R v Bowick

Case •

[2024] NSWDC 665

•

15 March 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bowick [2024] NSWDC 665
Hearing dates: 15 March 2024
Date of orders: 15 March 2024
Decision date: 15 March 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

See pars [89]-[92].

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE – Multiple offences – Major offence: commit indictable offence in a dwelling house and break out: Crimes Act 1900 s109(2).

Long history of drug addiction, flowing from self-treatment following abuse when a child – Offender also having a “life crisis” at time of offending, following breakdown of a relationship.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Crimes Act 1900

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (‘LEPRA’)

Cases Cited:

Nil.

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Offender – Christopher Bowick
Representation:

Counsel:
Crown – Mr Ng, B.
Offender – Ms Fard, N.

Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW).
Offender – NFK Lawyers.
File Number(s): 2022/00351328 & 2022/00283819.
Publication restriction: Publication of unredacted judgment prohibited.

Judgment

Charges

  1. HIS HONOUR: Christopher Bowick stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to six substantive charges. He also asks me to take into account on a Form 1, three further charges.

  2. All of the crimes that the offender committed for which he currently stands for sentence occurred on 21 or 22 September 2022. The first substantive offence for which the offender stands for sentence occurred between 12.30am and 2am on 21 September 2022 at Newtown. The remaining offences occurred on the following day, again in Newtown, but in the late afternoon of that day.

  3. The first substantive charge bears the number H77730751, Sequence 2. The other offences are covered by H90101530 and are known as Sequences 1 to 8.

  4. At the time of these offences, if my mathematics be correct, the offender was aged 43 years.

Sequence 2 – H77730751

  1. Around midnight on 21 September 2022, Mr David Etim was returning to his residence, after spending time with a friend in Erskineville. He had in his possession a Brian Anderson Anti-Hero skateboard worth approximately $400, was wearing a collectable Jag silver watch worth approximately $6,000, and was carrying a black, green and white ASICS duffle bag which contained a number of articles, some of which were of value, including a wallet but also debit cards, a Medicare card and other cards. The total value of his possessions was, according to the Court Attendance Notice, $10,500.

  2. At about 12.15am, Mr Etim was walking up King Street, Newtown. He decided to use his skateboard to continue his journey home. At about 1.22am Mr Etim noticed a dip in the road outside a café at 109 King Street. Unfortunately, he hit the dip. He fell off his skateboard and hit his head and rolled over. His duffle bag landed on the footpath, his watch fell from his wrist next to him and his skateboard stopped on the road nearby. Mr Etim was rendered unconscious. He was unconscious for about 40 minutes, that is until close to 2 o’clock, or shortly thereafter.

  3. At about 1.35am the offender was recorded on CCTV footage approaching the victim as he was lAying on the footpath. The offender picked up the duffle bag, the watch and the skateboard and continued walking south down King Street.

  4. The offender was arrested on 23 September 2022, two days later. A photo identification of Mr Etim, Mr Etim’s Medicare card, a blue debit card similar to a card described by Mr Etim, and a Commonwealth debit card in the name of Mr Etim were found in his possession, positive proof, combined with the CCTV footage, that the offender had taken the belongings of Mr Etim.

  5. He has been charged with stealing from the person goods greater than $5,000 in value and less than $15,000. That is an offence contrary to s 94(b) of the Crimes Act1900. There is a maximum penalty for this offence of imprisonment for 14 years. There is no standard non‑parole period.

Sequence 2 – H90101530

  1. The next offence is the common assault of Mr Adam Gray. Common assault is an offence contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. There is no standard non‑parole period.

Sequence 4

  1. The next offence is the common assault of Mr Shane Ustick.

Sequence 5

  1. The next offence, is the aggravated committing of a serious indictable offence in a dwelling house and then breaking out of the dwelling house. That is an offence contrary to s 109(2) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is no standard non‑parole period.

Sequence 7

  1. The next offence is assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and occasioning actual bodily harm to the police officer. The police officer is Senior Constable Vella. That is an offence contrary to s 60(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. There is a standard non‑parole period of three years imprisonment. In connection with that offence, the offender asks me to take into account three matters in a Form 1.

Sequence 8

  1. The final substantive offence to which the offender has pleaded guilty is assaulting a police officer in the execution of the officer’s duty. Perhaps duplicitously, the Crown has included in the Court Attendance Notice for these offences the names of three police officers, namely Constable Tabytha Henry, Constable James Quinn and Constable Mitchell Nugent.

  2. According to the Crown sentence summary, that is an offence contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act1900 and carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. However, the Court Attendance Notice refers to s 546C of the Crimes Act1900. Section 546C was repealed by Act number 48 of 2022 with operative effect on 18 October 2022, a month after this offence was committed. My copy of the legislation does not tell me what the maximum penalty provided by s 546C was nor whether it related to multiple police officers. Section 60(1) is this:

“A person who assaults, throws a missile at, stalks, harasses or intimidates a police officer while in the execution of the officer’s duty, although no actual bodily harm is occasioned to the officer, is liable to imprisonment for five years”.

  1. One will note that only one officer is referred to in s 60(1). I will proceed on the basis that the maximum penalty for the offence alleged is that given by the Crown in the Crown sentence summary. I have not been addressed otherwise by the Solicitor for the offender.

Form 1 – Sequences 1, 3 and 6

  1. The three matters which the offender asks me to take into account are larceny, an offence contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act1900 carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. That is known as Sequence 1.

  2. The next offence on the Form 1 is stealing property in a dwelling house. That is known as Sequence 3. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for seven years, an offence contrary to s 148 of the Crimes Act1900.

  3. The third offence which I am asked to take into account is known as Sequence 6 and on the Crown sentence summary refers to resisting Constables Vella, Quinn and Nugent or hindering them in the execution of their duty. According to the Crown sentence summary, the relevant provision is s 546 of the Crimes Act1900. That is an offence of abetting or procuring an offence. According to the Court Attendance Notice for Sequence 6, the offence was one contrary to s 546C which, as I have earlier pointed out, has been repealed but was in force at the time of the offence. Again, I do not know what the penalty was under s 546C of the Crimes Act1900. Nothing really turns on it as the matter is on a Form 1 rather than a matter which needs to be the subject of a separate sentence or an indicative sentence.

Facts

Sequence 1

  1. I turn now to the facts of those offences committed on the afternoon of 22 September 2022. At around 5.25pm on 22 September 2022 the offender was on Rochford Street, Erskineville. The offender took a petrol tin and two shovels from a parked white utility car and walked through the gate of a dwelling on Rochford Street.

Sequence 4

  1. The offender then left that dwelling on Rochford Street with the two shovels and the petrol tin and walked to another dwelling on Rochford Street. The offender placed those items in the front of this dwelling. The owner of those items, Mr Steven Ustick, who had been observing the offender, went and picked up the items and took them back to his house, the first dwelling on Rochford Street. Therefore, the goods which had been stolen were returned to their lawful owner.

  2. A short time later, Mr Ustick left his home and observed the offender on Rochford Street with a set of edge trimmers. Mr Ustick informed the offender that he had called the police. The offender crossed the road and approached Mr Ustick in an aggressive manner which caused him to fear for his personal safety. The offender said, “I know where you live. I’m going to headbutt you”. While saying that he made a motion with his head as if he were going to headbutt Mr Ustick. Mr Ustick then retreated behind a nearby car. That is the assault upon Mr Ustick.

Sequence 2

  1. About that time, Mr Adam Gray was walking west down Rochford Street reading a book and saw the interaction between the offender and Mr Ustick. The offender then approached Mr Gray and took the book that he was reading, accusing Mr Gray of taking the offender’s book. The offender gave the book back to Mr Gray and then raised his hand half in a fist and half in a claw and punched Mr Gray once in the right eye with force. That caused Mr Gray immediate pain. That is the assault upon Mr Gray.

Sequence 3

  1. The offender then approached the front fence of a third dwelling on Rochford Street and took a grey BYK350 mountain bike. The resident of the third dwelling, Ms Naama Blatman, was walking along Munni Street onto Rochford Street returning home after going for a walk. She saw the offender riding a bike. Another neighbour yelled out to Ms Blackman asking whether it was her bike. As the offender rode past her on the footpath, she recognised the bike as belonging to her son. Ms Blatman yelled out to the offender and said, “Hey, that’s my bike”. The offender responded, “What? It was in the middle of the road”. Following that exchange, the offender got off the bike and pushed it towards Ms Blatman. Ms Blatman picked the bike up and returned to her home. She observed that her front gate was open and that her front veranda was “a mess”, probably her words. What it actually means, I do not know. There is no photograph of her “messy” front veranda. It will be noted that this was the Form 1 matter of larceny of a bicycle. Fortunately, Ms Blatman had the bicycle returned to her and, no doubt, gave it back to her son.

Sequence 5

  1. The next crime committed by the offender is in my view the most significant of the various crimes that he committed on the two days now in question. Mr Samuel Young, who was 70 years old lived, at a fourth dwelling on Rochford Street. At around 5.05pm, Mr Young heard a noise which he thought was on his roof and a rustling noise in his rear courtyard. He opened the back door and saw the offender. There was then this exchange:

Mr Young: “What do you think you’re doing here?”

Offender: “Liz told me to get the clothes.”

Young: “Rubbish, don’t tell lies.”

Offender: “I don’t want trouble.”

Young: “Get out of there.”

  1. Mr Young then told the offender to get on his hands and knees. He then went inside to get his telephone, perhaps to ring the police. The offender ran inside the house behind him. The offender pushed Mr Young in the chest causing him to fall to the side. The offender then ran to the front door. To assist the offender to leave, Mr Young approached the door. The offender turned around and struck Mr Young with a closed fist to the chest causing him to fall directly onto his right elbow. The offender then left. Mr Young sustained a bruised and swollen right elbow and a cut to his right hand.

Sequence 6

  1. At about 5.13pm, Constable Tabitha Henry, Constable James Quinn, Constable Mitchell Nugent and Senior Constable Vella arrived on Rochford Street. Several residents described the offender and pointed out the direction in which they thought he had gone. Constable Henry observed the offender walking south on Rochford Street. By this stage, Rochford Street was in Newtown rather than Erskineville.

  2. Constables Quinn and Henry ran up to the offender asking him to stop. The offender turned and faced Constable Quinn front on with both fists and yelled, “Let’s go”. Constable Quinn then grabbed the offender and attempted to bring him to the ground. Constables Henry, Nugent and Senior Constable Vella then attempted to assist him.

  3. The offender became hostile, aggressive and attempted to fight Senior Constable Vella, and Constables Nugent, Henry and Quinn. Whilst police attempted to apprehend the offender, he tensed up and was punching and kicking out. Police eventually placed the offender in a seated position on the ground. That is one of the offences on the Form 1, resisting police in the execution of their duty.

Sequence 7

  1. As the offender was on the ground Constable Tabitha Henry attempted to place handcuffs on him. She cuffed his right hand. Before she could cuff his left hand, the offender turned to Senior Constable Vella and bit him on the left arm. Senior Constable Vella attempted to pull his arm away, but the offender continued to bite down on his left arm. Constable Henry struck the offender multiple times trying to get him to release Vella. The offender then stopped biting Senior Constable Vella and was handcuffed by Constable Henry. As a result of the bite, Senior Constable Vella attended Royal Prince Alfred Hospital to receive medical treatment. The wound had clear indentations of the offender’s teeth and was immediately bruised.

Sequence 8

  1. Despite now being on the ground and handcuffed the offender continued to be aggressive. Senior Constable Vella deployed capsicum spray to his face. The offender then spat blood and spit which landed on the face of Constable Quinn. Constables Henry, Quinn and Nugent and Senior Constable Vella held the offender on the ground and Senior Constable Vella then searched and cautioned the offender. The offender was later placed in a caged police truck. As a result of the strikes made by Constable Henry to the offender’s head to get him to release Senior Constable Vella from the bite, the offender suffered a laceration above his left eyebrow, and his head was bleeding. An ambulance was called to treat those injuries. When the ambulance arrived, Constable Henry opened the back of the caged van and asked the offender to calm down. The offender spat in her face. Constable Henry used the right sleeve of Senior Constable Vella’s jumper to wipe the saliva off her face. The spitting at Constable Quinn and the spitting at Constable Henry are the offences in Sequence 8. The offender was then treated by paramedics before being sedated and taken to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.

  2. After his discharge he was taken to Newtown Police Station where he was introduced to the custody manager who read him his rights in accordance with LEPRA. The offender declined to participate in an electronic recorded interview, as was his right. He did however consent to administering to himself a buccal swab.

Objective Seriousness

  1. The offender’s personal circumstances tell me why this has occurred and the story is a very unhappy one, however there are certain things I need to say in light of the submissions of the Crown about the objective seriousness of these offences.

Sequence 2 – H77730751

  1. As for stealing from the person of Mr Etim is concerned, the Crown submitted that the offence was in the mid-range of objective seriousness. It was pointed out that the victim was vulnerable as he was unconscious when his goods were taken by the offender. The Crown adds that the offender did nothing to render any assistance to the victim and the value of the property was not insignificant.

  2. Stealing from the person has the propensity to make the person from whom the goods are taken angry, irate and has the ability to put the person whose goods are stolen in fear. The person may feel intimidated. Mr Etim was unconscious. True it was he could not protect his goods, but he could not have felt intimidated or fearful or overawed. The fact that he could not protect his property left the property in the position of just being left unguarded by the owner of the goods. One aspect of stealing from the person is absent, that is the propensity to cause alarm, distress, anxiety or fear.

  3. The fact that the offender made no attempt to be a good Samaritan is irrelevant. The law does not require anyone to be a good Samaritan. True it is that the offender could have called an ambulance to come to the assistance of Mr Etim or perhaps he could have checked to make sure that his airway was clear and that he was breathing. He could have gone some distance away from where he was before making a call. However, I do not know whether he had a mobile phone on his person at the time. Again, there was no legal duty act as a good Samaritan. Whilst the offender’s conduct may have been socially unacceptable, there was nothing to say what he did not do was an aggravating factor to the criminality involved in taking goods from another, whose goods were essentially left unguarded.

Sequence 5

  1. As far as the common assault upon Mr Ustick was concerned, the Crown submitted that the matter fell towards the lower end of the range of objective seriousness for common assault. There was no physical violence offered to Mr Ustick at all, only a threat and in my view that was at the bottom of the range of seriousness.

Sequence 2

  1. The Crown has submitted that the common assault on Mr Gray was in the mid-range of objective seriousness, but there was no suggestion of any actual bodily harm, albeit if there were, he probably would have been charged with a more serious offence. True it is that the assault was unprovoked and directed at a vulnerable part of the body, the eye. I would not place this at the mid-range of objective seriousness, but slightly under the mid-range of objective seriousness.

Sequence 5

  1. The Crown has submitted that committing the serious indictable offence and then breaking out of the house of Mr Young fell within the mid-range of objective seriousness. I accept that assaulting a 70-year-old man in his own home is a significant crime. This was an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. However, there are many other serious indictable offences that can be committed in a person’s home before breaking out of the home. They could be committing assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, a sexual offence, although it is not submitted that there was any suggestion of that in this case, but there can often be sexual offences, serious indictable offences committed in a house prior to person breaking out of it, and for example, other crimes of a serious nature which might be committed before breaking out of the house include looting or destruction of property within the house. However, as I said, I do accept that given Mr Young’s age, his vulnerability, that this was a crime which fell just within the mid-range of objective seriousness.

Sequence 7

  1. The biting of Senior Constable Vella’s left arm, it is submitted by the Crown, was in the mid-range of objective seriousness, bearing in mind that the biting was prolonged and involved a risk of disease. However, there is no evidence of the skin being broken such that, if the offender were carrying any disease in his oral fluid, it could have passed into the Senior Constable’s blood system. There is no evidence that the biting actually punctured the skin as distinct from leaving serious bruises on it. I would again put this case below the mid-range of objective seriousness.

Sequence 8

  1. As far as the Sequence 8 offence is concerned, assault an officer in the execution of the officer’s duty, the Crown submitted that this was abhorrent conduct which carried a high risk of transmitting disease and warranted condign punishment. It has been submitted that the offending was within the mid-range. Spitting in our culture is socially abhorrent. But there is no evidence here that it caused either Constable Henry or Constable Quinn to hold any fear of their having a disease transmitted to them or that they sought any treatment or testing to make sure that no disease had been transferred to them. The only evidence is that Constable Henry wiped the spittle of the offender from her face using the arm of Senior Constable Vella’s jumper. There is no evidence as to what Constable Quinn did. In those circumstances I cannot accept that this was within the mid-range. It had potential to be so, but without further evidence as to how it made the constables feel as far as health concerns were involved or any attempt they made to ascertain whether they had been put at risk, it is hard to accept the Crown’s submission.

Conditional Liberty

  1. The Crown also points out, correctly, that the offender was at conditional liberty at this time. He was subject to bail for another set of offences at the time of these offences and that of course is an aggravating factor under s 25A(2)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Personal Circumstances

  1. I turn now to consider the personal circumstances of the offender and how these offences came to occur.

  2. On 8 August 2023, the offender was interviewed by Ms Kris North, a forensic psychologist, for two hours by audio visual link. At that time the offender was an inmate at Parklea Correctional Centre. Ms North’s report is Exhibit 6.

  3. Commencing on page 4 of her report Ms North said this:

“Mr Bowick is the youngest of two children born to his parent’s union and has one older sister with whom he shared a close relationship. His parents were in a stable marriage and he also described having regular contact with his parents at the time of assessment. Mr Bowick expressed concerns over his mother’s health at the time of the assessment, noting she had been in and out of hospital in relation to a heart condition and throat nodules, in addition to suffering from diabetes. He also described his father as having mobility issues, and expressed concern over his father’s ability to care for his mother without support.

Mr Bowick depicted a regular childhood prior to experiencing abuse from the age of eight years. He described a decline in his behaviour from this time resulting in an early onset of drug use.”

  1. Ms North went on to record that the offender had a history of learning issues in school, but was never assessed in relation to those learning issues. She also said that he described difficulties in making friends in primary school, but she thought that likely to be related to the fact that he attended three different primary schools over the usual seven-year period.

  2. [REDACTED].

  3. [REDACTED].

  1. At the age of 12, the offender first used heroin and by the age of 13 or 14 was using that drug daily. By the age of 15, he was injecting heroin daily. Since then, he has struggled with his addiction to heroin. The first time that he managed to achieve abstinence from that drug was the age of 40, when he was placed on a Methadone Program.

  2. Ms North reported that the offender had only limited periods of abstinence from heroin prior to the age of 40, the longest being a period of one year after the birth of his son.

  3. In addition to using heroin, the offender also described the recreational use of other drugs and alcohol, most notably the use from the age of 13. I am well aware of the use of cannabis by teenagers, but this is a rare case of seeing a 12 year old using heroin and being addicted to it by the age of 13 or 14, indeed, a rare case of seeing a 15 year old lad using heroin intravenously.

  4. The offender attended four high schools prior to leaving school in year 9. According to Ms North’s report, the offender lost motivation to study after commencing his drug use and he mixed with the wrong crowd, understandably as he was a drug user. That led to his spending periods of time in juvenile detention.

  5. When he left school in year 9, the offender found some work as a labourer in the construction industry and later some work in sales, but his employment history was described by Ms North as erratic in the past. His last employment had either been in late 2019 or early 2020.

  6. In another section of her report, Ms North refers to the offender’s drug use leading to anti-social peer associations and with them, offending behaviour from the age of 13 years. That led to his being placed in juvenile detention at various stages between the ages of 13 and 17 years, where he was again the subject of abuse whilst in detention. According to Ms North’s report, the offender is currently applying for civil damages in relation to the abuse he received whilst in juvenile detention. Ms North’s report records that the physical abuse whilst in custody caused exacerbation of the offender’s drug use when he was released into the community, again seeking to treat the effect of the abuse by the use of illicit drugs.

  7. Self-treatment with illicit substances is common but it is uncommon for a lad of 12 to resort to the drugs which this offender did. Inevitably what has happened to him was the consequence of his resorting to drugs to overcome the effects of the abuse. This had led to tragedy. The offender at the age of 12 could hardly realise what drug abuse would cause him in the future.

  8. Another section of Ms North’s report is this:

“Mr Bowick described having been in a ten year relationship in the past and had a son now 15 years of age to this relationship. He described this relationship to have ended as a result of his drug use issues, however had maintained an amicable relationship with his former partner and had regular contact with his son when in the community. Mr Bowick had also maintained regular phone contact since entering custody.

More recently, Mr Bowick had been in an eight year relationship and reported this relationship to have ended in August/September 2022 shortly prior to his index offences. He described this break up as having ‘taken a toll emotionally’, noting he found out his partner was engaging in sex work without his knowledge.”

  1. The next section of Ms North’s reports deals with the offender’s physical health history. Of note is that he has been diagnosed with both Hepatitis A and Hepatitis C which was treated in hospital in early September 2022 after the offender experienced severe abdominal pain. Other histories indicate that the offender contracted Hepatitis A and Hepatitis C from his more recent partner and that may be as a result of her having engaged in “sex work”.

  2. Ms North also noted that the offender had reported as having been assessed by neurologists in the past in relation to head injuries. However, it was unclear to her whether he had suffered or been diagnosed with an acquired brain injury. I have seen a report of a CT scan of the offender’s brain, and that indicates that there is no organic brain damage.

  3. At one stage in the past, the offender was diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, at the request of the offender’s solicitor, I requested a report from Justice Health and an excellent report has been provided to me by Dr Gordon Elliott, a Consultant Psychiatrist with Justice Health which is Exhibit 10. Dr Elliott had available to him as many medical records as he was able to view. They included the report of Ms North. Of interest as far as the current sentencing exercise is concerned, is the account given by the offender to Dr Elliott of his circumstances prior to his arrest for the current offences.

  4. That account is this:

“In response to a broad enquiry about his general wellbeing in the weeks before his arrest, Mr Bowick replied, ‘things had really deteriorated, physically and mentally’. He spoke of a number of stressors, chief of which was the breakdown in the relationship with his long-term partner. He said this occurred several months before he got arrested. He added that he also had contracted Hepatitis A and C from the same partner. He said he was experiencing physical health problems as a result, including abdominal pain. He added to this account, ‘I really wasn’t taking care of myself...I wasn’t eating properly, wasn’t sleeping properly. Sort of all over the place’. He told me he felt isolated and had a sense he was hiding out from the world.

Mr Bowick told me he remained on his dose of methadone although through this period and he was required to collect his dose on a daily basis. He said he was not on any other medication. He admitted he was smoking cannabis through this period, with the amounts changing from day to day. He denied use of other illicit substances during this period and he specifically denied using any other substances on the day of his arrest. He spoke of a minimal to rare use of alcohol.

I asked Mr Bowick to elaborate upon what happened around the time of his arrest. He said once more, ‘I dunno, my mental health was really bad, my physical health was really bad and I just reached a breaking point’. He told me he was involved in a fight the day prior to his arrest, although he added that his memory for this period is poor and hence he was uncertain of the exact timeframe. He said ‘I went to score some weed (cannabis) off someone, but they ripped me off. When I confronted them, he offered to compensate me with these tools and I said (angrily) ‘I don’t want any tools’ and then he hit me in the face with one of the tools’. He told me he fell on the ground and his assailant continued to strike him with the tool. He said later that evening he presented to the emergency department at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital both with a head wound from the blow and also continued abdominal pain. He said there was a long wait to be seen and he eventually left the department without being assessed. He said he did not go home afterwards and by this point it was the early hours of the morning. He said briefly, ‘shortly afterwards the offences occurred’. He did not say anything more about the offences themselves. He did repeat remarks that added context, telling me he was angry and sad at the time over the loss of his relationship. He said, ‘I was pretty devastated, spending hours crying, I was falling apart’.”

  1. Indeed, in the offender’s letter to me the offender refers to being confused and disoriented and that, for example, the taking of the tin of petrol and the shovels may have been a movement towards an attempt at suicide. The letter clearly shows his remorse and contrition for the offences which he committed, in particular his extreme concern for the health and welfare of Mr Samuel Young to whom he greatly regretted his behaviour. In fact, his own behaviour towards Mr Young disgusted him.

  2. I accept that the offender committed the offences now in question in the circumstances described by Dr Elliott that I have quoted above, and I accept that the offender is truly contrite and remorseful for his actions on 21 and 22 September 2022.

  3. In the interim things looked up. I will have to mention the offender’s criminal history later.

  4. On 10 March 2023, the Local Court at Newtown placed the offender on an Intensive Correction Order for a period of ten months, commencing on that day, and expiring on 9 January 2024. Included in the Intensive Corrections Order were: compulsory supervision, home detention for ten months, electronic monitoring for ten months, treatment programs for ten months, rehabilitation treatment for ten months, and a requirement to abstain from the taking of illicit drugs. That was for a charge of larceny.

  5. By all accounts, the offender did well when placed on that order. For example, the offender continued taking methadone. Exhibit 5 is a letter from Royal Prince Alfred Hospital which says this:

“This letter is to advise that Mr Christopher Bowick... has been a patient of Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Drug Health Service since 11 March 2023. Mr Bowick in this time has attended regularly for his daily medication. He has always been polite, engaging, and has never behaved inappropriately. Mr Bowick has attended all medical reviews in a timely manner and has never appeared intoxicated.”

  1. Exhibit 3 is a letter from the offender’s father, Mr Michael Bowick of Five Dock. The home detention order made by the Local Court at Newtown required the offender to live with his parents, at Five Dock. Mr Michael Bowick’s letter says this:

“When Christopher was released on 10 March 2023, he was on an ICO and a home detention order which required him to wear an ankle bracelet. Chris was obeying the rules and regulations that were imposed on him, and he attended all his meetings. He didn’t breach his ICO once. But on 20 July 2023, his bail was revoked and he was taken back into custody. The reasons for his bail being revoked, as I understand it, is because he entered pleas of guilty to the offences that he is currently being sentenced for.”

  1. I interpolate that Mr Michael Bowick’s understanding is correct. Mr Michael Bowick’s letter continues:

“My son, Christopher, is quite rational and a decent person. He is a good‑hearted person. Drugs have destroyed him.

Christopher has a young son, who is 16 years of age. His son resides with his mother full‑time. Christopher sees his son on the weekends. They have a good relationship, and get along well.

Christopher gets on very well with his nephews, too. My daughter has two boys, both are autistic. Christopher gets on very well with the youngest of the two.

Christopher was very attentive to his mother, who was in and out of hospital in relation to her heart condition. His mother was on a waiting list for a heart operation, and she had diabetes, that was one of the ultimate reasons for her demise.

The months preceding her demise, my wife kept a lot to herself. She wouldn’t come out of her room, but Christopher would always go knocking on his mother’s bedroom door, checking up on her and asking her how she was doing, and whether she needed anything.

During the period (March to July) before he was taken back into custody, Christopher was at home, not using heroin, and helping me and his mother with household chores. I have mobility issues but I don’t require a wheelchair. I can’t walk up the stairs or to the shops, because of my knees. My cartilages have all worn out, because of the work I used to do as a painter.”

  1. After the offender’s arrest because of the revocation of bail when he pleaded guilty, his mother unfortunately died. The offender was not able to attend her funeral because he was in custody. Mr Michael Bowick’s letter tells me that his son felt a lot of pain and guilt over things, because of the stress and worry he caused his mother, and that contributed to the pain of her death. That is completely understandable.

  2. In evidence is also a letter from the offender’s mother. It is Exhibit 4. It was made on 13 December 2022 in relation to a release application that had been made. Indeed, it appears to have been a document that may have been relied upon by the Local Court at Newtown in making the ICO.

  3. The late Mrs Bowick said that her son needed support with his addiction and that he required rehabilitation. He had been taking drugs since the age of 14 as far as she was aware and that he is now 43 years old. She believed it to be out of character for the offender to be violent, a protestation made by the offender to me in his letter.

Criminal History

  1. As might have been evident to those who know things concerning criminology, given the offender’s serious drug use since the age of 12 and his falling into wrong company, he has a very lengthy criminal history. I do not propose to canvass it at great length, but the first six pages concern offences as a child. The most serious one was one which caused him to stand for sentence in this Court before Blanch CJ. The charge was robbery with wounding, alternatively assault with intent to rob. That alternative plea was accepted by the Crown in full discharge of an indictment. His Honour imposed a Control Order for nine months, with an additional term of 15 months. That sentence was imposed on 19 September 1995.

  2. The criminal history is 57 pages long. It is replete with offences such as breaking and entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence, multiple charges of larceny, charges relating to drugs, breaking and entering, robbery, and related offences such as possession of housebreaking implements, custody of a knife in a public place, shoplifting, assaulting police in the execution of their duty, resisting police, using offensive language, some domestic violence offences, but mainly offences relating to property and offences relating to his interaction with the police force, the offences mainly being directed to obtaining money, presumably to support the illicit drug habit.

  3. In addition to doing well when he was on the ICO, the offender was seeking support for his mental illness and he has also been recently considered for support from the NDIS, depending on the diagnosis.

  4. The offender’s psychiatric history was gone into in great detail by Dr Elliott. He does not favour a diagnosis provided in the past and adopted by Ms North of schizophrenia. Dr Elliott does not support the diagnosis of any psychotic illness. His opinion is this:

“I again note Mr Bowick was diagnosed with schizophrenia during an inpatient admission in 2015. With respect to his clinicians then, his trajectory since has not been consistent with a chronic psychotic illness. His presentation on this interview was far more consistent with a borderline personality disorder and a complex form of post‑traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] than it was for chronic psychotic illness. There was no evidence of the deficits or changes in emotional expressiveness or cognition of schizophrenia and his claims for hearing voices were more consistent with trauma. Also consistent with a borderline personality disorder was his active seeking of medication. Once again, this is unusual behaviour for people with schizophrenia. He has not required further inpatient care for psychosis since 2015 despite not being on anti‑psychotic medication for a sustained period.

Mr Bowick does not give a history of features consistent with a borderline personality disorder. These have a considerable overlap with the features of complex PTSD. He describes lifelong problems managing his emotions, relationships characterised by conflict and volatility and a history of recurrent self‑harming behaviour.

These features occur in the context of a reported history of early abuse. He also describes also early behavioural problems and the adoption of substance use from very early adolescence in order to manage his problems with emotional dysregulation. He describes chronic anxiety and intrusive features of his earlier abuse consistent with complex PTSD. Further, to this I note that he is currently bereaved as his mother has recently died.

Mr Bowick has long-term opiate dependency. He also has a cannabis use disorder.”

  1. Dr Elliott recommended this treatment:

“I consider that the most appropriate treatment pathway for Mr Bowick will be trauma-informed psychological care. He was in the process of seeking such care at the time of his arrest. At the end of this assessment, I encouraged him to return to his GP and again seek a mental healthcare program and a referral to a psychologist skilled in dealing with early trauma. Given the difficulties he has had accessing treatment for anxiety in custody, I did agree to commence him on the antidepressant medication Mirtazapine. I informed him there was no indication for him to be on an antipsychotic medication and cautioned him regarding the significant risk of adverse side effects of antipsychotics. He should remain on an opioid treatment program.”

  1. As Dr Elliott is a consultant psychiatrist with Justice Health one can understand him placing the offender on Mirtazapine. Although it is not explicitly stated, it is implicit in the doctor’s recommendation that the treatment that the offender needs cannot be provided to him in the justice system.

  2. Exhibit 8 is a letter from a senior psychologist Edwina Cowdery who has agreed to undertake treatment of the offender when he is released from custody. The letter, which is dated 20 October 2023, says this:

“I confirm that I have read the report of Kris North (forensic psychologist) and the treatment plan contained therein. I am to make a further assessment of Mr Bowick and treat him with a focus on his unresolved childhood trauma (abuse). Kris North’s report and the proposed treatment plan.

I agree with the assessment and the need to be referred to Victims Services for counselling, we have suitable approved victims of crime counsellor at Logic Lounge to attend to this.

I agree that myself or a psychologist at Logic Lounge will be available to treat Mr Bowick in accordance with the treatment plan for the next 12 months on a fortnightly basis or as required. I agree that Logic Lounge will either engage in the treatment plan or monitor him attending other treatment providers. I also agree he needs to keep attending psychiatric services to manage his schizophrenia as well as regular appointments with his general practitioner.”

  1. The diagnosis of schizophrenia having been excluded by Dr Elliott that is no longer necessary. However, the treatment proposed by Ms Cowdery fits in with what was suggested by Dr Elliott.

  2. If on release from custody the offender can again live with his father, perhaps be subject to electronic monitoring, still stay on the methadone program, visiting Royal Prince Alfred Hospital each day and having the treatment plan suggested by Dr Elliott and attending upon Ms Cowdery or someone in her position at Logic Lounge or a similar psychological provider, the offender may be able to change his life around on this occasion, hopefully for good. I am sure that Mr Bowick desires that. It is clearly an interest of the State and interest of our community that Mr Bowick do turn his life around. He was on that road when unfortunately, his bail for these offences was revoked.

Considerations

  1. As a result of his being initially arrested on 22 September 2022, being given an ICO on 10 March 2023, but having his bail revoked for these offences on 20 July 2023, the offender has now spent one year six weeks and four days in custody. The sentence to be passed upon him needs to be backdated for that period which means backdated to 31 January 2023.

  2. I intend to impose an aggregate sentence. For the offence of stealing from the person the offence of which the victim was Mr David Etim the offence committed on 21 September 2022, I fix an indicative sentence of 24 months imprisonment.

  3. For the offence to which I have referred as Sequence 2, the common assault upon Mr Adam Gray, I give an indicative sentence of six months imprisonment.

  4. For Sequence 4, the common assault upon Shane Ustick, I make an indicative sentence of one month imprisonment. For the Sequence 5 offence, the aggravated commit serious indictable offence and break out of a dwelling house, the victim of that being Mr Samuel Young, I fix an indicative sentence of 30 months imprisonment.

  5. For Sequence 7, the offence against Senior Constable Vella and bearing in mind the three matters on the Form 1, I set an indicative sentence of 12 months imprisonment.

  6. For the Sequence 8 offence, the spitting at Constable Tabitha Henry, and the spitting at Constable James Quinn, I set an indicative sentence of eight months.

  7. The total of those indicative sentences is 80 months or six years and eight months if one just added them together.

  8. Bearing in mind the peculiar facts of this case and the indicative sentences, I have determined that the appropriate aggregate sentence is four years imprisonment. I reduce that by 25 percent because of the offender’s plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity. Such is conceded by the Crown. That reduces the head sentence to three years imprisonment.

Special Circumstances

  1. Applying the statutory nexus between the head sentence and the non‑parole period, the non-parole period should be two years and three months, however, in this case there are special circumstances, which is why I have spent some considerable time referring to the offender during the period that he was on the ICO between 10 March 2023 and 20 July 2023 and about his psychiatric and personal history. Perhaps somewhat bravely, I have determined that the non-parole period should be one year and three months rather than the statutory two years and three months. That means that the offender will be eligible for release on parole on 30 April 2024 and that he will spend one year and nine months on parole where I strongly recommend to Corrective Services that they seek to replicate, as far as possible, the circumstances that obtained for Mr Bowick when he was the subject of the ICO.

Sentence

  1. Christopher Bowick, on each of the charges to which you have pleaded guilty you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of one year and three months commencing on 31 January 2023 and expiring on 30 April 2024.

  2. I impose a further period of imprisonment of one year and nine months to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 30 January and expiring on 30 January 2026. The total sentence is therefore three years, comprising the non‑parole period and the balance of the sentence.

  3. I have found special circumstances. You are eligible to be considered for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period. In passing that sentence, I have taken into account the matters on the Form 1 in considering charge H90101530, Sequence 7.

  4. The indicative sentences are as follows. H77730751, Sequence 2, two years. H90101530, Sequence 2, six months, Sequence 4, one month, Sequence 5, two years and six months, Sequence 7, one year, and, Sequence 8, eight months.

  5. I direct my associate, when my reasons have been transcribed, to send them immediately to the Department of Corrective Services so that they can forward it on to the Parole Board and to Community Corrections. Any other orders sought?

  6. NG: No, your Honour.

  7. FARD: Thank your Honour.

  8. HIS HONOUR: Good luck Mr Bowick.

  9. OFFENDER: Thank you, sir.

**********

Decision last updated: 15 April 2025

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

3