R v Cook (No 2)

[2024] ACTSC 27

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Cook (No 2)

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 27

Hearing Date: 

5 February 2024

Decision Date: 

13 February 2024

Before:

Christensen AJ

Decision: 

See [65].

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – theft – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – s 80ZH review – treatment and supervision part cancelled – unsatisfactory circumstances – s 80ZE imposition or resentence – suspended sentence – rehabilitation

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 ss 80W, 80ZD, 80ZE, 80ZH,

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 312

Cases Cited: 

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

R v BC [2022] ACTCA 19

R v Cook [2022] ACTSC 381

R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

R v West (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 5

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Shane John Allen Cook ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

T Cobden ( Crown)

C Duffy ( Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecution ( Crown)

Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)

File Number:

SCC 82 of 2021

CHRISTENSEN AJ: 

Introduction

1․Shane Cook sought to address his long-standing substance abuse disorder through a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (Treatment Order). Mr Cook had some positive progress under the Treatment Order for a time. This did not last, however, and Mr Cook absconded and now comes before the Court to have finalised the consequences of his offending behaviour in October 2020.

2․The finalisation of the proceedings will see Mr Cook be able to move on from this period of his life, with a view to being the father and partner that he aspires to be.

Background

3․The review under s 80ZH of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (Sentencing Act) commenced on 13 April 2023, following an application by the prosecution for cancellation of the Treatment Order. A decision was made to cancel the Treatment Order pursuant to s 80ZE(1) of the Sentencing Act. The process of review continues with the decision now to be made as to the orders following cancellation.

4․Mr Cook was originally sentenced on 17 March 2022 for two offences of aggravated burglary, three offences of theft, driving offences, failing to appear at court, and minor drug offences: R v Cook [2022] ACTSC 381 (R v Cook). The total period of imprisonment was for two years.

5․A Treatment Order was made for a period of 14 months for both primary and associated offences: R v Cook at [126], being the offences of aggravated burglary and theft. This meant that the custodial part of the Treatment Order was suspended for a period of 14 months, from 17 March 2022 until 16 May 2023.

Imposition or resentence

6․A preliminary decision to be made following cancellation is whether the suspended portion of the original sentence is imposed, or whether Mr Cook is resentenced.

7․It was submitted on behalf of Mr Cook that the Court would resentence him. The factors that were submitted to inform this finding were his mental health challenges and that his partner is soon to give birth to Mr Cook’s fifth child.

8․The prosecution submitted that, having regard to the extent of non-compliance, the court would impose the suspended portion of the Treatment Order, but that, pursuant to ss 80ZE(3) and 80W of the Sentencing Act, the Court would reduce the period to be served in custody and would impose a non-parole period.

Section 80ZE of the Sentencing Act

9․The legislature is clear as to what the court is to consider in deciding to either impose the sentence of imprisonment that was suspended, or to resentence. That is, s 80ZE(2) of the Sentencing Act provides –

80ZE Cancellation of Treatment Order—unsatisfactory circumstances

[…]

(2)If the court decides to cancel a Treatment Order under subsection (1) the court must make an order cancelling the Treatment Order and, taking into account the extent to which the offender has complied with the treatment and supervision part of the order, either—

(a)impose the sentence of imprisonment that was suspended under the custodial part of the Treatment Order; or

(b)if the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances—resentence the offender for each offence in relation to which the Treatment Order was made and in any way in which the court could deal with the offender if it had convicted the offender of each offence at the time of resentencing, other than by making an order under section 12A (Drug and alcohol Treatment Orders).

10․Accordingly, being a cancellation pursuant to s 80ZE(1), a preliminary consideration is the extent to which there was compliance with the treatment and supervision part of the order. Having considered that, the court then turns to consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to resentence. If it is not, the suspended portion is imposed. This can be contrasted with a cancellation pursuant to s 80ZD of the Sentencing Act, where there is no preliminary consideration of the extent of the compliance, and rather, if the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances, a resentence occurs.

Compliance with the Treatment Order

11․Mr Cook’s compliance with the treatment and supervision part of the order can be, in short, described as largely unsatisfactory.

12․Mr Cook was released from custody on 17 March 2022 for the purposes of engagement in the Treatment Order. From the outset, there were difficulties with numerous formal warnings and the imposition of sanction points following missed urinalysis testing, and substance use. Mr Cook also engaged poorly with his obligations as to communications with the treatment team and residential arrangements.

13․There were occasions of positive progress. In the early stages of the Treatment Order, Mr Cook was congratulated by the court for distancing himself from negative associates, and when he was not able to attend for urinalysis, there were occasions when he produced medical certificates.

14․The difficulties Mr Cook experienced on the Treatment Order led to a decision that he would engage in residential rehabilitation. There was initially good progress, including Mr Cook being commended for his engagement with counselling. Mr Cook came to graduate from a rehabilitation program, and came near to graduating to phase 2 of the Treatment Order.

15․Throughout the Treatment Order, Mr Cook was managing complications with family members, and was interested in engaging in employment which detracted from his commitment to the onerous obligations of a Treatment Order.

16․In February 2023, while in residential rehabilitation, Mr Cook [redacted]. Thereafter, Mr Cook’s focus naturally became his mental health and the Court agreed for Mr Cook to reside at a location in Victoria where he could engage with a mental health service available there. Mr Cook’s involvement with the Treatment Order became untenable and concerns were raised as to his capacity to participate in the therapeutic program. This led to cancellation of the Treatment Order.

17․Thereafter, Mr Cook was granted bail with a view to an opportunity for him to continue residing with a family member and receiving mental health support in Victoria. Mr Cook was initially responding well. He complied with his bail conditions, and he engaged in employment.

18․In July 2023, Mr Cook returned to the ACT. He remained under strict bail conditions, which included not to use illicit substances and to engage in counselling, treatment and drug and alcohol testing. Mr Cook was in breach of the bail conditions on a number of occasions. He ultimately failed to attend court on 14 July 2023 and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Consideration of imposition or resentence

19․Plainly, a high level of non-compliance with the treatment and supervision part of the Treatment Order tends towards imposition of the suspended portion, while positive compliance tends towards a conclusion of it being appropriate in the circumstances to resentence.

20․As has been repeatedly said, an opportunity for a Treatment Order is a privilege. A defiance of that privilege warrants little opportunity for it being appropriate to engage in a resentence exercise. Such an approach ensures that the suspended imprisonment portion provides a deterrent effect for compliance, while also ensuring that current and potential participants on the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List appreciate the privilege available to them and the likely consequences for non-compliance. That is, non-compliance with a Treatment Order will, in the absence of compelling circumstances that lead to a conclusion that it is appropriate to resentence, results in imposition of the suspended sentence of imprisonment.

21․Here, Mr Cook’s level of non-compliance is such that imposition of the suspended sentence of imprisonment must be the starting point. As already observed though, the court is still to consider whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to resentence the offender: see s 80ZE(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act.

Appropriate in the circumstances to resentence

22․The factors relied upon by Mr Cook as to his mental health and the impending birth of his child become relevant at this stage.

23․It is apparent that Mr Cook did experience significant mental health challenges during the period of the treatment and supervision order, the details of which I will not repeat. It is also apparent that the extent of Mr Cook’s mental health challenges was not appreciated at the time of the original sentence decision. In R v Cook at [70], the contents of a psychological report of Ms Vanessa Edwige was considered, with it observing that “he has been described as not having a serious mental condition” and that while he [redacted], at the time of sentence he [redacted].

24․I otherwise observe that there has been a significant delay from the time of cancellation to the continuation of the review and decision to impose or resentence. Mr Cook holds responsibility for a non-insignificant portion of that. He failed to appear in the Supreme Court on 14 July 2023, and has come now only for conclusion of the review after a warrant for his arrest was executed on 12 January 2024. There was, however, a period of some three months where the Court did not proceed to conclude the review process. This was despite the cancellation having occurred 34 days prior to the initial end date of the Treatment Order. Ideally, there would have been finalisation of the process at, or shortly after, the cancellation decision.

25․While I have some hesitation given the extent of non-compliance with the Treatment Order, I conclude that it is appropriate in the circumstances to resentence Mr Cook. I was persuaded to reach this conclusion in the circumstances where the Treatment Order was cancelled shortly before the end of the treatment and supervision part of the Order, and where Mr Cook had experienced a delay to finalise the matter following the cancellation, a delay which is not wholly attributable to his own conduct.

26․In reaching this conclusion I have also taken into account the mental health challenges that Mr Cook has experienced and continues to experience. Those challenges in and of themself have not persuaded me that the imposition was not warranted given the extent of non-compliance and that the available information as to his mental health is limited: see below at [44]. The impending birth of a child is also not persuasive as being a circumstance in and of itself tending towards resentence.

Resentence

Maximum penalty

27․The applicable maximum penalties for the charges that were the subject of the Treatment Order, and accordingly for resentence, are –

(a)aggravated burglary contrary to s 312(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) with a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment or a fine of $320, 000 or both; and

(b)theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or a fine of $160, 000 or both.

Facts of the offending

28․The facts of the offending are set out in detail in R v Cook at [11]-[25].

29․In brief, at about 6am on 16 October 2020, Mr Cook and an unidentified male used a crowbar to enter a restaurant at the Swinger Hill Shopping Centre in Mawson. An iPhone, belonging to the owner of the restaurant, was stolen.

30․Mr Cook and the other male then went to another nearby shopping centre, and they entered a massage shop by smashing the glass front door with the crowbar. There were two employees sleeping at the shop and they fled without coming into contact with the offenders. The items taken from this shop were another mobile phone, $200 in cash, assorted documents, a laptop and a cabinet drawer from the shop business. Additionally, jewellery, a wallet and its contents, $600 in cash and hair care items belonging to an individual were taken.

31․Later the same day, Mr Cook was found at the Canberra Outlet Centre asleep in a vehicle that was identified from the CCTV footage from the burglaries. Mr Cook declined to get out of the vehicle and police intervened. Police located a crowbar and some of the stolen items, including two phones, in the vehicle.

Nature and circumstances of the offences

32․The objective seriousness of the offending was considered by Refshauge AJ in R v Cook from [41]-[51]. I agree with the assessment as provided there. They were, as Refshauge AJ observed, reasonably unremarkable versions of the offences, but there was a level of seriousness given the aspect of premeditation, having brought a crowbar to the premises, and Mr Cook being masked.

Victims impact

33․As observed by Refshauge AJ in R v Cook at [13] and [16], there was financial loss from the entries to the premises, but I do not attribute this impact for the purposes of resentence as it is apparent that in the original sentence proceeding this was relevant to offences of damaging property which were offences taken into account on sentence. These offences do not form part of the sentence associated with the Treatment Order.

34․The impact of the offending relating to the offences for resentence relates to the distress that was inevitably caused by the entries to the premises, as well as the financial loss, and frustration and inconvenience arising from the property taken. Only some of these items were recovered. One of the items taken was an item of jewellery that likely had sentimental value, and this was not recovered.

Subjective circumstances

35․Mr Cook has recently turned 32 years of age. He is unsure of his cultural heritage. He has a large family and the family moved to Canberra when he was about six years of age.

36․His subjective circumstances are set out in detail in R v Cook at [61]-[84]. This includes an outline of the challenges Mr Cook experienced for a portion of his childhood when he lived with his mother, this being a household with domestic violence and substance abuse. Mr Cook came to be living with his father and grandparents and has had little contact with his mother since then.

37․Mr Cook experienced challenges in schooling, and was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder at age eight. He received medication for this which did improve his behaviour, but he had, by his own description fallen into a “bad crowd”. Mr Cook left high school halfway through year 9 and began employment. He worked as a labourer and removalist and at the time of the original sentence had interest in engaging with a bricklaying course.

38․Mr Cook has been in a number of relationships and currently has four children, who he has varying levels of contact with. As already observed, Mr Cook will soon be the father of a fifth child to his current partner. His current partner and a sister are supportive of him, they attend at court to provide him support and are keen for him to be released into the community to enable him to be present as a supportive member of the family.

39․As observed above, Ms Edwige did not identify Mr Cook as having a “serious mental condition”. Ms Edwige did observe Mr Cook as having childhood disadvantage comprised of the exposure to domestic violence, early exposure to substance misuse and interrupted schooling. Mr Cook’s moral culpability was found to be reduced as a result (R v Cook at [102] and see Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571) and I apply the same finding in the resentence decision.

40․In relation to his substance abuse, Mr Cook started using cannabis at age 13, and alcohol at age 14. Mr Cook was introduced to heroin at the age of 19 years and soon became dependent. He has used other illicit substances including unprescribed benzodiazepines and oxycodone, cocaine, MDMA/ Ecstasy and fentanyl. At the time of the offending, Mr Cook “suffered a significant heroin dependency and committed the offences to obtain proceeds to fund his dependency”: R v Cook at [71]. Ms Edwige describes that Mr Cook copes with his trauma history through substance abuse: R v Cook at [70].

41․Until the Treatment Order, Mr Cook had had limited formal alcohol and other drug treatment. The Treatment Order was also not the opportunity for Mr Cook to address his substance abuse challenges. Further, this was not achieved through the period on bail following the cancellation of the Order and no information was provided to the Court for the purposes of the review and resentence to suggest that Mr Cook has intentions to rehabilitate in this regard other than the incentivising factor of his desire to be a father.

42․The extent of updated information available as to Mr Cook’s subjective circumstances is an email written on his behalf by his sister. In the circumstances, being Mr Cook’s remand in custody and his current physical injury which I will come to, I am willing to accept the contents of the email reflect Mr Cook’s thoughts.

43․This email sets out Mr Cook’s reasoning for not attending court, referring to his mental health challenges. Mr Cook explains that he required assistance with his mental health in part because of the stress from an expected return to custody. On a previous occasion in custody, he had been denied his daily medication and this negatively impacted his mental health. He retains this significant fear of being in custody.

44․It was submitted on Mr Cook’s behalf that the second, fifth and sixth limbs of the principles in R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 were enlivened. That is, in essence, that his mental health condition is informative as to the type of sentence that is imposed, that a term of imprisonment may weigh more heavily on Mr Cook, and that there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significant adverse effect on his mental health.

45․While the information currently available as to Mr Cook’s mental health is limited, the information before the Court does include what has become known during Mr Cook’s engagement with the Treatment Order. This includes that Mr Cook exhibited a crisis point with his mental health, and that he benefited from support directed towards mental health. I otherwise observe that the periods in custody in relation to this offending have been the first occasions of an experience in custody for Mr Cook: R v Cook at [80].

46․Mr Cook also expresses an issue as to a physical injury that he says he sustained when he was arrested. He says that he did not receive adequate medical treatment, and that while been in custody, he has not received proper medical treatment and he is experiencing significant physical pain. While it was apparent that Mr Cook had his arm in a sling during the sentence hearing and I do conclude that he is clearly experiencing a physical injury to some degree, the information provided is not sufficient to conclude, as was submitted on his behalf, that his experience in custody will be more onerous because of the physical injury.

47․Mr Cook otherwise says –

I would please be like to [be] given the opportunity to be able to be the father I wish to be…I ask your honour to please take all this into consideration to be given the chance of release today, I will gladly say this with great confidence then your honour will not be disappointed if chosen to give me a last chance.

48․The difficulty for Mr Cook is that his opportunity for chances has expired. That opportunity was available to him through the Treatment Order, and then again through the period after cancellation. Further, his criminal history, while not significant in that it does not include many previous examples of serious offences, reflects there has been previous occasions of good behaviour orders offering opportunities to engage with rehabilitation.

49․This is not to say that the Court does not have empathy for Mr Cook’s situation, nor is the Court ignoring that Mr Cook will soon be a father to another child and that his partner, as well as his infant child, would benefit from his involvement as soon as that can occur. The probable effect that the sentence would have on any of the offender’s family or dependents is a relevant consideration: s 33(1)(o) of the Sentencing Act.

50․In R v BC [2022] ACTCA 19 at [37], the Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to determine conclusively the question of whether third party hardship has to meet any particular threshold before it may be taken into account, but it was observed that there is significant authority to the effect that there is no need for “highly exceptional” circumstances before third party hardship can be taken into account. Here, the impending birth of Mr Cook’s child tends towards special circumstances being established, but it is does not overwhelm other sentencing considerations.

51․The purposes of sentencing include the need for an offender to be accountable for their actions, and to also protect the community. In circumstances where there is limited demonstrated progress towards rehabilitation, a sentence that encourages rehabilitation and deters Mr Cook, from further offending is warranted. The opportunity to be a father will also provide an important deterrent effect for Mr Cook.

Plea of guilty and remorse

52․A plea of guilty was entered by Mr Cook shortly before the trial listing for the offences: R v Cook at [33]. There remains some utilitarian value to the plea of guilty, although it is limited given the time at which the plea of guilty was entered. As Refshauge AJ found, a modest discount is appropriate: R v Cook at [96]. A discount of approximately 15 per cent will be applied.

53․It was otherwise found by his Honour that “Mr Cook has shown insight into his offending and […] has experienced some remorse, to an extent, confirmed by his plea of guilty”: R v Cook at [104]. I take this into account for the purposes of the resentence, and otherwise observe that Mr Cook provides in the email to the court that “I take full responsibility of my actions”.

Current sentencing practice

54․In R v Cook, Refshauge AJ considered a number of authorities for the purposes of assessing current sentencing practice: R v Cook at [89]. I have also considered these authorities, and I have otherwise had regard to the sentences that Refshauge AJ imposed on Mr Cook to the extent that these reflect current sentencing practice.

55․In doing so, I observe that at the original sentence, his Honour was also to take into account additional offences. This meant that it was likely that personal deterrence and punishment would be given greater weight and that there may be a more severe sentence than would otherwise have been imposed: R v Cook at [57].

56․His Honour also had regard to the totality principle: R v Cook at [109]-[110], which is a principle to also be applied on resentence.

Presentence custody

57․A total of 304 days in presentence custody was served prior to the original sentence proceeding: R v Cook at [26] and [36]. During the period of the Treatment Order, a total of 25 days was served in custody. Following cancellation, Mr Cook spent 14 days in custody, until he was released on bail on 28 April 2023. Mr Cook was arrested on the warrant on 12 January 2024 and has remained in custody since that date until today. These periods, totalling 388 days (almost 13 months in custody), are to be taken into account pursuant to s 63 of the Sentencing Act.

58․Mr Cook also spent a total of 68 days in residential rehabilitation. This is to be taken into account in determining the appropriate disposition, but not necessarily as one day in residential rehabilitation equalling one day in custody: R v West (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 5 at [67] and the authorities cited therein. In this matter, it has been informative as to the appropriate disposition of the sentence.

Consideration

59․It is readily apparent that no other penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. The parties made no submissions against this. The prosecution submitted that a non-parole period was appropriate, and on behalf of Mr Cook, it was submitted that a sentence order that enabled immediate release be imposed.

60․I conclude that the submission on behalf of Mr Cook should be accepted. It is apparent that the requirements of a Treatment Order were too onerous for someone with Mr Cook’s mental health difficulties, as would be continued incarceration. Mr Cook has unaddressed complex developmental trauma and, as a result, an unaddressed substance abuse problem. A certainty of release date is appropriate having regard to all of the sentencing factors identified above.

61․Mr Cook has demonstrated in the past that, with an appropriate level of supervision, he does not re-offend, and he engages positively with the supervision. An opportunity to engage with appropriate supervision in the community will enable Mr Cook to give effect to the promise he has made to the court, and by extension, the community, and, importantly, to meet the commitment he has made to his family.

[Her Honour then spoke directly to Mr Cook]

62․Mr Cook, please stand.

(1)The conviction of aggravated burglary (CC 2020/13797) is confirmed and the sentence of 12 months imprisonment, reduced from 14 months on account of the plea of guilty, is imposed to commence on 20 January 2023 and expire on 19 January 2024.

(2)The conviction of theft (CC 2020/13798) is confirmed and the sentence of 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 70 days on account of the plea of guilty, is imposed to commence on 20 December 2023 and expire on 19 February 2024.

(3)The conviction of aggravated burglary (CC 2020/13799) is confirmed and the sentence of 15 months imprisonment, reduced from 18 months on account of the plea of guilty, is imposed to commence on 20 August 2023 and expire on 19 November 2024.

(4)The conviction of theft (CC 2020/13802) is confirmed and the sentence of 3 months, reduced from 4 months on account of the plea of guilty, is imposed to commence on 20 September 2024 and expire on 19 December 2024.

(5)The conviction of theft (CC 2020/13800) is confirmed and the sentence of 3 months, reduced from 4 months on account of the plea of guilty, is imposed to commence on 20 October 2024 and expire on 19 January 2025.

(6)The total term of imprisonment is 24 months imprisonment, and the sentence is suspended from 13 February 2024 until 19 January 2025.

(7)You are required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under section 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from 13 February 2024 until 19 January 2025 with the following additional probation conditions:

(a)That you report to the ACT Corrections within 24 hours of release from custody.

(b)That you accept the supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising you consider appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising you, including but not limited to, undertaking any psychiatric or psychological assessment and participating in any program of treatment or rehabilitation.

63․Mr Cook, it is apparent that you have a long way to go with your mental health difficulties and your substance abuse, but you have also made it very clear to the Court that you have intentions to be a good father to the baby that is going to be coming soon. So this is your opportunity to do that.

64․The supports and assistance will be there from Corrective Services and you are to comply with any directions they have about what you need to do to best help yourself and your family. Otherwise, I wish you and your family all the best.  

Orders

65․For those reasons the following orders are made:

(1)The cancellation of the Drug and Treatment Order made on 17 March 2022 is confirmed.

(2)The conviction of Shane John Allen Cook of aggravated burglary (CC 2020/13797) is confirmed and the sentence of 12 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 20 January 2023 and expire on 19 January 2024.

(3)The conviction of Shane John Allen Cook of theft (CC 2020/13798) is confirmed and the sentence of 2 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 20 December 2023 and expire on 19 February 2024.

(4)The conviction of Shane John Allen Cook of aggravated burglary (CC 2020/13799) is confirmed and the sentence of 15 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 20 August 2023 and expire on 19 November 2024.

(5)The conviction of Shane John Allen Cook of theft (CC 2020/13802) is confirmed and the sentence of 3 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 20 September 2024 and expire on 19 December 2024.

(6)The conviction of Shane John Allen Cook of theft (CC 2020/13800) is confirmed and the sentence of 3 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 20 October 2024 and expire on 19 January 2025.

(7)The sentence of 24 months is suspended from 13 February 2024 until 19 January 2025.

(8)Shane John Allen Cook be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under section 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from 13 February 2024 until 19 January 2025 with the following additional probation conditions:

(a)That he report to the ACT Corrections within 24 hours of release from custody.

(b)That he accept the supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him consider appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including but not limited to, undertaking any psychiatric or psychological assessment and participating in any program of treatment or rehabilitation.

I certify that the preceding sixty-five [65] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen.

Associate: J Liu

Date: