R v Broadstock-Maloney

[2025] NSWDC 331

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Broadstock-Maloney [2025] NSWDC 331

Hearing dates:

15 August 2025

Date of orders:

22 August 2025

Decision date:

22 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Newlinds SC DCJ

Decision:

(1)   For sequences 1 and 5, after deducting 25% for the early guilty plea and taking into account the matter on the form 1, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment to commence 30 May 2025 and to expire on 29 May 2028.

(2) The Offender is to be immediately released on an Intensive Correction Order, to expire on 29 May 2028, on conditions found at [83].

Catchwords:

CRIME — Robbery in company — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm — Violent offences — Stalking or intimidation

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Discussion of guideline in R v Henry — Motivation of Offender — Youth — Remorse/contrition — Extremely disadvantaged childhood engaging “Bugmy” principle — Mental health in part cause of offending — Time spent in custody — Prospects of rehabilitation and reoffending — Totality — Intensive Correction Order — Safety of community paramount

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 59(2); s 97(1)

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13(1)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW) s 3A; s 21A(3); s 66(1)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

Foaialima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270

Hanley v R [2018] NSWCCA 262

KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51

Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120

Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284

Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416

R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 12

R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453

R v Harmouche [2005] NSWCCA 398

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

R v McNaughton [2006] 66 NSWLR 566

R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368

R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296

Smaragdis v R [2010] NSWCCA 276

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Michael Broadstock Maloney (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
C Ngai (Solicitor) (Crown)
R Steward (Offender)

Solicitors:
ODPP (Crown)
Vanzino Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s):

2024/339977

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

Overview

1. Michael Broadstock-Maloney (“the Offender”) is 19 years old. He stands to be sentenced for two serious acts of criminality and asks that another be taken into account. He has endured a significantly deprived childhood which has directly contributed to him becoming drug addicted, leading inevitably to a poor criminal history. His motivation for the offending was, in part, a misguided and irrational sense of grievance towards the Victim because of perceived bad conduct of the Victim towards the Offender’s mother. Following his arrest in September 2024, he spent nearly 3 months in custody before being released on bail. Since his release, he has made tremendous efforts to turn his life around, which to date have been successful. He is now drug-free and has the opportunity for full-time employment.

The facts

2. The parties have agreed as to a comprehensive Statement of the Facts.

3. They boil down to the following essence.

Sequence 1

4. In February 2020, when the Offender was about 15 years old, Dale Wright (“the Victim”) began a relationship with the Offender’s mother. The Victim and the Offender's mother lived together until December 2022 when the relationship ended. The Offender believed that, during the relationship, the Victim treated the Offender’s mother poorly.

5. On 30 August 2024, the Offender entered the Victim's residence with an unknown male, pulled out a silver blade, and demanded the Victim's wallet. The Victim gave up his wallet, which contained about $800, to the unknown male.

Sequence 5

6. On 1 September 2024, the Offender sent the Victim a text message demanding money be available to be picked up in cash or paid by card.

7. Later that evening, the Offender and others attended the Victim’s premises and demanded entry, which was refused. He was told by a woman living at the premises “if you want to come in you'll have to open the gate yourself."

8. The Offender and an unknown male then kicked in the gate. The Victim's dog then attacked the Offender and there was a wrestle.

9. After freeing himself from the dog, the Offender followed the Victim into the premises, and yelled “where's my money where's my money?" To which the Victim responded, “there is no money, you took it all." The Offender then opened drawers in the property and hit the Victim in the face with his hand. The Victim fell onto the bed and the Offender proceeded to kick him in the face. The other person then picked up a chair and hit the Victim in the face. As a result, the Victim was knocked unconscious.

10. The Victim was left sitting on the couch injured. He was taken by ambulance to Sutherland Hospital. The Victim’s injuries are best described by the following photographs.

11. The photographs depict a large haematoma on the right lateral forehead of the Victim, approximately 4×4 cm in size and doctors observed blood on his mouth.

Sequence 7 (Form 1)

12. Between 6 and 7 September 2024, the Offender sent a series of threatening text messages to the Victim which included statements such as:

“you know your [sic] in the wrong and your [sic] guilty as all fuck, you can make it all go away bra [sic] but it’s going to cost.”

“So I want 7500.”

“Watch every day go up and up and up till [sic] it happens.”

“pay u [sic] and it will go away but you going to live in hell till [sic] we get back something to enjoy taking the good years of out [sic] mum by feeding her up.”

13. Later that night, the Offender wrote:

“times up.”

“it’s your last chance before I go through with the charges”

The Offender’s subjective case

14. The Offender has put before me a large body of material, including a comprehensive affidavit from himself, an extremely thoughtful and thorough psychologist report by Ms De Santa Brigida, confirmation of enrolment and performance in various courses, and character material from his father, his stepsister, employers, and friends.

Why did he do it?

15. Before assessing the objective seriousness of the offending and coming to the Offender’s subjective case, which in my view is powerful, the obvious question to be asked is why did the Offender do what he did? The obvious answer is to get money, but it is not nearly as simple as that.

16. The Offender himself, in his Affidavit, puts it down to being angry because of stories he had heard about how his mother was being treated by the Victim. He also says that he was affected by cocaine at the time.

17. That cannot be the full extent of the explanation. The fact is the Offender took money from the Victim on the first occasion and, thereafter, demanded money in various ways, shape, and form.

18. Doing the best I can on the limited material, it seems to me the most probable rationale for the Offender doing what he did, insofar as he thought about it at the time, was that he felt he was entitled to some form of compensation for perceived bad conduct by the Victim towards his mother, whilst, at the same time, exacting some sort of vigilante-style retribution for that same conduct.

19. As irrational and misconceived as that is, I do not think his primary motivation was robbery, albeit perhaps in an opportunistic way, robbery became part of the process. There is no doubt that his ability to reason and make sensible decisions was heavily clouded by his now diagnosed anger management issues and his heavy drug use at the time.

The offences and maximum penalties

20. The Offender is to be sentenced in respect of one charge of Robbery in Company (sequence 1), contrary to s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”). The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. The second count is one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company (sequence 5), contrary to s 59(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment.

21. There is one form 1 offence of stalk or intimidate with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm (sequence 7), contrary to s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). The maximum penalty for that offence is 5 years imprisonment. The form 1 is attached to sequence 5.

Plea of guilty

22. The Offender entered a plea of guilty to the charges in the Local Court on 20 May 2025. The Offender was then committed for sentence in the District Court. The Crown accepts that the Offender is entitled to a 25% discount.

Objective seriousness

23. When assessing the objective seriousness of the offences the Court is to have regard to the legislative guidepost provided by the maximum penalty: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at 132.

24. In sentencing on multiple counts regard must be had to the criminality involved in each offence: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416.

Seq 1 – Robbery in company

25. In R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 (“Henry”), Spigelman CJ promulgated guidelines for this offence, stating at [162]:

“It appears from the cases that come to this Court, including the present proceedings, that there is a category of case which is sufficiently common for purposes of determining a guideline:

a. Young Offender with no or little criminal history

b. Weapon like a knife, capable of killing or inflicting serious injury

c. Limited degree of planning

d. Limited, if any, actual violence but a real threat thereof

e. Victim in a vulnerable position such as a shopkeeper or taxi driver

f. Small amount taken

g. Plea of guilty, the significance of which is limited by a strong Crown case’.”

26. The Crown correctly submits the following characteristics identified in Henry are present:

1. The Offender was aged 18 years at the time of the offence. The Offender has a limited criminal history. The Offender has no history of prior robbery or break and enter offences.

2. The Offender was armed with a weapon like a knife.

3. There was some degree of planning involved.

4. The threat of violence would have caused the Victim to be very fearful.

5. The amount stolen was $800.

27. The Crown submits that the offending is at the midrange of objective seriousness for this type of offence and very much falls into the type of case described in Henry.

28. On behalf of the Offender, it is submitted that sequence 1 involved limited planning and was particularly unsophisticated, in that the Offender was very easily detected as he was well known to the Victim. It is accepted that the Offender was in possession of a weapon during the incident but that the duration of the offending was brief. Finally, it is pointed out that the amount of money taken was small and that no violence was used, rather there was a threat of violence.

29. In my view, the offending falls below the mid-range of seriousness for this type of offending and, whilst it does exhibit many of the common characteristics identified in Henry, each of them is very much towards the lower end of what might be described as a scale.

Seq 5 - assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company

30. The Crown submits that this offending is a serious form of this type of offence.

31. The Offenders’ actions occurred following the robbery two days prior and after the victim received threatening text messages from the Offender. It all really forms part of the same criminality. In many ways, the circumstances of this offence are worse than the robbery in company offence. This is because of the real violence occasioning real injuries to the Victim.

32. The assault by the Offender directly involved:

1. A hit to the Victim’s face with the Offender’s hand.

2. A kick to the Victim’s face when the Victim was on the ground.

33. The Offender was also present when the unknown male picked up a chair and hit he victim in the face resulting in the victim losing consciousness.

34. On behalf of the Offender, it is accepted that real violence was involved here and that the offending was a continuation of what had gone before.

35. The offending resulted in real and serious injuries. The Crown submits this sequence ought be considered as at the mid-range of objective seriousness for this type of offending.

36. I accept that submission.

Seq 7 - form 1 offence – stalk/intimidate with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm

37. The offence in itself is serious. The Offender made numerous threats following the assault which included demanding to be paid more money and threatening to report the victim to police.

38. Given the offence followed the injuries inflicted by the Offender, the Crown submits that it is around the mid-range of seriousness. So much is accepted by the Offender. This then will have the effect of putting upward pressure on the potential penalty for sequence 5.

Aggravating & mitigating factors

39. Both offences engage s 21A(2) - “(eb) the offence was committed in the home of the victim or any other person.”

40. The Crown does not submit that the robbery in company offending is aggravated by the threat or use of the blade. That factor has already been taken into account when assessing the objective seriousness.

Criminal history

41. The Offender has a limited criminal history, primarily consisting of traffic related matters. Although, the Offender has been sentenced for personal violence offences. The Crown does not submit that his criminal history aggravates the offending, however, it submits that the criminal history disentitles the Offender to leniency. I will proceed on that basis.

Pre-sentence custody

42. Following his arrest, the Offender spent 84 days (2 months, 3 weeks and 2 days) in custody solely referable to the offences.

43. It is accepted that the Offender is entitled to have the entirety of the pre-sentence custody accounted for, either when backdating a full-time sentence, or in consideration of a more lenient sentence.

Subjective case for the Offender

44. The Offender was 18 at the time of the offending. The Crown accepts that the Offender’s youth is a factor that needs to be taken into account in sentencing the Offender and that, because of his youth, emphasis should be placed on maximising the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation: KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51.

45. The Offender relies on the report of Psychologist, Ms De Santa Brigida, dated 7 August 2025. That report relevantly discloses that:

1. The Offender was predominantly raised by his mother. He only had sporadic contact with his father, particularly during his adolescence.

2. He was exposed to his mother's substance abuse from a young age.

3. His mother was a drug addict. She introduced the offender to stealing to support her illicit drug use from the age of 7.

4. He was physically assaulted on a regular basis by his mother from the age of 5 to 6 years.

5. One of his mother’s boyfriends sexually assaulted him by digitally penetrating him over a six-month period.

6. He described his mother as actively alienating him from his father.

7. He completed high school to year 8 but has managed to gain employment and maintain it.

8. He is a fully qualified arborist.

9. He has been working with his father at Helensburgh Metal Fabrication since being admitted to bail.

46. Ms De Santa Brigida reports a problematic substance abuse history. The report outlines:

1. Cannabis use from the age of 12 years, increasing to daily cannabis use of 10 to 15 cones per day.

2. Ecstasy use on a recreational basis from the age of 14.

3. Cocaine use from the age of 14. He was using cocaine daily at the time of the offences.

4. Drinking a six-pack of beer daily from the age of 16.

5. Ms De Santa Brigida diagnoses the Offender as having a severe substance use disorder, specifically:

1. Stimulant Use disorder – Severe

2. Cocaine Cannabis Use Disorder – Severe

6. He has completed the substance abuse program under the supervision of his treating psychologist, Ms Hawil, through the Court Report Central Program.

7. Ms De Santa Brigida concludes that the Offender is "in early to sustained remission.”

47. Ms De Santa Brigida also reports the results of some testing as follows:

1. His score of '7' on the test places him in the high-risk category for drug abuse, alcohol abuse, self-harm, and re-victimisation in adulthood.

2. He has been dissociating for many years to distance himself from memories of his childhood.

3. The elevated avoidance score speaks to his childhood trauma and his substance abuse in order to avoid it.

48. Ms De Santa Brigida notes the sequelae of the Offender's reported physical and sexual abuse and emphasises the enhanced detriment should they occur in combination. She considers there to be a clear link between the Offender’s early abuse and drug use as well as this criminality.

49. Testing for anger showed that the Offender had elevated scales of:

1. Angry Temperament

2. Anger Expression Out

3. Anger Expression Index

50. Ms De Santa Brigida opines that, as the Offender progresses in therapy dealing with his childhood trauma, "his anger would start to dissipate.”

51. Discussion between Ms De Santa Brigida and the Offender’s treating psychologist showed promising engagement, commitment, and progress. The treating psychologist envisages that the Offender will continue to see her once per month to focus on dealing with his trauma.

52. The youth of the Offender and associated immaturity is, in my opinion, a significant subjective feature of this case, especially when combined with his difficult upbringing. In KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 at [22] McClellan CJ at CL stated:

"The law recognises the potential for the cognitive, emotional and/or psychological immaturity of a young person to contribute to their breach of the law. Accordingly, allowance will be made for an offender's youth and not just their biological age (R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451 at [25]). The weight to be given to the fact of the offender's youth does not vary depending upon the seriousness of the offence (Hearne at [24]). Where the immaturity of the offender is a significant factor in commission of the offence, the criminality involved will be less than if the same offence was committed by an adult (Hearne at [25]; MS2 v The Queen (2005) 158 A Crim R 93 at [61])."

53. The Offender has made significant progress in becoming drug-free and dealing with his mental health/anger management issues. There is, in my opinion, a real risk that the Offender's progress towards rehabilitation would be nullified if he were to be further imprisoned (see R v Harmouche [2005] NSWCCA 398 at [52]). This factor has been identified as significant in cases where the offender has made significant progress toward rehabilitation (see Hanley v R [2018] NSWCCA 262 at [37]; Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 at [53]; Smaragdis v R [2010] NSWCCA 276 at [38]). I propose to give it significant weight.

54. In Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 (“Bugmy”) at [40] the High Court said:

'…The circumstance that an offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may mitigate the sentence because his or her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way."

55. The court in Bugmy (at [42] - [43]) also stated that the effects of profound deprivation do not diminish over time and should be given "full weight" in determining the sentence in every case and that a background of that kind may leave a mark on a person throughout life and compromise the person's capacity to mature and learn from experience.

Statutory mitigating factors

56. By reference to s 21A(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing Procedure Act”), the Offender makes the following submissions:

1. “(g) The offender is unlikely to re-offend” – It is submitted that the Offender has 'turned the corner' given his outstanding progress since being admitted to bail. His adoption of a prosocial lifestyle characterised by employment and disassociating from antisocial peers are relevant considerations.

2. “(h) The offender has good prospects of rehabilitation – Whether by reason of the Offender's age or otherwise.” The commitment and progress of the Offender in therapy since being admitted to bail underscore his prospects of rehabilitation.

1. “(i) The remorse shown by the offender for the offence, but only if: (i) The offender has provided evidence that he or she has accepted responsibility for his or her actions, and (ii) The offender has acknowledged any injury, loss or damage caused by his or her actions or made reparation for such injury, loss or damage (or both)” – The Offender has expressed remorse to the court in his affidavit and to the author of the report.

2. “(k) A plea of guilty by the offender (as provided by s 22)”

Prospects of rehabilitation

57. The Crown accepts that the Offender has made positive steps towards that process, however, notes that it is apparent from the Agreed Facts that the Offender still has difficulty regulating his anger. The Offender was investigated for an incident that occurred whilst the Offender was in custody. The alleged incident resulted in the complainant suffering from a fractured eye. The Offender was not charged with the alleged assault. The Crown submits that, in the absence of treatment for his anger, the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are reduced. This is a fair point, but I think the answer is that the Offender is actively seeking out and engaging with treatment, which appears to be successful to date. I consider the Offender’s prospects of being rehabilitated to be good.

Sentencing considerations

58. When considering penalty, I am required to take into account the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Sentencing Procedure Act.

59. As is so often identified, more often than not these considerations are “countervailing" and push and pull in different directions. In this case, I think the factors that have most relevance are the prospects of the Offender being rehabilitated and the related question of his prospects of reoffending, general deterrence, and denunciation. These all need to be considered through the prism of his youth.

60. Ultimately, the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the overall criminality involved: R v McNaughton [2006] 66 NSWLR 566 at [15].

Section 5 threshold

61. The Crown submits that due to the seriousness of the offending, the section 5 threshold is crossed, and a sentence of a substantial period of full-time imprisonment is warranted. The guideline judgment of Henry determined that a full-time custodial sentence must be imposed for armed robbery unless exceptional circumstances exist. Given the Offender was armed with a blade, the Crown submits that the guideline judgment applies to this sentencing exercise.

62. The Crown accepts that the Offenders subjective case including his youth give rise to a finding of special circumstances however, the non-parole period must reflect the objective criminality of the offending.

63. The Crown submits that an Intensive Corrections Order (“ICO”) is not within range and that, in any event, a full-time custodial sentence of more than 3 years is appropriate.

Resolution

64. The starting point is that these are very serious offences. I have judged the objective seriousness in relation to sequence 1 as below the mid-range of seriousness for this type of offending, for sequence 5, as to be at the mid-range of objective seriousness for that type of offending, and in relation to the form 1 offence attached to sequence 5, I consider it to be at around the mid-level of seriousness.

65. The guideline judgment of Henry is a powerful factor to be considered. However, as Mr Steward, on behalf of the Offender, has submitted, there are now numerous examples of cases turning on their own special facts which might at first blush be seen to be caught by the guideline suggested in Henry, which have resulted in sentences other than full-time custody. They include:

1. Youth - R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368 at [17]; R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 at [69] - [70].

2. Where participation in the criminal activity was a result of immaturity - R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 at [40].

3. Disrupted family life in childhood - R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 at [69] - [70].

4. Exposure to domestic violence during childhood - R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 at [69] - [70].

5. The maintenance by the offender of regular employment - R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 at [69] - [70].

6. Where the nature of the offending is out of character - R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 at [40].

7. Genuine remorse - R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453 at [36]; R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368 at [10]; R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 at [41].

8. Spending a short period in custody prior to sentence - R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453 at [36].

9. Where the amount stolen was relatively little - R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453 at [36].

10. Where the victims do not suffer any physical injury - R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453 at [36].

11. Where the offender is well on the way to achieving rehabilitation - R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368 at [18]

12. Where the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation - R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 at [69] - [70]; R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 at [41].

13. Where the prospect of a crime-free life in the future might be impaired by a sentence of full-time custody - R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453 at [36].

14. A limited relevant criminal history - R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453 at [36]; R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 at [69] - [70].

15. Admissions to police on arrest that are of assistance to them - R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 at [69] - [70].

66. In my judgement, most of the above can be identified here. The exception is it cannot be said that the offending was inconsistent with the Offender’s then character, but, in my view, because of his youth there is a real prospect of his character improving. In fact, I find that his character has already seen improvement since the offending.

67. Mr Steward also reminds me that there have been a number of statutory and other developments since the guideline judgment, as was acknowledged by Johnson J in Foaialima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270 at [24] - [26].

68. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the offending, in my judgement, the moral culpability of the Offender is lessened because of his substantially deprived upbringing, which I do think engages the principles in Bugmy, which upbringing has, in my judgement, led directly to his drug taking and his anger management issues, which in turn led to the offending.

69. In his favour is the extreme youth of the Offender, which I think when combined with his deprived upbringing, must be given significant weight. Perhaps most importantly, I accept that the Offender has shown and demonstrated real contrition, remorse, and significant insight as to why he offended and has embarked on an enthusiastic embrace of programs to rid himself of the scourge of drug addiction and also to treat his mental health issues. He has committed to ongoing treatment.

70. He has employment qualifications and has a real prospect of obtaining full-time employment as an arborist.

71. General deterrence is a very important aspect of the sentencing process, and the community needs to clearly understand that any offences involving robbery, especially in people's homes, and any offences involving violence can be expected to be met with stern punishment, involving periods of full-time imprisonment. The Offender knows this because he has already spent nearly 3 months in gaol.

72. Nonetheless, I am persuaded that the Offender’s subjective case is extremely powerful, and I am convinced that to send him to a further period of imprisonment at this stage of his rehabilitation would be extremely detrimental to his prospects of ultimately being rehabilitated and living a good and useful life in the community.

Totality

73. In all the circumstances, I consider that the overall criminality involved in both offences, the subject of sentence, together with the form 1 offence was really part of one course of conduct all driven by a totally irrational desire to, in some way, punish the Victim for the Victim's perceived wrongs to the Offender’s Mother.

74. For that reason, I think that it is appropriate that the sentences are to be served wholly concurrently.

75. In my opinion, appropriate indicative starting point sentences for the matters are:

1. Sequence 1 – 4 years’ imprisonment

2. Sequence 5 – 2 years’ imprisonment (taking into account the form 1 matter).

76. From this should be deducted 25% for the early plea of guilty, which leads to indicative head sentences of 3 years and 18 months respectively.

77. The terms should be served wholly concurrently so that the aggregate head sentence will be 3 years imprisonment.

78. I consider it is appropriate to backdate that term to take into account the 84 days the Offender has already spent in custody.

Intensive Correction Order

79. I then turn to whether it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to order any part of the remaining sentence to be served in full-time custody or rather whether I should order his immediate release upon an Intensive Corrections Order so as to serve that sentence in the community.

80. In this regard, “community safety is paramount:” s 66(1) Sentencing Procedure Act. As has been observed, community safety is not just about incarceration. Community supervision and programs can be, in certain circumstances, more effective in protecting the community.

81. In my judgement, the prospects of the Offender staying drug-free and properly dealing with his mental health issues can only be enhanced by his sentence being served in the community upon the conditions I propose. It must follow that community safety will be improved by the Offender serving the balance of his sentence in the community. I note that he has already served nearly 3 months in custody.

82. Accordingly, I propose that the Offender be immediately released to serve the balance of the term of imprisonment upon an Intensive Corrections Order.

Orders

83. For these reasons, I order the following:

1. For sequences 1 and 5, after deducting 25% for the early guilty plea and taking into account the matter on the form 1, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment to commence 30 May 2025 and to expire on 29 May 2028.

2. The Offender is to be immediately released on an Intensive Correction Order, to expire on 29 May 2028, on the following conditions:

1. To be of good behaviour.

2. To submit to supervision by a community corrections officer.

3. To not take any illicit drug.

4. To continue under the care of Ms Homeh Hawil, consulting her at least once a month and complying with any treatment suggested by her or such other medical practitioner that the Offender consults from time to time.

**********

Decision last updated: 22 August 2025