R v BO (No 2)
[2014] ACTSC 371
•13 November 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v BO (No 2) |
Citation: | [2014] ACTSC 371 |
Hearing Date(s): | 10 November 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 13 November 2014 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. BO be convicted of the first count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency in the presence of the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years. 2. For that offence, BO be sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 16 September 2014, to take into account pre‑sentence custody. 3. BO be convicted of the second count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years. 4. For that offence, BO be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on 16 September 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to three months on the first sentence. 5. BO be convicted of the third count on the indictment, namely, engaging in sexual intercourse with the first complainant being under the age of ten years. 6. For that offence, BO be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 16 September 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the second sentence. 7. BO be convicted of the fourth count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years. 8. For that offence, BO be sentenced to nine months imprisonment to commence on 16 May 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the third sentence. 9. BO be convicted of the fifth count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years. 10. For that offence, BO be sentenced to nine months imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to three months on the fourth sentence that I have imposed. 11. BO be convicted of the sixth count of the indictment that namely, committing an act of indecency on the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years. 12. For that offence, BO be sentenced to nine months imprisonment to commence on 16 September 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to three months on the fifth sentence. 13. BO be convicted of the seventh count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the second complainant, then a child under the age of ten years. 14. For that offence, BO be sentenced to eight months imprisonment to commence on 16 February 2016, that is, to be cumulative as to four months on the sixth sentence. 15. BO be convicted of the eighth count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency in the presence of the second complainant, then a child under the age of ten years. 16. For that offence, BO be sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 16 August 2016, that is, to be cumulative as to one month on the seventh sentence. 17. BO be convicted of the ninth count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the second complainant, then a child under the age of ten years. 18. For that offence, BO be sentenced to eight months imprisonment to commence on 16 July 2016, that is, to be cumulative as to four months on the eighth sentence. 19. The sentence be suspended on 15 September 2015 for a period of eighteen months. 20. BO be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from 15 September 2015, with a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director‑General, or her delegate, for a period of two years, or such lesser period as that person considers appropriate, and that he obey all reasonable directions from the person supervising him, especially as to engagement with a mental health service provider, engagement with vocational training, work experience or other employment activities and engagement with his therapist. 21. It be recommended, under s 18(3)(a)(ii) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), that the period of imprisonment be served in a juvenile detention place under the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) because of the matters set out in the Pre‑Sentence Report. 22. BO be marked as a prisoner at risk. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Act of indecency on a child under ten years – Sexual intercourse with a young person under ten years – Act of indecency in the presence of a young person under the age of ten years – Youth offender |
Legislation Cited: | Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 55(1), 61(1) |
Cases Cited: | Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 305 ALR 323 Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) BO (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid (ACT) (Offender) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 215 of 2013 |
Refshauge J:
There is no doubt, as Gallop J said in R v Boudelah (1991) 28 FCR 176 at 186, that the community speaks with one voice in condemning sexual offences as abhorrent. This is even clearer with sexual offences against children. Nevertheless, the courts must ensure that they administer justice, which flows from the application of proper sentencing principles and by not imposing any greater punishment than the offences actually warrant.
On 16 September 2014, following a trial by jury, the offender, BO, was convicted of one offence of engaging in sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of ten years and eight offences of committing an act on or in the presence of a young person under the age of ten years. One complainant was the subject of the offence involving sexual intercourse and five of the other offences and another complainant, the first complainant’s brother, of the other three offences.
Engaging in sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of ten years is an offence contrary to s 55(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), attracting a maximum penalty of seventeen years’ imprisonment.
Committing an act of indecency on or in the presence of a young person under the age of ten years is an offence contrary to s 61(1) of the Crimes Act and attracts a maximum penalty of twelve years’ imprisonment.
The courts have frequently pointed out in cases such as Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at 133; [31] that the maximum penalty serves as an indication of the relevant relative seriousness of the offence. By that yardstick, these are very serious offences.
As the finding of guilt was made by a jury, it is necessary for me to find the facts from the evidence given at the trial. The facts that I find must, of course, be consistent with the verdict of the jury. Where facts aggravate the offence, they must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Where BO relies on mitigatory facts, I need to find them on the balance of probabilities.
These principles have been set out and explained in Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1 at 12-14. I shall approach my task in this way.
The offences
The offences all took place in BO’s bedroom, at the home of the father of the complainants. The father and mother of the complainants had separated and the father had the children for access visits every second weekend. The father’s siblings, including BO, lived in this house.
The complainants did not have their own bedroom, initially sleeping with their father, who slept on a couch in the lounge room during the period when the offences were committed. Sometimes they slept in BO’s room. Later, one of the father’s siblings moved out and he moved into her room where the complainants then slept when staying over at the house. During that later period, no offences were alleged to have been committed.
The complainants, however, would go into BO’s bedroom and play games on an electronic games machine. It appears that their father was not good at looking after them at the visits to the house and the task was left to his siblings. BO was closest in age to them and had the games machine as a diversion for them. BO would close his door and encourage the complainants to engage in sexual activities. These activities took place between March and November 2012.
The first complainant was between seven and eight years old at the time. The first count on which the jury found BO guilty involved him showing the complainant images on his phone of his ex‑girlfriend naked, including one in which she exposed her genitalia. He then asked her to “suck [his] private” and she refused.
The second count involved BO asking the first complainant to show him her “private parts”, but she again refused. He then pulled her pants and underpants down and described her genitals to her, saying “It’s a vagina and hair grows on it when you get older”.
These two counts involve BO committing an act of indecency in the presence of and on the first complainant.
The third count involved BO engaging in sexual intercourse with her. This involved BO playing a game with her where the first complainant closed her eyes and had to guess what items were placed in her mouth. On one occasion, BO put his penis in her mouth. She said that she opened her eyes and saw what it was in her mouth and that she pushed it away.
The fourth count involved the first complainant sleeping in BO’s room when he picked her up and placed her on the bed, cuddling her and placing his penis against her genital area. She awoke and got out of bed to get a drink of water, but when she returned, he continued to place his penis against her genital area. This was a count of committing an act of indecency on the first complainant.
The fifth count took place on another occasion when the first complainant was sleeping in BO’s room. On this occasion, he pulled the bed clothes back and took off her clothes so that she was naked. He put his penis between her buttock cheeks and moved it back and forth. The first complainant asked why he was doing this and he said that it was because he did not have a girlfriend. He stopped when the first complainant said she would tell her father.
The sixth count also took place when the first complainant was sleeping in BO’s room and while she was asleep, he again put his penis between her buttock cheeks. She awoke and turned around so he could not continue, but she said it happened again when she went back to sleep, so she got up and went out to the lounge room to sleep. This was the third count of committing an act of indecency on the young person.
The remaining counts involved the second complainant, who was between six and seven years old at the time. He was the brother of the first complainant. The first count involving him, the seventh count, was when the second complainant was told by BO to go into BO’s bedroom and sit on the bed, which he did. BO then asked him to pull down his pants, which he did. BO then fondled the second complainant’s penis for some time. This was an offence of committing an act of indecency on the young person.
The eighth count involved BO and the second complainant being in BO’s bedroom when he pulled some pornographic pictures from a hiding place and showed them to the second complainant. They included images of men with their penises exposed, and some where the males were touching each other’s penises. The second complainant was uncomfortable at seeing these images. This was an offence of committing an act of indecency in the presence of the young person.
The final count was an offence of committing an act of indecency on the second complainant. It involved BO, again, telling the second complainant to go to his bedroom and sit on the bed and take his pants down. BO then sat next to the complainant and touched his penis.
There was also evidence of other uncharged acts which showed that these acts were part of a pattern of sexualised interaction between BO and the two complainants.
Subjective circumstances
BO was born in 1995 in Canberra. He initially lived in Newcastle with his mother until his mother and father separated when he was six.
He and the family then moved to Griffith and Yenda. He said he lived in seven different homes during his childhood. They then moved to Canberra.
He is now eighteen years old and, at the time of the offences, was sixteen years old.
He is the youngest of his siblings. The family has experienced much trauma, grief and loss. When BO was eight, his mother died and he and his siblings were placed in the care of ACT Care and Protection Services.
Initially, they were cared for by their maternal aunt and his partner. She also died, however, in 2008, when BO was twelve. The children were then cared for by her partner.
This relationship broke down when BO’s aunt’s partner was arrested for sexual assault of a former partner. They were placed in foster care but soon returned voluntarily to the care of their aunt’s partner until he committed suicide in March 2012. Despite their voluntary return, he is said to have been neglectful and physically abusive.
BO’s eldest brother then assumed kinship care of the siblings until they attained the age of eighteen years.
These experiences have clearly had a significant impact on BO. He has also said to have experienced childhood sexual abuse. BO, however, had no prior involvement with the criminal justice system and these are the first offences with which he has been charged.
He has, however, had problems with anger, anxiety, depression and self‑harming behaviour. These problems led to difficulties at school where, in one incident, he damaged school property in the midst of threats to harm himself.
His aggressive behaviour is said, however, to occur in isolated incidents, particularly in response to stress, especially in his relationship with his girlfriend rather than as more pervasive behaviour. It is also not person oriented, and more likely to result in self-harming behaviour or property damage.
While in custody following the verdict of the jury, BO was initially involved in two incidents of aggressive behaviour when he punched property. These occurred, however, soon after his admission and custodial staff describe him, since then, as being generally polite and compliant, though with occasional periods of agitation.
BO is reported as having had significant difficulties at school with poor attendance, indeed, lengthy periods of non‑attendance with consequent effects on his academic progress. Thus, his literacy and numeracy skills are poor. He also got into fights at school.
He was removed from the school system when he was seventeen as a result of his poor attendance. He did well, however, at practical subjects such as metal work. He was regarded by his family as being cognitively impaired and his counsellor has expressed concern with this area, though he has not undergone formal assessments. He may also require spectacles.
He has had some employment, but his work history is characterised by difficulties in motivation and commitment. He obtained an apprenticeship, which he started in January 2013, but he did not continue with it.
He says that he left because of a pay dispute, but his brother suggests that it was his absenteeism and difficulties in completing tasks that led to the termination of his employment. It also shows some problem with his insight in this situation.
He has skills in practical activities and is an excellent cook in the kitchen; it is said, he is able to focus, complete tasks and excel.
BO drinks alcohol and uses illicit drugs. His most persistent drug use is of cannabis, which he has used since age fifteen. He says he uses it as a means of relaxation and stress relief. He expresses no current interest in the use of other drugs, though he has tried some.
His alcohol consumption is also said to be associated with efforts to manage his distress and stress, though he is said to drink significant amounts.
He appears to suffer from depression and anxiety and has repeatedly engaged in self‑harming behaviour. I did not have details but it appears he has had some contact with community based mental health services, but these are said to have had limited impact on him. He has some difficulty engaging with them.
I had a forensic psychiatric report. He was assessed as not having a severe mental illness or dysfunction. He was diagnosed, however, with an alcohol use disorder, a cannabis use disorder and borderline personality and traits.
BO continues to deny committing these offences.
On the basis of the jury’s finding of guilt, however, he has been diagnosed with a sexual disorder, but that was challenged by his counsel. In any event, it does not seem to me to assist in sentencing. The Report states that there is no evidence of a pervasive mental disorder. It is also reported that there is no relationship between his mental health symptoms and the offending behaviour. He is regarded by the forensic psychiatrist as at a high risk of re-offending. This seems to be dependent on the commission of these offences which, I have already noted, he continues to deny.
The sexual development and adjustment has otherwise been normal. He has a current personal relationship which he regards as important for him, and he hopes that it will continue into the future. This partner, however, did not know until recently of the offences of which he has been found guilty, but remains in contact though the future of the relationship is unclear.
The report of his risk of future offending notes that the offences seem more opportunistic as opposed to reflecting a high level of planning or establishing and setting up the opportunities for the abusive behaviour to occur.
There is no evidence of physical or verbal threats or force to effect the offences, or indeed to coerce the complainants to secrecy. There was no evidence of violence in the actual commission of the offences. The offences also ceased when the complainants were no longer sleeping in his room or in the lounge room.
The opinion of the author of the risk and need assessment was
[BO’s] sexually abusive behaviour is best understood in the context of his history of childhood trauma and loss, the dynamics of [his] family system and his relationship with the victims, his developmental stage and emerging sexual interest and curiosity, deficits in emotional regulation and access to opportunity to engage in sexual behaviour.
[BO’s] sexually abusive behaviour does not appear to reflect an emerging antisocial orientation, and nor does it reflect emerging or establishing sexual deviance.
Similarly, in understanding [BO’s] unwillingness to acknowledge the sexual abuse, this is not considered to reflect a disregard for his behaviour or an absence of regret or remorse, but rather is more likely a reflection of the struggle for this young man to acknowledge and deal with behaviours which he perceives there to be devastating consequences – namely the loss of his most significant relationships and a sense of failure and self‑disgust.
It is said that BO is likely to benefit from involvement with therapy that will address, directly, the motivation and dynamics associated with the sexually abusive behaviour and to assist him with the development of skills and competencies that will help him to establish positive and safer relationships and be able to regulate his emotions effectively.
It is further said that he has had difficulty in maintaining his commitment to treatment, but that a secure situation may provide him with an appropriate environment to begin the process of establishing therapeutic relationship and allow him to establish the support needed in the community to help his life to be successful.
This, however, would be preferable in a juvenile justice custodial setting rather than in an adult correctional facility given his age, particular difficulties in social situations leading him to experience anxiety and depression, and also his intellectual deficits. It would also be desirable for him to experience a consistency of therapeutic treatment across the custodial environment and in the community.
There are other recommendations in the helpful Report, which I will recommend to those who will be responsible for his assistance.
Victim impact statements
I had two victim impact statements which the first complainant and her mother made. As is so often the case, they made sobering reading. The first complainant said
I trusted [BO]. [BO] broke my trust by doing something no kid should ever experience. I would never have thought a loving, caring and funny uncle could do sexual abuse to not only one child but two children that were too young, too scared and too young to defend themselves”.
She then said that the experience had meant to her that “[i]t is difficult to trust men, not only for myself but [the second complainant] as well”. She described the situation of having to disclose the abuse as “scary” and she was “terrified about whether to tell anyone about it or just keep it to myself”, but decided that she would do so and described herself as having done so being “brave”.
The mother of the two complainants also expressed the difficulties that the disclosure had to her. She said, “I had difficulty getting to sleep as the children’s words kept running through my head, and I didn’t want to wake up in the morning as the reality of what had happened was so horrible to think about”. She said, “I realised that I cannot protect my children like I once foolishly thought I could. I can’t kiss the pain away. All I can do is fight for the justice they deserve”.
She referred to the children “feeling guilty” and becoming “cautious in unfamiliar situations heightened where there are unknown males around” and noted that the second complainant “seeks continual reassurance and physical contact from me and his step father to gain confidence in new situations”.
She summed the situation up as follows
Our family was broken and devastated for quite some time after the abuse came to light, but with weekly counselling sessions and support, we are healing and we are stronger than before.
Despite everything my family continue to deal with on a daily basis, I see so much strength and resilience in my children. In the long term, this will be a tiny black hole within them. Their futures will be so full of colour, happiness and love.
It is reassuring that there is such an opportunity there, one which is not always available for complainants and victims of these offences.
Consideration
As noted earlier, sexual assault of children is a matter that the community regards with significant abhorrence. As the victim impact statements indicate, the breach of trust and loss of innocence can be severely disabling and can have ongoing effects. There is no doubt that the offences are serious. I have said before that sexual intercourse with young girls can seriously affect their psychosexual development. There is no doubt that the community expects the courts to play their part in the protection of young people from exploitation.
The sexual intercourse was a serious offence. It involved an element of deception which has clearly affected the victim. The acts of indecency are also serious, particularly as they included, in some cases, touching, which is regularly regarded by the courts as a more serious version of the offence.
Despite BO’s age, they did involve a level of breach of trust, especially in the particular circumstances of the living arrangements for the children and the difference in the ages between BO and the complainants. There can be no doubt that a severe response for such offences is required.
It is important that BO was a young person at the time of the offences. I have set out, in R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24, the way in which the court must approach the sentencing of young offenders in these circumstances. That decision has recently been followed by Ross J in R v AT (Unreported, ACTSC, Ross J, 9 May 2014) and applied by the Court of Appeal in The Queen v CV [2013] ACTCA 22.
I approach the task of sentencing BO with those matters in the forefront of my mind. There is a special regime for the sentencing of young offenders which recognises immaturity of the young person involved and the need for a special approach.
It is to be marked by the need for rehabilitation, which will predominate in the purposes of sentencing and the need for individualised justice. Punishment and deterrence are to be given a lesser weight though, sometimes, such as in serious offences including these offences, cannot be altogether discarded. Certainly these issues are not as significant or important as when sentencing adults for the same offences.
I take into account the difficult upbringing and childhood that BO has experienced and the challenges he has had to face. I take into account the careful risk assessment that has been made.
Naturally, the seriousness of the offences is a significant matter as is, especially, the circumstances of the complainants as set out in the victim impact statements. It is commendable that, in their mother’s care, they seem to be making good progress to overcome the obvious difficulties that they have experienced. The Court hopes that they can put these terrible experiences behind them.
It was suggested that BO has not expressed remorse. This must be true, as he continues to deny the offences. This, however, it is important to note, is not an aggravating feature.
I note, too, that the opportunistic nature of the offences and the circumstances under which they were committed, particularly the absence of violence, means that, with some therapeutic assistance, there is perhaps a lesser risk of BO re-offending.
Not much was provided to me by way of a comparable cases, as expected to be provided to sentences, as noted by the High Court in Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 305 ALR 323 at 331; [38], and as required by the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT), s 33(1)(za).
I have had regard to the decisions of R v DM (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, 14 February 2011) and R v PM.
BO has been assessed as capable of complying with good behaviour order. I have carefully considered the matter. I note the assessment of the author of the risk and needs assessment as follows:
[BO] is aware that imprisonment may be an option that the court may consider. Linda Valenta’s view is that; ‘a period of remand would assist as it would provide [BO] with a more contained environment to begin the process of establishing a therapeutic relationship and allow time to establish the support needed in the community to help his life be successful’. ‘That [BO]’s needs would most likely be better met in a juvenile justice custodial setting than in an adult correctional facility’.
Given the seriousness of the offences, I consider that no other alternative than a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate.
I have carefully considered the length of the sentences to ensure that where there are overlapping common elements between any the offences, BO is not punished twice. I have also considered whether the sentences should be partly or wholly concurrent because, for example, they are party of the same enterprise or otherwise.
I have then reviewed the length of the term of imprisonment arrived at and ensured that the principle of totality is respected and that the total sentence is adequate to reflect the criminality of the offences committed but not more than that, that the total sentence is not crushing and leaves open the realistic prospect of reform and hope for the achievement of BO’s goals when he returns to the community. Where necessary to achieve this, I have adjusted the cumulation or concurrency of the individual sentences.
BO, please stand:
(1)I convict you of the first count on the indictment, namely, of committing an act of indecency in the presence of the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years.
(2)For that offence, I sentence you to three months imprisonment to commence on 16 September 2014, to take into account pre‑sentence custody.
(3)I convict you of the second count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years.
(4)For that offence, I sentence you to six months imprisonment to commence on 16 September 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to three months on the first sentence.
(5)I convict you of the third count on the indictment, namely, engaging in sexual intercourse with the first complainant being under the age of ten years.
(6)For that offence, I sentence you to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 16 September 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the second sentence.
(7)I convict you of the fourth count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years.
(8)For that offence, I sentence you to nine months imprisonment to commence on 16 May 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the third sentence.
(9)I convict you of the fifth count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years.
(10)For that offence, I sentence you to nine months imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to three months on the fourth sentence that I have imposed.
(11)I convict you of the sixth count of the indictment that namely, committing an act of indecency on the first complainant, then a child under the age of ten years.
(12)For that offence, I sentence you to nine months imprisonment to commence on 16 September 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to three months on the fifth sentence.
(13)I convict you of the seventh count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the second complainant, then a child under the age of ten years.
(14)For that offence, I sentence you at eight months imprisonment to commence on 16 February 2016, that is, to be cumulative as to four months on the sixth sentence.
(15)I convict you of the eighth count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency in the presence of the second complainant, then a child under the age of ten years.
(16)For that offence, I sentence you to three months imprisonment to commence on 16 August 2016, that is, to be cumulative as to one month on the seventh sentence.
(17)I convict you of the ninth count on the indictment, namely, committing an act of indecency on the second complainant, then a child under the age of ten years.
(18)For that offence, I sentence you to eight months imprisonment to commence on 16 July 2016, that is, to be cumulative as to four months on the eighth sentence.
(19)That is a total of two years and six months imprisonment from 16 September 2014 to 15 March 2017.
(20)I direct that the sentence be suspended on 15 September 2015, for a period of eighteen months.
(21)I require you to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from 15 September 2015, with a probation condition that you be under the supervision of the Director‑General, or her delegate, for a period of two years, or such lesser period as that person considers appropriate, and that you obey all reasonable directions from the person supervising you, especially as to engagement with a mental health service provider, engagement with vocational training, work experience or other employment activities and engagement with your therapist.
(22)I recommend, under s 18(3)(a)(ii) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), that the period of imprisonment be served in a juvenile detention place under the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) because of the matters set out in the Pre‑Sentence Report.
(23)I direct that you be marked as a prisoner at risk.
[His Honour then spoke directly to BO]
BO, the effect of that sentence, that is all complicated because of the legal obligations on me, is that from the day you went into custody, that is 16 September 2014, you serve a period of twelve months full‑time custody and then you are released on a two year bond.
The purpose of that bond is to have some control and to ensure that you get the supports that are necessary for you to return to the community as a law‑abiding citizen and hopefully to maximise the talents that you have and be able to use those for your benefit and for the benefit of the community. That supervision is for a period of two years, or if the person supervising you thinks you are going well, it can be for a lesser period.
The important thing to remember about that bond is that if you breach it, you can be brought back to court and you can be re-sentenced for the offences that I imposed and that includes sentencing you to a term of imprisonment. A breach of the bond can be by committing further offences that are punishable by imprisonment or failing to comply with directions that are given to you by the person that is directed to supervise you. And so you need to bear that in mind.
| I certify that the preceding seventy-eight [78] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence his Honour Justice Refshauge. Associate: Date: 22 January 2015 |
4
6
3