R v Craft

[2020] NSWDC 534

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Craft [2020] NSWDC 534

Hearing dates:

25 June 2020

Decision date:

25 June 2020

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

King SC DCJ

Decision:

Convicted.

Indicative terms of imprisonment:

2018/00254187/001:   Fixed term of 9 months

(Originally a CCO of 18 mths including 200 hrs of CS already served)

2019/00306674/001      Fixed term of 9 months

002: 3 years with NPP of 1 year, 9 months

Aggregate sentence:

Special circumstances found – need for an extended parole period to assist the offender with returning to a non-offending lifestyle.

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 years and 3 months with a NPP of 2 years commencing on 1 October 2019 and expiring on 30 September 2021 and a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months expiring on 31 December 2022.

Catchwords:

CRIME – violent offences - assault occasioning actual bodily harm - reckless wounding – breach of CCO - subjective matters - aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

DPPvDelarosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1

Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Regina
Paiaka Craft

Representation:

Solicitors:
Crown: Mr K Ng
Defence: Ms J Sanders, The Shopfront Youth Legal Centre

File Number(s):

2019/00306674

Judgment

1. In this matter, Paiaka Craft appears for sentence in respect of two offences, being assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act1900. The maximum penalty provided is five years’ imprisonment and there is no relevant standard non-parole period.

2. The second offence is reckless wounding contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty provided is seven years’ imprisonment and there is a relevant standard non-parole period of three years.

3. In addition, he asks the Court to deal with him in respect of the breach of an eighteen month Community Correction Order imposed at the Downing Centre Local Court on 16 January 2019 in respect of an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act.

4. The offences - apart from the bond - occurred on 6 September 2019 and he was arrested on 1 October 2019. He has been in custody since that date solely in relation to these matters. He was committed for sentence on 28 April 2020 from the Central Local Court and is in the circumstances entitled to a 25% discount for the utility of the plea alone.

5. The facts are agreed and are as follows-

(1) On the day of the incident, the victim, Dianne Gresham, walked to Newtown Station and then to the tobacconist at 330 King Street because she owed money for cigarettes. After the tobacconist, she went to a bottle shop on King Street and purchased two cans of UDL mixed spirits. She then walked to the Hub which is located next to the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre and sat on the retaining wall close to the bus stop on Enmore Road and had a drink. She also took a prescription tablet from someone that she thought was Alprazolam.

(2) After the victim finished her two drinks she went to the Newtown Medical Practice but was told to return later. She then walked past the Hub area again and returned to the bottle shop where she bought two more UDL cans before returning to the Hub and drinking them while socialising with people she knew who were also there. She then returned to the Medical Centre for her appointment.

(3) After her appointment she went to the bottle shop and bought two further cans of UDL and returned to the Hub. She then noticed the offender, who was sitting on a seat closest to the fence along the railway line and drinking from a plastic cask bag of white wine, commonly referred to as a “goon” bag. She was trying to get his attention so she could have some wine. He was talking to two other females.

(4) As it was getting cold, they all moved towards the glass doors of the building nearby, which were undercover, and continued to drink. She began speaking with the offender and the offender became aggressive towards her.

(5) He told her he was from Bankstown and she told him she had family out that way. He said he is a two, eight inch and she said, “We could be family, cuzzy” and he responded, “You’re not a two, eight inch”.

It is difficult to tell from the facts whether it was supposed to be a “two eight” or a “two eight inch”. The offender has given evidence on sentence and was unable to explain in a fashion that I could understand what two eight meant and in fact denied making the claim that he was a “two eight”, although the agreed facts contain that reference.

(6) They were standing up and in each other’s face. A scuffle commenced where they were pushing each other and trying to stand over each other.

(7) The victim made a move to hit the offender but it ended up being no more than a tap to his shoulder. The offender then punched the victim to her face. Witnesses present endeavoured to separate them and calm them down.

(8) The offender and the victim continued to talk aggressively to each other and ignored the attempts by others to calm them down. Their aggressive conversation went on for approximately another ten minutes. They departed from the company of the others and no-one followed them, so that they were alone together.

(9) They commenced another scuffle. The victim said to the offender, “Don’t throw your section 32 crazy games on me”. She said she thought she could try and settle him down but it did not work.

(10) The offender head-butted the victim, connecting with her forehead and the bridge part of her nose. He then punched her to the left side of her head near her temple and she fell to the ground. It is that interaction which constitutes the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

(11) They then walked back over to where the others were sitting. The victim had a graze to her forehead between her eyes arising from the offender’s conduct. The offender and the victim were still talking aggressively to each other but according to the witness “not as bad” as before.

(12) The witness offered the offender a cigarette to try and get him to calm down. The offender was sitting away from the victim and the witness who offered the cigarette.

(13) The offender then got up and walked towards the victim. He was again speaking to her in an aggressive tone of voice. The victim got up and started speaking aggressively in return to him. The witnesses present were again trying to get them to stop by saying “Stop it” without physically intervening.

(14) The offender and the victim started saying they were going to call people to deal with each other.

(15) The offender said multiple times to the victim “I’ll shank you”. At one point the offender said to the victim, “You’re gone, you bitch, you’re dead, I’ll kill you”.

(16) After about two minutes of the offender and the victim arguing, the offender had a knife in his hand of which the victim was not aware. With a closed fist the offender moved his right arm, which was holding the knife, around his side at hip height, and then into the victim’s rib area (reckless wounding).

(17) As soon as he did this he ran off towards Bedford Crescent and turned right into Denison Street.

(18) The victim sat down on the crate on the footpath and said, “I think my ribs are broken”. A witness who came to the victim’s aid lifted her shirt and saw that she was bleeding and then helped her towards the police station. They got to the corner before the police station when the victim appeared to faint.

(19) The witness left the victim on the corner and ran into the police station yelling, “”Someone got stabbed”. Police then attended to assist.

(20) The victim on the day had consumed six cans of UDL, a cup of wine and had taken medication that day, which is Alprazolam. She also had smoked some marijuana before she went out.

(21) The medical records demonstrate that the victim had been stabbed by the accused to her chest with a ten centimetre kitchen knife. The knife was still in the victim when she arrived at the police station and it fell out whilst she was at the station, prior to paramedics arriving. The stab wound was to the victim’s left axilla (armpit). The ambulance records state the position of the wound as being to the fourth intercostal space. The wound was recorded as being two centimetres to four centimetres deep. There was no plural entry and the wound was treated with sutures and pain relief medication.

(22) CCTV footage captured the offender in the vicinity of where the incident occurred and captured parts of the argument with the victim. Police identified the offender through information provided to them after a media release was disseminated based on the CCTV footage.

(23) Body worn footage from an officer who had been on duty earlier in the day also captured the offender sitting at the Hub at about 4.18pm that afternoon.

(24) Footage was also obtained of the offender entering a youth support centre in similar clothes to those he was wearing during the incident on 4 September 2019.

(25) Police did a check on phone numbers registered to the offender and found a mobile that was utilising phone towers in the Petersham, Stanmore, Camperdown and Enmore areas on the day of the offence.

(26) On 7 October 2019, a search warrant was executed at the accused’s boarding house and they located clothing similar to that worn by the accused on the day of the incident, including grey tracksuit pants, a blue zip jacket and multi-coloured palm tree socks.

(27) At around 11.40pm on 7 October police arrested the offender at a work site in Kellyville. He was cautioned and conveyed to the Castle Hill Police Station. Police maintained contact with his case worker from the Salvation Army’s Oasis Youth Support Network, Ms Bernadette Stephens. Ms Stephens stated to investigators that the offender suffered and was recently (within the past five to six months) diagnosed with a brain trauma. Ms Stephens stated this impacted on the offender’s cognitive functions and due to this, police treated the accused as a vulnerable person and he did not participate in an electronic interview, nor was a forensic procedure completed.

6. As to the objective seriousness of the offences in respect of the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the degree of harm suffered is clearly towards the lower end of any range consisting only of a graze to the victim’s forehead occasioned by the head-butt. However his assault on the victim included punching her to the face. They were then in a public place with other witnesses present. There was clearly an incident of some mutual hostility between them but the response of the offender to that hostility and argument and the victim’s attempt to hit him, but only tapping his shoulder, was entirely disproportionate.

7. I accept the Crown’s submission that in the circumstances the objective seriousness of this offence falls below the mid-range of objective seriousness but not at the lowest end of the range of objective seriousness.

8. As to the objective seriousness in relation to the reckless wounding, the victim received a stab wound in the vicinity of her arm pit, where the fourth intercostal space is located. Although the knife, which was recovered, was ten centimetres in length, the wound itself was only two centimetres to four centimetres deep. I presume that the length of the knife included the handle, as the facts do not refer to the blade as being 10 centimetres in length, but the knife.

9. She was treated at the hospital with sutures and pain relief medication. There is no evidence before me as to any sequelae in relation to either the injury associated with the assault occasioning actual bodily harm or the reckless wounding. The wound was inflicted by the offender striking the victim with the knife, which she was not aware he had, and by what appears to be a sudden perhaps roundhouse blow from his hip area up to her armpit.

10. The offender struck the victim with the knife in an area which, with any deeper penetration, may have at least caused the puncture of the victim’s lung. However he cannot be sentenced on the basis of what might have occurred rather than what did occur. There was clearly an objectively appreciable risk of a serious injury being inflicted on the victim.

11. The circumstances in which the wound was inflicted are of relevance: that is, it came after the continuation of a verbal argument between the parties and previous physical altercation, culminating in the assault occasioning actual bodily harm but at a subsequent time. The offender made a number of threats to the victim, repeating multiple times “I’ll shank you”. Those comments followed by actually stabbing her represent a clear indication of an intention to wound her, and I find beyond reasonable doubt that the offender intended to cause the wound inflicted on the victim.

12. While there was an ongoing argument and hostility between the victim and the offender his response of stabbing her with a knife was an entirely disproportionate response to the situation. It was an escalation of the previous violence towards the victim and in circumstances where his aggression was increasing as evidenced by the threats. I note in relation to my finding that he intended to inflict the wound beyond reasonable doubt that so much is conceded by Ms Sanders who has appeared on behalf of the offender.

13. Although the wound itself might be regarded as a relatively minor injury in the context of possible wounds, he exposed the victim to the risk of significant injury by the use of the knife as a weapon and the circumstances of escalating aggression on the part of the offender, and as I have said, with the intention of inflicting the wound. In my view it is appropriate to accept the Crown’s submission in relation to this offence that it places the objective seriousness of the matter as being within the mid-range of objective seriousness for such offences.

14. An aggravating circumstance provided by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act s 21A(3) is that each of the offences occurred while the offender was subject to a Community Correction Order imposed on 16 January 2019 for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Any breach of conditional liberty, whether it be while on bail, on parole or while subject to an order of the Court such as a Community Correction Order, is a serious aggravating circumstance as has been consistently referred to by the Courts and particularly the Court of Criminal Appeal. Those who commit offences while subject of any form of conditional liberty must expect a more significant sentence to be imposed to reflect that serious breach.

15. I will shortly deal with the subjective matters in this matter but in the meantime it is relevant to refer to the offender’s criminal history and in particular to the matter in respect of which he received a Community Correction Order.

16. Before the Court are the agreed facts in relation to an offence that occurred on 18 August 2018. The victim in that matter had been sitting in Belmore Park with a number of friends when he was approached by this offender, who asked for a cigarette. That victim declined as he did not have any cigarettes. There was some further minor conversation before the victim walked towards the bus stop on Eddy Avenue to check the timetable. While checking the timetable he was approached by the offender from behind, who wrapped his arms around the victim’s neck and placed him in a headlock. The offender then raised his hand and punched the victim to his face multiple times, causing a laceration to the skin above the victim’s left eye and swelling and bruising with some bleeding from a laceration to his lip.

17. Clearly the facts disclose that on that occasion, that is 18 August 2018, this offender without provocation assaulted the victim from behind before then inflicting a number of blows causing injury. I note that the agreed facts sheet includes the following:

“The accused has admitted that he has a quick temper and is sometimes quick to violence. He has made admissions to the offence in some respect however has also made attempts to rationalise the incident. The accused has breached his bail numerous times”.

18. Later while in custody he said, “I admit I did get into a fight. I grabbed him and put him on the window” and made claims that he himself had been punched at some point during the altercation. However he declined to be interviewed in relation to the matter.

19. It is of serious concern that the offence that he was subject of the CCO in respect of what was a not dissimilar matter, although there was no evidence of any hostility between the victim and the offender prior to the offender assaulting him on 18 August 2018.

20. Before the Court in respect of subjective matters are the offender’s criminal history, a Sentence Assessment Report under the hand of Powell Dunn, Community Corrections officer, dated 24 June 2020, a neuropsychological assessment dated 23 June 2019, but having been prepared at the request of the Oasis Salvation Army organisation as a general report in relation to the offender, not having been prepared for the purpose of any court proceedings but to assist that organisation in assisting the offender. The report is under the hand of Melanie Tucker, neuropsychologist.

21. In addition there is a letter to the Court from Ms Olivia Panagos, a case manager with the Oasis Youth Support Network, dated 16 June 2020. While Ms Panagos is referred to as a case manager, there is no information contained in the report as to her having any particular qualifications of relevance other than perhaps the experience gained as a case manager and of course in relation to the neuropsychological assessment report, it was prepared at a time well before – well, some months before this offending.

22. Subjective matters are taken from that material. The offender was born in New Zealand and is a citizen of New Zealand. He is single and in recent times has had little or no contact with his family. On his maternal side, the family resides in Australia. Prior to this offence, he had for a period of time been employed as an apprentice scaffolder and for a period of two months was attending TAFE as part of that apprenticeship, the employer being Blue Key Scaffolding. He has previously had part time employment as a labourer and has been receiving support from the Oasis organisation as a result of a referral on 20 November 2018.

23. The offender’s criminal history indicates that his offending commenced as a juvenile in 2015 and there are a number of offences of a violent nature recorded in his record. A number of his previous offences are of a relatively similar nature, that is, violence and aggression being demonstrated to others.

24. In relation to penalties imposed in the past there has also been a history of poor compliance, with the offender being called up on a number of occasions in relation to previously imposed orders. He has however never been sentenced to a term of confinement as a juvenile or as an adult.

25. In relation to specific offences for which he has been dealt with as a juvenile, there are several offences of robbery in company and offences of common assault and destroy or damage property, and as previously indicated the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, as well as assaults on law officers.

26. Although the Sentence Assessment Report indicates that he had no fixed address at the time of this offence, there is other information before the Court that indicates that he had recently been assisted to obtain accommodation in a boarding house at which he was then residing and where he was in fact located. He had been relying on the Oasis organisation to provide him with accommodation, food and support. Although his maternal family resides in Australia, as I have previously indicated he has had little or no support from them in the past for some significant period of time.

27. As to his attitude to committing the offence, while he acknowledged committing the offence and agreeing with the police facts, except to the extent in his evidence on sentence that he disagreed with them, he advised that his offending was partially to blame on stresses related to his current situation and that he had not thought about the consequences of his actions. He also reported and I accept that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time as he was in fact drinking white wine.

18. He acknowledged that his level of aggression and violent behaviour is linked to his use of alcohol but also stated that when he is not intoxicated he is also unable to regulate his emotions and impulsivity. He is said to have displayed some resistance as to how his offending behaviour impacted the victim, and I note that in his evidence today there appeared to be an element of blame to the victim for causing the offending conduct or at least the initial fight.

19. I accept that the Oasis Youth Support Network has offered to continue supporting the offender in the future, although I note that the prospect that they would be able to do so would appear to be limited in the circumstances where it has been accepted that a period of imprisonment must be imposed, and it would seem highly likely in those circumstances that he would be deported from Australia at the earliest opportunity, that is the conclusion of any non-parole period. However I note that that is not necessarily so and that apparently the Oasis organisation is prepared to continue to endeavour to assist him while in custody.

20. He has been assessed in respect of the earlier offence in respect of which he breached the bond at that time to have been a medium risk of re-offending. At the time of that offence he was then said to be residing with his mother, step-father and siblings, although then unemployed but was using drugs and drinking alcohol. He is said to have then expressed willingness and an ability to undertake appropriate interventions and being currently engaged with a psychologist to address his emotional regulation, stress and impulse management and relapse prevention.

21. In respect of the Community Corrections Order he was ordered to undertake 100 hours of community service, which he successfully completed by 13 June 2019. I accept that he has continued to have ongoing assistance through Oasis, however the current Sentencing Assessment Report indicates that he is now assessed as being a medium/high risk of re-offending. In my view, considering his history of offences as a juvenile and their nature and his offending as an adult, I accept that as an appropriate assessment of his risk of re-offending.

22. He is now twenty years of age and was eighteen at the time of the offending. It has long been--

SANDERS: Sorry your Honour, did your Honour just say 18 at the time of the offending?

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Nineteen was it?

SANDERS: Sorry he was 20 already at the time of the offending, as he now still is. Or are you talking about the offence for which he was placed on the earlier bond?

HIS HONOUR: No I’m talking about this one.

SANDERS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: He was born 11 July 99.

SANDERS: Yes so he was 20 at the time of the offence which was September 2019.

HIS HONOUR: Sorry.

SANDERS: And he’s still 20. Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: All right thank you.

SANDERS: He may have been 18 probably at the time of the earlier assault thank you.

33. HIS HONOUR: He was twenty years of age at the time of the offence and is still twenty years of age. It has long been recognised by the Courts that simply because one turns eighteen and becomes classified as an adult, that intellectual and emotional maturity does not necessarily instantly spring on individuals and that it is frequently not until the early to mid-twenties before such maturity arises, particularly in relation to males as late as 24 to 25, although earlier in relation usually to females.

34. He came to Australia at the age of three with his family and returned to New Zealand at the age of eleven to continue his education, that is to complete the New Zealand equivalent of an Australian Year 10 before later returning to Australia, where as I understand it he has remained since.

35. I note that in relation to his past work, he has been involved in pallet racking, construction and as a theatre usher

36. I note that the offender has informed the neuropsychologist that he received multiple blows to his head as a result of childhood abuse, as well as sporting tournaments and that he may have lost consciousness on occasion, although he was not sure as to how long if he had. The neuropsychologist said that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, however there is nothing before me that indicates that any appropriately credentialed person has ever diagnosed him as having suffered from PTSD rather than being simply a claim by the offender.

37. He has a history of illicit drug use but denied any current use as at 24 May 2019. The neuropsychologist carried out a number of tests as to his intellectual functioning and skills. She referred to him as then being a nineteen-year-old with a history of concentration and memory difficulties and a victim of early childhood domestic violence, who at the time of the assessment suffered from elevated levels of psychopathology, particularly depression, but also stress, hostility and interpersonal sensitivity.

38. She stated that his neuropsychological profile and his history suggested “a lifelong cognitive weakness of an unclear aetiology”. She opined that there may be a number of different reasons for his suggested lifelong cognitive weaknesses, those being possibly a hypoxic injury, potentially at birth, previous heavy cannabis use, although it was unusual to see that endure in the abstinence of use and also possibly impairment caused by traumatic brain injury during childhood.

39. I am unable to find on the information before me that there is any causal link between the offender’s conditions and the offending such as to warrant a reduction in his moral culpability as contemplated by the principles in DPP v Delarosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1.

40. I do however accept the offender has some personal difficulties, both emotional and intellectual and I accept that that is likely to make his time in custody more onerous as in addition will the current circumstances of Covid-19, potentially also adversely impact on his time in custody, even though we now appear to be at least over the hump, if I can refer to it that way.

41. I accept from the material before me that the offender has had a deprived upbringing in a dysfunctional background and suffered from domestic violence as a child, even though the only source of that material is ultimately the offender. I accept that that brings him within what is referred to usually as the principles discussed in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37, so as to reduce to some degree his moral culpability. A countervailing circumstance in relation to this offender, however, is what was said by the Court at (44):

“However the inability to control the violent response to frustration may increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender”.

42. The offender’s criminal record indicates that there must be some concern that there is a need for the protection of the community from the offender, although he is still young and does not have that significant history of violence that would bring him within the realm of Veen (No 2). However, there must be some concern as a result of the similar nature of his past offending.

43. His custodial record indicates that on three separate occasions while in custody he has breached prison regulations: on 4 December 2019 by assault and on 3 February and 7 February 2020 by fighting or other physical combat. He has explained each of those by indicating that he has had to defend himself while in custody. Violence amongst prisoners is not uncommon and I accept that simply being a participant, whether one starts it or not, will result in a breach of the regulation. However what is evident is that even after having been taken into custody as a result of this matter he has continued to be involved in violent altercations, whoever may have started them.

44. It is in my view clear that he has difficulty in not responding in adverse circumstances with violence and has a certain lack of control in that response. Nonetheless there must be some reduction in sentence as a result of his accepted lower moral culpability.

45. As to the prospect of rehabilitation, he is still young and still maturing. He clearly needs assistance in a number of areas, and needs to make a personal determination to take advantage of any assistance that he is offered to come to grips with his offending behaviour, and also recognising that it is not simply related to his consumption of alcohol.

46. The Court is required to take into account the principles of sentencing provided by s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The sentence must reflect the objective seriousness of any offence as well as the need to reflect both general and specific deterrence. In my view, both general and specific deterrence are relevant to take into account in relation to this offender, even though I have allowed there must be some reduction in respect of his lower moral culpability as a result of his dysfunctional upbringing.

47. There is little evidence in any of the documentation before me that the offender has expressed genuine remorse or contrition in relation to his offending conduct; however when giving evidence on sentence he said the following, “I feel very regretful and remorseful, the victim didn’t deserve what I done to her” and “I take full responsibility”. It is not exactly overwhelming evidence of remorse and contrition, however I am prepared to find that he is genuinely remorseful and contrite and will take that into account.

48. I should note that I regard his past criminal history as not being an aggravating circumstance but certainly a history that disentitles him to leniency.

49. I am going to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence and I will give an indicative sentence in relation to each of the offences.

50. However, is there any area that I have omitted to refer to that should be referred to, or error that I have made in relation to dates or anything of that nature?

SANDERS: Your Honour, just perhaps in relation to his cognitive and mental impairments your Honour has found inadequate evidence of a causal link.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

SANDERS: However those factors can be relevant in other ways such as in accordance with Delarosa there’s a number of ways in which those conditions are still relevant notwithstanding a lack of causal link. I’m not sure if your Honour--

HIS HONOUR: I am taking that into account--

SANDERS: Your Honour is taking that into account.

HIS HONOUR: --as generally relevant to him yes.

SANDERS: Yes, so all right.

HIS HONOUR: I thought I had said that.

SANDERS: Yes, you may well have and I perhaps haven’t noted it down as diligently as I should have. Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: All right, Mr Crown?

NG: Your Honour, I’m not sure if your Honour has made mention of the proposed commencement date of any sentence?

HIS HONOUR: Well, obviously it’s 1 October 2019, isn’t it.

NG: Thank you, your Honour. I may have misheard that.

HIS HONOUR: I will of course have to give a commencement date when I actually impose the aggregate sentence so--

NG: No, I appreciate that, thanks, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: There’s never any need to refer to it before then unless there’s a dispute as to the commencement date, and there isn’t.

NG: Thank you, your Honour.

51. HIS HONOUR: In this matter I intend to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence so I am required to give an indicative sentence in relation to each of the matters that are before me. First of all, in relation to the assault occasioning actual bodily harm that was the subject of the Community Correction order of eighteen months, taking into account that he has performed the 200 hours of community service, the indicative sentence is a fixed term of nine months.

52. In relation to the assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed on 6 September 2019 the indicative sentence is again nine months.

53. In relation to the offence of reckless wounding the indicative sentence is a term of imprisonment of three years with an indicative non-parole period of one year, nine months.

54. The aggregate sentence is a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years commencing on 1 October 2019. The non-parole period will expire on 7 October 2021.

55. The balance of term is one year and three months, giving a total term of sentence of three years, three months. The total term will expire on 31 December 2022.

56. It will be evident from the fact that I have varied the statutory relationship between the non-parole period and the balance of term that I have found special circumstances, that is, the need for the offender to have a longer period potentially on parole to assist him with his problems and returning to a non-offending lifestyle, and of course I have had to ignore the fact that it is highly likely that he will be deported at the end of the non-parole period.

ADJOURNED

**********

Decision last updated: 16 September 2020