018/31433). The factors to be considered when assessing the objective seriousness of the offence of forcible confinement are described in R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389 at [53]. In this case, the length of time which I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt for which MX was detained was between the departure from the Narrabundah house until the end of that day. I am satisfied that she was detained until sometime on the Tuesday morning. Therefore the period in question is approximately 24 hours. The most significant period in terms of the seriousness of the offence is that up until the return to the Casey house following the confrontation with Mr Jacky. That is a period of approximately 12 hours. During that period MX feared for her life, having seen her friend Mr Diaz being shot, stabbed and abandoned. She was interrogated by Mr Featherstone. She was assaulted by NQ, Mr Featherstone’s wife and Mr Russell. Mr Bloxsome was aware of that but was not himself responsible for that conduct. It is during the period of confinement that Mr Bloxsome sexually assaulted MX.
The initial confinement was not premeditated, but rather the consequence of an impulsive decision after the shooting and stabbing of Mr Diaz. The situation of perceived crisis involving the need to depart from the Narrabundah house had been generated by Mr Featherstone and the confinement of MX was a product of that. Clearly, having regard to the period over which the confinement continued, there was an opportunity to reconsider it although Mr Featherstone continued to maintain the leadership role in relation to the confinement. The confinement was achieved by the implied threat of violence if MX attempted to escape. I consider it to be above the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.
The first occasion of sexual intercourse without consent involved digital penetration when the victim was tied up with cable ties. It occurred in the context of a period of forcible confinement when the victim had been threatened and assaulted. It followed the shooting of Mr Diaz, the victim’s friend. I consider it to be in the mid range of objective seriousness.
The second occasion involved penile‑vaginal intercourse. The offender had a pistol in his possession although no express threat was made to the victim with it. I consider it to be above the mid range of objective seriousness.
The aggravated robbery involved threatening elderly people with a knife and a gun in order to steal from them a vehicle of significant value. There was a degree of planning involved, but the extent of that planning involved the targeting of people who would be particularly vulnerable to such a crime. In my view, the offending is above the mid range of objective seriousness for the offence.
The charge of taking a motor vehicle without consent (SCCAN23/2019) is very closely associated with the aggravated robbery. Care must be taken that the offender is not punished twice for the same conduct. For that reason I would assess this offence as being in the mid range of objective seriousness.
The aggravated burglary on the Military Shop (XO2018/31436) was a robbery of commercial premises at night when nobody was present or likely to be present. It was planned in advance and came at the instigation of Mr Featherstone rather than Mr Bloxsome. Although there was damage caused to the premises and within the premises, that damage was incidental rather than gratuitous. The purpose of the offending was to obtain firearms even though they were not obtained. Mr Bloxsome was guilty of this offence as a result of it being committed jointly. His role was limited to driving the other offenders to and from the scene of the crime. I would assess it as in the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.
The damage property charge (XO2018/31437) relates to the smashing of the glass cabinets within the Military Shop. Given the unlimited scope of this provision, I would assess the conduct as being below the mid range of objective seriousness. Once again Mr Bloxsome’s involvement was limited to driving to and from the premises.
Subjective circumstances
Mr Bloxsome is 49 years old. He is described by the author of the pre-sentence report as a “culturally disconnected Aboriginal man”. He is the second eldest of five children. He never really knew his father. His mother remarried and he was exposed to physical and emotional trauma at the hands of his stepfather. He left the family home at the age of 13 due to violence. He had an itinerant lifestyle after that. His mother committed suicide in 1992. He has seven children to a number of women. They are aged between 12 and 30 years old. Prior to incarceration he would spend a couple of nights a week at his ex-partner’s home in Canberra to be closer to the three children of that relationship. He was otherwise homeless, couch‑surfing and staying at friends’ places. This was notwithstanding that he had full employment and appears to have been a consequence of his methamphetamine use.
He completed Year 6 at school, being asked to leave in early Year 7. He has completed a Certificate II in Business and Certificate II in Construction. Prior to being arrested he had been employed on a full-time basis by Winnungah Nimmityjah Health and Community Services doing grounds maintenance.
He has a long history of polysubstance abuse commencing in his early teens. He claimed that he had been abstinent from illicit substances for approximately three years, prior to returning to alcohol, cannabis and methamphetamine approximately 12 months prior to the current offences.
His mother’s death and his brother’s death in a motor vehicle accident in 2010 have had a negative impact upon his mental health. During an assessment of his mental health in March 2019 he was hostile and aggravated, but did not demonstrate any evidence of psychosis or major mental illness.
His conduct while on remand involved several occurrences of verbal abuse directed towards staff which has resulted in disciplinary action. He did not complete the anger management program at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC). He demonstrated little insight into his offending conduct, justifying it on the basis of psychosis and paranoia due to illicit substance use. He was unable to identify the deleterious consequences of his offending behaviour. Obviously the fact that he has appealed a number of the convictions limits his capacity to demonstrate remorse or insight. The author of the pre-sentence report expresses the following conclusion:
Mr Bloxsome is a 49 year old culturally disconnected Aboriginal man who had experienced and unenviable upbringing, having witnessed substance abuse and violence from a young age. He presented with a significant criminal history and a tendency toward violent offending, a recent history of homelessness and an ongoing history of problematic substance abuse and mental health issues for which he has not undertaken any significant intervention.
The current offences include the use of significant violence, sexual offending, threats to members of the public and damage to property and his behaviour whilst remanded in custody at AMC has been less than favourable.
Due to his unresolved substance abuse issues, Mr Bloxsome may benefit from a period in a long term residential rehabilitation facility, in order to assist with facilitating change, however his commitment and motivation to undertaking such treatment is yet to be established.
Mr Bloxsome would have to make a fundamental shift in attitude and demonstrate a capacity to actively engage with intervention outlined in his case plan, attend supervision appointments and remain abstinent, which has not been evident in his prior interactions with Community Corrections.
Until his criminogenic risk factors are adequately addressed, he remains a risk to members of the Community.
Criminal history
[Redacted for legal reasons]. As an adult he has over 90 convictions in New South Wales (NSW) for a wide range of different offences. Most of the offending can be characterised as less serious. While he had been sentenced to periods of imprisonment, these were relatively short. Between 1992 and 2005 he was not sentenced to periods of imprisonment in NSW (although he did receive a jail term for receiving stolen goods in Victoria in 1994). In 2005 and 2011 he had short periods of imprisonment for driving offences. His last offending in NSW was at the beginning of 2012. After 2005 there is a gap in his NSW offending until 2011. There are then two common assaults and some driving matters in 2011. He also has convictions in the ACT from 1999. In the period 2005 to 2011, where there is a gap in his NSW criminal history, he was given a suspended sentence in the ACT in 2007 for the possession of methamphetamine. Further, he committed offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2009 for which was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment. In 2017 he committed the offence of refusing to undergo a screening test, drink-driving and having a prescribed drug in his oral fluid and given an aggregate sentence that ran from 28 February 2018 until 27 June 2018.
Plea of guilty
The offender pleaded guilty at the commencement of the trial to the three charges outlined at [3] above. Because of the charges to which he and his co-accused pleaded not guilty, there was only a limited reduction in the scope of the trial. However, the pleas had some utilitarian value and I will reduce the sentences that would otherwise have been imposed on these charges by 10% by reason of the plea of guilty.
Time in custody
The offender has been in custody since his arrest on 28 February 2018. The period in custody since then must be taken into account in sentencing the offender. However the period of 28 February until 27 June 2018 was served as backdated sentences for the offences of which he was convicted by the Magistrates Court in September 2018. It is therefore appropriate to take into account the period that he has spent in custody by backdating the sentence so that it commences on 28 June 2018.
Consideration
Mr Bloxsome’s involvement in the events arose as a result of his relationship with Mr Featherstone and his use of methamphetamine. While under the influence of methamphetamine he was prepared to join in the criminal schemes of Mr Featherstone. The sexual assaults are the offences in which he struck out on his own, inflicting sexual violence upon a vulnerable young woman who was being unlawfully detained.
The pre-sentence report and the offender’s criminal history clearly indicate that he had a very dysfunctional upbringing. The long‑term effects of such an upbringing must be recognised and taken into account in sentencing. He has had over the years a very large number of interactions with the justice system. Most of those have not been so serious as to warrant periods in prison. The offending in the present case is by far his most serious offending. It is reflective of the malign influence of methamphetamine upon his life. That fact and the fact that there have been periods where he has not offended is consistent with the proposition that if he is employed and not using methamphetamine his prospect of re-offending will be very substantially reduced. These factors indicate that there is some utility in a longer period under supervision than might otherwise be the case.
The sentences in the present case must reflect denunciation of the conduct, recognition of the harm done to the victims of the offences, both general and specific deterrence, as well as the need to recognise that, with appropriate support, there is at least a reasonable prospect for his rehabilitation.
In sentencing the offender I have had regard to questions of parity with the sentences that will be imposed upon Mr Featherstone. In that regard, it is important to recognise that the intentional wounding offence carries a maximum penalty which is half that of the use offensive weapon charge faced by Mr Featherstone in relation to the shooting of Mr Diaz. Further, as I have indicated above, I have considered Mr Bloxsome’s role to be somewhat lesser than Mr Featherstone. Obviously the offenders each engaged in some different offending and there are subjective circumstances which are different.
On the charge of intentional wounding the offender will be sentenced to imprisonment for 20 months. On the charge of forcible confinement he will be sentenced to imprisonment for 42 months. This will be cumulative upon the previous sentence to the extent of 24 months. On the first charge of sexual intercourse without consent he will be sentenced to imprisonment for 48 months which will be cumulative as to 18 months upon the previous sentence. On the second count of sexual intercourse without consent he will be sentenced to 52 months imprisonment which will be cumulative as to 18 months upon the previous sentence. On the charge of aggravated robbery he will be sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment which will be cumulative as to 30 months upon the previous sentence. On the charge of take motor vehicle without consent the starting point is a sentence of 24 months reduced to 22 months on account of the plea of guilty. Five months of that sentence will be cumulative upon the previous sentence. On the aggravated burglary the starting point is a sentence of 36 months reduced to 32 months on account of the plea of guilty which will be cumulative as to cumulative as to 16 months upon the previous sentence. On the damage property charge, the starting point is a sentence of nine months which will be reduced to eight months on account of the plea of guilty. It will be cumulative as to two months upon the previous sentence.
The total sentence is imprisonment for 133 months which is 11 years and one month. The non-parole period will be 83 months which is six years and eleven months. This is approximately 62% of the head sentence. The sentence will be backdated so that the first sentence commences at the end of the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court in 2018.
Orders
The orders of the Court are:
(1)On the charge of intentional wounding (CC2018/5383) the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 20 months commencing on 28 June 2018 and ending on 27 February 2020.
(2)On the charge of forcible confinement (XO2018/31433) the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 42 months commencing on 28 August 2018 and ending on 27 February 2022.
(3)On the charge of sexual intercourse without consent (XO2019/31472) the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 48 months commencing on 28 August 2019 ending on 27 August 2023.
(4)On the charge of sexual intercourse without consent (XO2019/31473) the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 52 months commencing on 28 October 2020 and ending on 27 February 2025.
(5)On the charge of aggravated robbery (CC2018/3371) the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 60 months commencing on 28 August 2022 and ending on 27 August 2027.
(6)On the charge of taking a motor vehicle without consent (SCCAN23/2019) the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 22 months commencing on 28 March 2026 and ending on 27 January 2028.
(7)On the charge of aggravated burglary (XO2018/31436) the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 32 months commencing on 28 September 2026 and ending on 27 May 2029.
(8)On the charge of damaging property (XO2018/31437) the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for eight months commencing on 28 November 2028 and ending on 27 July 2029.
(9)The non-parole period commences on 28 June 2018 and ends on 27 May 2025.
| I certify that the preceding fifty-four [54] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: 28 August 2019 |