R v Bowler
[2015] ACTSC 298
•25 September 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | The Queen v Dylan Bowler |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 298 |
Hearing Date(s): | 18 August 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 25 September 2015 |
Before: | Robinson AJ |
Decision: | See [46]. |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – property offences – aggravated burglary – burglary – damage property – theft – drive motor vehicle without consent – offender in company – pleas of guilty |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 318(1), 318(2), 308, 311, 312, 403, 404 Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) ss 34(e), 7(a), 7(2) |
Cases Cited: | Allred v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 21 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Dylan Bowler (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr A Williamson (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 170 of 2015 |
ROBINSON AJ:
Background
The offender, Dylan Bowler, was charged with 27 offences committed in the period 30 December 2014 to 31 March 2015. The bulk of these offences, 24 in total, were committed over the course of some four days from 27 March to 31 March 2015. Counsel for the Crown aptly described the offender as having been on a "crime spree" and the offender's own counsel did not cavil with the use of that term.
The offender was arrested on 2 April 2015 and bail was refused. He has been on remand at Alexander Maconochie Centre since that date. Any sentence I impose will commence from this date.
On 30 June 2015 he pleaded guilty to all 27 charges and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.
The Offences
It is convenient and administratively efficient to list the 27 offences in chronological order, before providing a summary of each.
| Charge | Date | Offence | Section Criminal Code | Max Penalty | |
| 1 | 15/4185 | 31/12/14 | Dishonestly ride in vehicle | s318 (2) | 5 years |
| 2 | 15/3493 | 8/3/15 | Damage property – motor vehicle | s40 | 10 years |
| 3 | 15/3494 | 8/3/15 | Attempt to take motor vehicle | s318(1) | 5 years |
| 4 | 15/4024 | 27/3/15 | Burglary at Ainslie Newsagency | s311 | 14 years |
| 5 | 15/4017 | 27/3/15 | Theft from Ainslie Newsagency | s308 | 10 years |
| 6 | 15/4018 | 27/3/15 | Property damage at Ainslie Newsagency | s403 | 10 years |
| 7 | 15/4023 | 27/3/15 | Burglary at Best Friend’s Pet Store | s311 | 14 years |
| 8 | 15/3975 | 27/3/15 | Theft from Best Friend’s Pet Store | s308 | 10 years |
| 9 | 15/3976 | 27/3/15 | Property damage at Best Friend’s Pet Store | s403 | 10 years |
| 10 | 15/3977 | 27/3/15 | Burglary at Timbo’s Takeaway | s311 | 14 years |
| 11 | 15/3978 | 27/3/15 | Theft at Timbo’s Takeaway | s308 | 10 years |
| 12 | 15/3979 | 27/3/15 | Property damage at Timbo’s Takeaway | s403 | 10 years |
| 13 | 15/3980 | 27/3/15 | Burglary at Baby Bunting Store | s311 | 14 years |
| 14 | 15/4025 | 27/3/15 | Property damage at Baby Bunting Store | s403 | 10 years |
| 15 | 15/3982 | 27/3/15 | Drive motor vehicle without consent – YIB25G | s318(2) | 5 years |
| 16 | 15/4027 | 30/3/15 | Joint commission property damage at Kippax Shopping Centre | s403 | 10 years |
| 17 | 15/4028 | 30/3/15 | Joint commission property damage at Coffee Club, Kippax Shopping Centre | s403 | 10 years |
| 18 | 15/3987 | 30/3/15 | Aggravated burglary at Exquisite Jewellers Store, Kippax Shopping Centre | s312 | 20 years |
| 19 | 15/4020 | 30/3/15 | Joint commission theft from Exquisite Jewellers Store, Kippax Shopping Centre | s308 | 10 years |
| 20 | 15/4019 | 30/3/15 | Joint commission property damage at Exquisite Jewellers Store, Kippax Shopping Centre | s403 | 10 years |
| 21 | 15/3988 | 30/3/15 | Drive stolen motor vehicle YJG57D | s318(2) | 5 years |
| 22 | 15/4021 | 31/3/15 | Joint commission property damage at Gungahlin Shopping Centre | s403 | 10 years |
| 23 | 15/3992 | 31/3/15 | Aggravated burglary at Diamond Rings Design store, Gungahlin Shopping Centre | s312 | 20 years |
| 24 | 15/4022 | 31/3/15 | Joint commission theft at Diamond Rings Design store, Gungahlin Shopping Centre | s308 | 10 years |
| 25 | 15/4026 | 31/3/15 | Joint commission property damage at Diamond Rings Design store, Gungahlin Shopping Centre | s403 | 10 years |
| 26 | 15/3993 | 31/3/15 | Drive vehicle, YIA91X, without consent | s318(2) | 5 years |
| 27 | 15/3994 | 31/3/15 | Arson | s404 | 15 years |
It is useful for the purposes of understanding the sentences I am about to impose that a summary of each of the offences be provided.
On 20 December 2014 a vehicle was stolen from Gungahlin Leisure Centre. That vehicle was pulled over by police on 31 December 2014. The offender was seated in the front passenger seat. He was charged on that date with riding in a stolen motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code (“the Code”).
On 8 March 2015 at approximately 3.30am the offender unsuccessfully attempted to steal a vehicle in the suburb of Higgins. He was interrupted by the owner of the vehicle and decamped, but not before damaging the steering column and ignition barrel. In his haste to leave the scene he left behind his own property, including his Medicare and EFTPOS card, each of which bore his name, his mobile telephone and DNA evidence consisting of a blood sample and a partial fingerprint.
Out of this incident the offender was charged with damaging property contrary to s403 of the Code and attempting to dishonestly take a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(1) of the Code.
On the morning of 27 March 2015 between 4.56am and 6.07am the offender committed burglaries at four different commercial premises throughout the suburbs of Ainslie and Fyshwick. In each instance the offender gained entry to the premises through force. He stole cash or items from three of the premises, although the yield was relatively insignificant being approximately $450 in cash and other items of little value. The offender did not steal any items from one of the premises, the Baby Bunting Store in Fyshwick. During the course of gaining entry to the four premises the offender caused damage of approximately $9,500 in value.
The offender used a stolen car to move between each of the premises at which he committed offences on the morning of 27 March. This vehicle was stolen sometime after 10.30 pm on 26 March 2015 from outside residential premises at Aranda. It was discovered abandoned on 27 March 2015 at approximately 11.15pm in a nature reserve in Lyons. It contained the DNA and fingerprints of the offender, along with items from a number of the premises at which he had committed burglaries earlier in the day.
On the morning of 30 March 2015, at approximately 5.10 am, the offender and an unknown accomplice used a stolen vehicle to carry out a ‘ram raid’ at the Kippax Shopping Centre. This vehicle had been stolen from outside residential premises at Dunlop sometime after 7.00 pm on 29 March 2015. The offender and his accomplice drove the vehicle through the glass doors to the Centre, and once inside drove down the main thoroughfare, damaging the premises of a business, the Coffee Club, as they did so. When they reached the Exquisite Jewellers store they reversed the vehicle into the roller shutters a number of times causing it to collapse. Once inside the store, they smashed a glass display cabinet and removed $8,465 worth of jewellery.
During the commission of these offences the offender and his accomplice caused damage to the Kippax Shopping Centre and two of the businesses operating within it in the amount of approximately $29,500.
The car used to gain entry to the Kippax Shopping Centre was discovered by police at approximately 7.00am on 30 March 2015. A DNA sample obtained from the steering wheel of the vehicle was matched to the offender.
On the morning of 31 March 2015 the offender and an accomplice used another stolen vehicle to gain entry to the Gungahlin Shopping Centre, again in a ‘ram raid’ style attack. Once inside they proceeded to the Diamond Rings Design jewellery store where they reversed the vehicle through the security roller door. They then took $29,083.07 worth of jewellery. They exited the shopping centre through a different route, and caused further damage to the centre in doing so. Arising out of this incident was damage to the shopping centre and jewellery store in the amount of approximately $65,000.
The stolen vehicle which the offender and his accomplice used to gain entry to the Gungahlin Shopping Centre was stolen from outside premises sometime after 8.00 pm on 30 March 2015. It was found, set alight, in the suburb of Kaleen at approximately 5.25 am on the morning of the burglary. It sustained significant damage. A jerry can and one of the offender’s shoes were found next to the vehicle. I proceed on the basis that the motivation for this arson was the destruction of evidence of the crimes.
On 1 April 2015 police executed a search warrant at the residence of the offender’s sister, where the offender had been residing. They located a bag that contained glass fragments from the Diamond Rings Design store. They also recovered pieces of jewellery from the Exquisite Jewellers and Diamond Rings Design jewellery stores.
Documentary Evidence
I received into evidence a Pre-Sentence Report, Criminal History, a Statement of Facts, a Report of Dr Powell, the offender’s treating paediatrician from 2007 to 2011, and a letter from the offender’s mother. I also received information concerning Triple Care Farm, a youth rehabilitation program run by Mission Australia and the Sir David Martin Foundation, and evidence that an appointment had been made with that organisation for 29 September 2015 to assess the suitability of the offender to take part in the program.
Objective Matters
I cannot determine the motivation behind the first offence of riding in a stolen motor vehicle. I can confidently conclude on the evidence that the balance of the offences were committed in an attempt to obtain money to purchase methamphetamine. This is with the exception of the offence of arson, which I have concluded was for the purposes of destroying evidence. The author of the Pre-Sentence Report reports that the offender stated that the offences were commissioned to financially support his drug use and the offender gave evidence to that effect.
The offender also acknowledged that the offences were committed whilst he was under the influence of illicit substances. This last finding does not admit of much leniency for the offender. Whilst I accept it as an explanation for the offending behaviour, consistent with R v Henry (1996) 46 NSWLR 346 I do not consider it a factor on sentencing. It is a matter of choice to engage in crime, and not all people who have an addiction do so. Henry at [273]
It is trite to observe that the offences were serious. That is so for a number of reasons. The value of the goods stolen and the amount of damage caused to the various premises intensifies the objective seriousness of the behavior and is therefore relevant on sentencing (Mansour v Watkins [2014] ACTSC 361 at [23]). In total the offender caused damage to premises and motor vehicles of more than $100,000 and stole goods to the value of approximately $38,000.
It also must be recorded that although some of the property stolen was recovered by police a very substantial amount of damage was caused and the trading of businesses interrupted. This loss will be borne by the traders and insurers and will effectively be unrecoverable.
Subjective Matters
The offender was born on 20 December 1996. He had only just turned 18 at the date of the first offence the subject of the indictment. He gave evidence before me, some details of which I will deal with separately below. I do not accept all his testimony. What follows is derived from all the materials available on sentence.
The offender is the youngest of two children of the family. He lives with his mother, and maintains a relationship with his father. He left high school before the completion of Year 10 to take up employment in the construction industry.
His alcohol problems commenced at age fourteen. Perhaps more relevantly for present purposes, the offender commenced using methamphetamines at age sixteen. This apparently started by a simple transition from alcohol to methamphetamines. By the time he was in custody he was drinking and consuming methamphetamines every day.
At some time, of which there is no specific evidence, he suffered a non-compensable severe injury to his arm when he fell through a window after having consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. This resulted in the loss of his employment. Prior to going into custody he was in receipt of Centrelink benefits, and had been for more than 12 months.
He has a diagnosed history of ADHD, and his former treating paediatrician also gave evidence that he has a history of severe anxiety in childhood, secondary to exposure to domestic violence. It was not suggested that these factors played a direct part in the commission of the offences. Nevertheless I am prepared to act on the basis that mental health issues have made him more prone to abuse illicit substances. This has present relevance to the prospects of rehabilitation: R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67, 71, quoted in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 at [47].
The offender also gave evidence that he had consumed drugs whilst at the AMC on remand for these offences. The offender said he was attracted to Triple Care Farm, a residential rehabilitation program, because of the availability of drugs at AMC. By implication, according to the offender, he would have increased prospects of successfully overcoming his addiction if he were in a location where the availability of illicit substances was more controlled.
On questioning by the Crown, the offender agreed that taking drugs was a matter of choice inside or outside of prison. He also agreed that assistance to overcome his chronic substance abuse can be procured without the intervention of the criminal justice system.
As has been demonstrated by the evidence, some of the serious offences committed were done so in company with another person. He was asked by the Crown to identify this person. The offender refused to do so. He said variously that he could not recall and did not know a person police identified as “NK” as the joint participant. These answers were given after the offender had agreed that the Statement of Facts was accurate in circumstances where the Statement of Facts included a reference to “NK” as a co-offender in Gunghalin Shopping Centre incident.
In summary, the offender’s evidence on this subject could not be accepted. He was evasive, belligerent and, I conclude, untruthful. I sought to understand the motivation for a failure to answer the Crown’s questions. I did not obtain a satisfactory explanation. I have concluded that the offender was less than forthright either because of a misguided loyalty to an associate or because of the threat of being segregated, branded and punished as a “dog” in prison, should a period of imprisonment eventuate.
I warned counsel for the offender that the offender’s failure to truthfully address the questions asked of him focused attention upon the offender’s attitude to the rehabilitation process. Despite that, the offender was unwilling to be more forthcoming in his answers on this issue. Of course, there can be no leniency given for assistance to authorities but I confirm that the offender’s behaviour in court has not had the effect of increasing the severity of the sentences (s.34 (e) Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT)).
Criminal History
I will proceed on the basis that the offender’s criminal record should be disregarded for present purposes.
Plea
The offender pleaded guilty before a magistrate on 30 June 2015 and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. He is entitled to receive credit for this of 20%. I am not convinced that the offender has yet properly thought through the gravity of the consequences of his choices and actions and the evidence against him was very strong. Nevertheless there is significant utilitarian value in the early plea.
Totality
I have given considerable attention to the principle of totality in this case and conclude that the principle militates against fully accumulating the sentences for the various offences. I have followed the procedure of providing for appropriate individual sentences, then considering questions of cumulation or concurrence and finally I have reviewed the aggregate sentence to see whether it is just and appropriate, as s 7(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, 2005 (ACT) requires. (See also Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59, 63 on the same issue).
I have found that considerable concurrency is necessary to achieve a sentence that is just and appropriate. There is also a need to at least partially accumulate sentences for multiple offences so that the offender does not entirely escape punishment for the large volume of offences committed. Making sentences wholly concurrent can send a message to an offender that he is to escape punishment for some of his offences, and may create a perception of rendering him unaccountable for his actions, or obtaining a discount for multiple offending: R v MAK & MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [18] quoting from R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252 at [112]. It may also lead to error (Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 at [49] and R v Harris (2007) [2007] NSWCCA 130 at [38]-[42].
However where, as here, there are a large number of offences there must, as a concomitant, be considerable concurrency to avoid what might be described as a “crushing sentence” (Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 at 303-4). This Court has recognized that in the case of a young offender a crushing sentence is one that is so long that the offender cannot conceive of enjoying a useful life after its expiration Holliday v R [2013] ACTCA 31 at [61]. It has also been described as one which might destroy such prospects as there may be of rehabilitation and reform (R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 at 306.)
In this Court the concept of a crushing sentence has also been described as one of little utility, and best avoided (Allred v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 21 at [53]). However described, the concept at its heart requires a sentencing court to assess the totality of the criminality and determine whether the aggregate sentence is just and appropriate: Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 at 63.
Disposition
I have regard to s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) and the purposes of sentencing. That section lists seven matters, none of which is required to be given greater weight than another (s 7(2)). They are:
(a)to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence in a way that is just and appropriate;
(b)to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other people from committing the same or similar offences;
(c)to protect the community from the offender;
(d)to promote the rehabilitation of the offender;
(e)to make the offender accountable for his or her actions;
(f)to denounce the conduct of the offender;
(g)to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.
In the particular circumstances of this matter, I consider it both possible and desirable to give more weight to the promotion of the rehabilitation of the offender than might otherwise be the case. The relevance of youth at sentence is uncontroversial and the principles relating to that factor were summarized by McClellan CJ in KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 at [22]-[26]. I adopt those principles, as relevant. At the same time I have accommodated the other somewhat conflicting purposes comfortably.
Considerations of general and personal deterrence in this case demand that I impose a sentence that signals to the offender that he is to be punished for each of his offences. I note however that rehabilitation because of his age is still a very significant sentencing consideration.
In particular, I have formed the view that a lengthy term of full time imprisonment will be counter-productive to the prospects of rehabilitation and that adequate punishment can be accommodated by a moderate sentence. As is pointed out in the authorities, my task is to take account of all relevant factors and arrive at a single result.
An early return to the community under supervision will enhance the prospects of beneficial reengagement with the community. I give substantial weight to the age of the offender noting that all crimes were committed shortly after his 18th birthday when he became subject to the adult regime on sentencing. I also take into account the fact that all crimes for which he is to be sentenced were committed over a period of three months when he was addicted to methamphetamines. He obtains no leniency for this circumstance but it is an important factor in his future prospects. If he can overcome his addiction then recidivism becomes less likely. On that point I note that the author of the Pre-Sentence report describes the offender as being at medium risk of reoffending primarily as a result of his substance abuse issues.
I do not propose to permit the offender to attend Triple Care Farm at this time. Given the seriousness and volume of the offences I believe that such a disposition would be wrong in principle. I would urge the offender to take up opportunities to undertake rehabilitation programs in AMC and the Solaris program is one that would be available to him, albeit in the later part of his sentence.
As is obvious, there can be no mechanical, numerical, arithmetical or rigid approach taken in coming to an appropriate sentence (Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25 at [133]). What I am required to do is undertake a qualitative analysis of the facts surrounding each of the relevant offences and come to a fair and appropriate outcome.
I am satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. However, very significant periods of concurrency are necessary to give effect to the principle of totality given the large number of offences and to avoid an oppressive and unjustified period of imprisonment.
As explained above at [33], in each case in the sentences below I have applied a discount of approximately 20% on the head sentence I would have otherwise imposed were it not for the plea of guilty.
(a)On the charge of dishonestly riding in a vehicle on 31 December 2014, in contravention of s318(2) of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 3 months. This sentence will commence from 2 April 2015.
(b)For the offence of damaging property, namely a motor vehicle, on 8 March 2015, in contravention of s403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 6 months. This sentence will commence from 2 April 2015.
(c)For the offence of attempting to take a motor vehicle on 8 March 2015, in contravention of s318(1) of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 3 months. This sentence will commence from 2 April 2015.
(d)For the offence of burglary at the Ainslie Newsagency on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 311 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 July 2015.
(e)For the offence of theft from Ainslie Newsagency on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 308 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 9 months. This sentence will commence from 2 July 2015.
(f)For the offence of damaging property at Ainslie Newsagency on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 9 months. This sentence will commence from 2 July 2015.
(g)For the offence of burglary at Best Friend’s Pet Store on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 311 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 October 2015.
(h)For the offence of theft from Best Friend’s Pet Store on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 308 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 9 months. This sentence will commence from 2 October 2015.
(i)For the offence of damaging property at Best Friend’s Pet Store on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 9 months. This sentence will commence from 2 October 2015.
(j)For the offence of burglary at Timbo’s Takeaway on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 311 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 January 2016.
(k)For the offence of theft from Timbo’s Takeaway on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 308 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 9 months. This sentence will commence from 2 January 2016.
(l)For the offence of damaging property at Timbo’s Takeaway on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 9 months. This sentence will commence from 2 January 2016.
(m)For the offence of burglary at Baby Bunting Store on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 311 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 April 2016.
(n)For the offence of damaging property at the Baby Bunting Store on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 9 months. This sentence will commence from 2 April 2016.
(o)For the offence of driving a motor vehicle without consent on 27 March 2015, in contravention of s 318(2) of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 3 months. This sentence will commence from 2 January 2016.
(p)For the offence of joint commission property damage at Kippax Shopping Centre on 30 March 2015, in contravention of s 403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 18 months. This sentence will commence from 2 July 2016.
(q)For the offence of joint commission property damage at the Coffee Club, within the Kippax Shopping Centre, on 30 March 2015, in contravention of s 403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 July 2016.
(r)For the offence of aggravated burglary at the Exquisite Jewellers Store on 30 March 2015, in contravention of s 312 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 24 months. This sentence will commence from 2 July 2016.
(s)For the offence of joint commission theft from the Exquisite Jewellers Store on 30 March 2015, in contravention of s 308 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 July 2016.
(t)For the offence of joint commission property damage at the Exquisite Jewellers Store on 30 March 2015, in contravention of s 403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 July 2016.
(u)For the offence of driving a stolen motor vehicle on 30 March 2015, in contravention of s 318(2) of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 3 months. This sentence will commence from 2 January 2018.
(v)For the offence of joint commission property damage at Gungahlin Shopping Centre on 31 March 2015, in contravention of s 403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 18 months. This sentence will commence from 2 April 2017.
(w)For the offence of aggravated burglary at Diamond Rings Design Store on 31 March 2015, in contravention of s 312 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 24 months. This sentence will commence from 2 October 2017.
(x)For the offence of theft from Diamond Rings Design Store on 31 March 2015, in contravention of s 308 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 October 2017.
(y)For the offence of joint commission property damage at Diamond Rings Design Store on 31 March 2015, in contravention of s 403 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 October 2017.
(z)For the offence of driving a vehicle without consent on 31 March 2015, in contravention of s 318(2) of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 3 months. This sentence will commence from 2 October 2018.
(aa)For the offence of arson on 31 March 2015, in contravention of s 404 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted. I sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. This sentence will commence from 2 April 2017.
This provides for a total effective sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment, to commence on 2 April 2015 and expire on 1 October 2019.
I order that the offender be eligible for parole on 1 December 2016, that is, after 20 months. That is the earliest date on which he will be eligible for release.
| I certify that the preceding forty-eight [48] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Acting Justice Robinson. Associate: D.Hoitink Date: 25 September 2015 |
3
12
2