R v Daniel Gersbach
[2018] NSWDC 341
•21 November 2018
District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Daniel Gersbach [2018] NSWDC 341 Hearing dates: 19 October 2018 Decision date: 21 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Custodial sentence to be served by Intensive Correction Order, with conditions. For orders see [72]
Catchwords: Robbery in company – commit serious indictable offence Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995Cases Cited: Le v R [2017] NSWCCA 26 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Daniel Gersbach (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
P Butterfield (Offender)
S Croner (Crown)
File Number(s): 16/368065 Publication restriction: Nil
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
-
The offender is charged with one offence pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 for robbery in company – commit serious indictable offence. The maximum penalty proscribed is 20 years imprisonment and there is no Standard Non-Parole Period.
-
The offence occurred on 8 December 2016. The offender was at that time subject to a s 10 bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months imposed on 7 December 2016 for an offence of destroy or damage property.
-
The co-offender, OVB, was sentenced at Bidura Children’s Court on 7 March 2017 as follows:
Robbery in company – detention for 15 months to date from 8 December 2016 and to expire on 7 March 2018 with a non-parole period of 5 months.
Affray – detention for 12 months to date from 8 December 2016 and to expire on 7 December 2017, with a non-parole period 4 months.
-
The offender was born on 2 September 1998 and therefore he was aged 18 years and 3 months at the date of the offence.
The sentence hearing
-
The sentence hearing took place on 19 October 2018. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A and included a Statement of Agreed Facts which may be summarised as follows.
-
The victim was travelling home by train from Central Station to Pennant Hills Station on 7 December 2016. His train left Central Station at 11.47pm. At Macquarie University train station, one of the co-offenders approached the victim inside the carriage and said, “What the fuck are you looking at and what’s your problem?” The victim replied “Nothing”.
-
At Pennant Hills Station the victim disembarked. Both of the offenders approached the victim from behind and threw some wine at him. The two offenders then punched the victim a few times and then ran back inside the train. The victim followed them back into the carriage and a scuffle ensued. The victim then left the train and the offenders chased him up the stairs to the concourse and down a set of stairs leading to Yarrara Road Pennant Hills. About half way down the stairs, the victim and the offenders exchanged punches. OVB placed the victim into a headlock and the offender punched the victim. The victim extracted himself and ran down the stairs, saying “I don’t want to fight youse”. The victim then walked away to the intersection of Yarrara Road and Ramsay Road. The offender approached the victim from behind and punched him. The victim fell immediately to the ground and lost consciousness. The co-offender then bent down and punched the victim four times. The offender pulled the co-offender away from the victim, however, the co-offender then ran up and kicked the victim who remained lying on the ground. Both co-offenders then walked away back towards the station. They returned a few seconds later and bent over the victim, who remained lying on the ground. The offender then punched the unconscious victim at least four times. The co-offender kicked the victim approximately eight times. The victim’s wallet was then stolen from him and they left him there.
-
At about 1.40am the co-offenders were arrested by the police on Pennant Hills Road. The following morning the victim attended Hornsby Hospital. He suffered the following injuries:
Grazes on his forehead, cheeks and the top of his head.
Prominent swelling over the right maxilla and forehead.
Malar depression.
Fractures of the right nasal bone, right maxilla, zygoma and coronoid process of the mandible. There was minimal displacement of these fractures.
-
Following his arrest, the offender took part in an electronically recorded interview with police in which he denied having touched the victim at any stage.
-
Exhibit A included the CCTV coverage, which included extracts from Pennant Hills Railway Station and Yarrara Road. What is depicted is a violent confrontation, instigated by the two co-offenders on the platform at Pennant Hills Railway Station, and further perpetrated by the co-offenders when they followed the victim onto the concourse at that station and down the stairs, allowing egress from the station onto Yarrara Road. A further violent confrontation ensued with the two co-offenders attacking the victim about half way down the stairs. Once he extracted himself from that, the victim made it clear that he did not want to fight the two co-offenders, and walked away. The footage then shows the offender approaching the victim from behind and punching him in the head, causing him to fall to the ground and lose consciousness. It was a cowardly attack on an innocent man, without warning. What happened next was even worse, and involved the co-offender punching the victim four times on the ground before the offender pulled him away. The co-offender then ran and kicked the victim before they both walked away, until a few seconds later, when the offender returned to punch the unconscious victim four times in the head, whilst the co-offender kicked him approximately eight times. They then stole the victim’s wallet and left him lying on the footpath unconscious.
-
Exhibit A included the court attendance notice and facts sheet in respect of the offence of intentionally or recklessly destroy/damage property, which occurred on 18 October 2016 at Warriewood, and for which the offender was sentenced by way of a s 10 bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months on 7 December 2016, the day before the subject offence. That incident involved the offender using a branch of a tree to smash the passenger side front window of a motor vehicle parked on Prosperity Parade, Warriewood, on Tuesday 18 October 2016. The offender caused damage to the vehicle at a cost of $350.
-
Exhibit A included the criminal antecedents of the offender which, in addition to the offence of destroy or damage property at Manly Local Court on 7 December 2016, included the following offences:
1 February 2015 – enter inclosed land without lawful excuse – dismissed with caution pursuant to s 33(1)A).
Destroy or damage property – bond s 33(1)(B) for 12 months
25 May 2015 – robbery in company – probation for 15 months pursuant to s 33(1)(E)
23 November 2015 – robbery in company – SI – (callup) – Community Service Order pursuant to s 33(1)(F) – 40 hours
23 November 2015 – steal from person – Community Service Order s 33(1)(F) – 40 hours probation s 33(1)(E) 12 months supervision by Juvenile Justice
-
Exhibit A also included a Sentencing Assessment Report under the hand of Ms J-A Scott. The author noted that the offender was disappointed in himself for his behaviour and accepted full responsibility for his actions and wanted to make amends. He had a long history of alcohol abuse and at the time of the offending was consuming a bottle of bourbon each day.
-
The author noted that the offender displayed a good level of insight into his offending behaviour and openly discussed the impact this had on his own life and family, as well as the effect of his actions on the victim.
-
The offender was assessed as a low/medium risk of reoffending, which meant that in the case of a supervised order being made, Community Corrections would suspend his supervision. The offender was assessed as suitable to undertake Community Service work.
-
Exhibit A also included the transcript of the sentence proceedings in the Children’s Court on 7 March 2017 in respect of the co-offender, OVB. The co‑offender had been subject to conditional liberty pursuant to orders imposed by the Children’s Court on 1 November 2016. The offences included:
Common assault (3)
Destroy/damage property (5)
Contravene ADVO (3)
Resist officer
Assault officer
Shoplifting
Stalk/intimidate
-
In respect of the incident on 8 December 2016, he was sentenced on two charges of robbery in company and affray. In respect of the more serious charge of robbery in company, he was sentenced without conviction to a Control Order of 15 months with a non-parole period of 5 months, dating from 8 December 2016. On the charge of affray, he was sentenced to a Control Order for a period of 12 months, with a non-parole period of four months to run from 8 December 2016. Those sentences included a utilitarian discount, which the Magistrate described as “somewhere between 15 and 20%”.
The offender’s evidence
-
The offender relied on a report from Mr S Borenstein, clinical psychologist, dated 17 October 2018 (Ex 1). The history of the offence involved the offender drinking alcohol most of the day with the co-offender. When confronted with the CCTV footage, the offender stated:
“It was not my proudest moment. I feel bad for a lot of reasons.”
-
The offender communicated feelings of guilt towards the victim and stated:
“It’s not who I am, I’m embarrassed. The victim, my partner, her son Hunter, and my daughter who is 20 months are all affected.”
-
The offender described the offence as a turning point in his life, after which he has significantly reduced his alcohol consumption. He spent a day in custody following his arrest, and has been subject to a strict curfew as a condition of his bail.
-
The offender had commenced drinking when aged 13, and prior to the offending was in and out of work. Since the offence he had gained employment with a marina as a slips manager, and has largely abstained from alcohol. He had previously attended hospital on numerous occasions, having sustained injuries whilst intoxicated and on at least three occasions had his stomach pumped when he presented to accident and emergency with alcohol poisoning. He did not undertake psychological treatment or drug and alcohol counselling as recommended when under supervision of Juvenile Justice.
-
The author stated that the offender accepted full responsibility for his actions, and repeatedly expressed feelings of guilt and remorse, understanding the impact his actions had on the victim of his crime. He was committed to his partner and daughter, and his partner’s son. His own father had left his mother when he was at an early age and had reconnected with him when he was age 16.
-
While suffering no psychiatric disorder, upon assessment for personality, the author was of the opinion that he had a marked potential for emotional and/or behavioural problems of clinical significance. His scores correlated with measures of depression and anxiety and his profile confirms a need for control and inflated self-image. It also confirmed the history of alcohol related problems and anger management issues.
-
In an interview with the offender’s mother, it was confirmed that the offender had been displaying greater maturity since becoming a father and that since his arrest he had reduced and controlled his alcohol intake. Leading up to the index offence, the offender had been feeling increasingly anxious at the prospect of becoming a father. He was now enjoying the benefit of having full time employment which provided structure and routine to his life. The offender expressed pride in his achievements thus far.
-
The author noted that the offender was 18 years of age when the offence occurred. She described him as being:
“In the middle stages of neurocortical development where rapid developmental changes are taking place. Mr Gersbach had roughly seven more years before his brain was to fully develop, allowing for significant positive changes of the sort Mr Gersbach has demonstrated over the last two years since being arrested, charged and subject to strict bail conditions.”
-
The author recommended that:
“The offender should consult a psychologist and participate in psychological therapy with an emotion focus component to incorporate psycho-education and evidence based cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), together with mood and effect regulation techniques, focussing on anger management to ensure a continuation of the positive path he had commenced some two years ago.”
-
Exhibit 2 comprised three testimonials. The first, from Mr S McCreadie of R Marine Pittwater, dated 19 October 2018, was unsigned but spoke highly of the offender’s work ethic and personal values. A letter dated 30 August 2018 from Mr S Miller also spoke highly of the offender’s work ethic and his high motivation to learn more and perform at work. He described the offender as “mature, thoughtful, respectful and has a very sharp wit”. He was aware of the offences with which the offender had been charged and stated he was of the opinion that the offender has “a very promising future ahead of him”.
-
Thirdly, Ms M Welsh provided a letter dated 7 October 2018. She was a neighbour who had known the offender for approximately two years, and spoke highly of his commitment to his partner and children, and his desire to turn his life around for himself and his family.
-
Exhibit 3 comprised the defence response pursuant to s 143 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and a Statement of Agreed Facts pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995, evidencing that the offender had intended to limit the issues at the trial, and in particular, that he had admitted that he assaulted the victim occasioning actual bodily harm in company. This was evidence that went to the eventual discount the offender would receive for his plea of guilty and assisting the course of the administration of justice by restricting the issues in the trial, notwithstanding his late plea of guilty.
The offender’s evidence
-
The offender, who is now age 20 years, gave evidence under oath that he had told Mr Borenstein, the psychologist, the truth. He gave evidence that he had finished school in year 9 and had thereafter been floating between jobs, living with his mother, friends, and his grandmother.
-
The offender gave evidence of two previous serious offences. In January 2015 he had committed a robbery in company in circumstances where he was walking back from the beach with a friend who had robbed a person. The offender gave evidence that “I was just there”. He had been drinking since he was age 13 years, and alcohol had been involved in most of his criminal offending.
-
In August 2015, the offender was convicted of stealing from the person. He was on the L90 bus to Central and asked a person, who he knew, for $2.50 for his train fare home. Another person on the bus reported the incident, however, the offender insisted that he knew the person he asked for money. Notwithstanding that, he was sentenced to a Community Service Order for 40 hours, which he completed.
-
The offender gave evidence that on the day before the subject offence, on 7 December 2016, he was sentenced to a non-conviction bond pursuant to s 10 for damage to property at the Manly Court. He described a friend who had stolen his phone and locked it in his car and refused to return it. The offender had smashed the car window to retrieve his phone.
-
In respect of the subject offence, the offender gave evidence that he had been drinking all afternoon and had missed his ferry home to Ettalong. That meant that he had to go by train to Woy Woy. He had known the co-offender for a matter of months and they had both been drinking together. He had had nothing to do with the co-offender since.
-
The offender gave evidence that in December 2016 he had been drinking excessively on a daily basis. He would black out on occasions and wake up, not realising what he had done whilst he was intoxicated. On two occasions he had had his stomach pumped at hospital.
-
The offender gave evidence that his father had left his mother when he was age five, and had returned into his life when he was 16 years of age. However, he had a high regard for his step-father, Mr Adam Martin. Mr Martin had provided a surety for the offender. However, they had not had a strong connection in 2016. At the time of the offence, the offender gave evidence that his partner was pregnant and that he was “petrified”. She was still supportive of him and he was supporting her financially. After one day in custody he had been granted bail on strict conditions, that involved reporting seven days per week at Woy Woy Police Station and a curfew. He was unemployed at that time, however, he got a job within a few weeks at a marina in Newport. He had since signed a long-term contract and was working as Trades and Services Manager at the marina, responsible for anti‑fouling boats.
-
Following the offending, the offender had sought help from a counsellor and had attended six sessions. He now only drank socially and did not drink to intoxication.
-
The offender gave evidence that he understood the seriousness of the offending, and the prospect of a full-time custodial sentence being imposed on him. He had been saving money to ensure that his partner’s rent would be paid for a period of six months.
-
The offender apologised to the victim of the crime, saying he was genuinely sorry and remorseful. When asked whether he had a strong recollection of the events, he said “not at all”.
-
He had entered a plea of not guilty and had instructed his solicitor to plea bargain for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which he did not dispute. That was done to minimise issues including the agreed facts in Ex 3.
-
When asked about the interview with police, the offender said he did not admit to being involved because he was trying to stress that he did not steal stuff.
-
When asked about the CCTV footage, the offender expressed sheer embarrassment. He said he found it hard to watch and it was not the person who he was. He described the victim as “poor fellow”.
-
He had spoken to the author of the Sentence Assessment Report about the possibility of doing Community Service work, which was available on Saturdays. When asked how he had changed since he had committed the offence, he said ‘in all sorts of ways”. He said he had done everything he could to turn his life around. He was prepared to accept supervision, together with any conditions imposed on him and had nothing to do with his co-offender since the offence.
-
In cross-examination the offender admitted to drinking heavily since he was 13 years of age. He had also had problems with his mental health. He found alcohol to be an easy release for him. Following the offending, however, he had got a job within several weeks and had stopped drinking heavily. He had made every effort to address his drinking problem.
-
The offender said that he had learned a lot of long time life lessons about himself and about how to treat people in the community. Viewing the CCTV footage had just appalled him. He admitted that he had several opportunities during the incident to stop it, and he should have done a lot of things other than continue the offence.
-
The offender gave evidence that he had told his employer that he would face the possibility of a full-time custodial sentence, however, his employer had told him that he will always have a job. However, he could not guarantee that it would be in the same role.
Evidence of Mrs Ruth Wise, the offender’s mother
-
The offender’s mother gave evidence of his upbringing. Up until age 14 he had had a stable upbringing, notwithstanding that his father left when he was a young age. He left school after year 9 and was drinking heavily and according to his mother, seemed “very angry”. She described his friends as “not the best bunch”, who always found trouble. When he occasionally got work, the offender was stable, however, he only worked occasionally. In December 2016 she described him as “barely getting by”. He was not working, and alcohol was an issue. Further, he was under pressure because he was going to be a father. She had never heard of the co-offender OVB. Of his friends, she knew two who she described as “nice boys but trouble”.
-
She described the offender as being disappointed in his behaviour. On numerous previous occasions she had tried to get help for him, however, on this occasion, the offender arranged for his own counselling, for which she paid. He saw a counsellor, Mr Peter Foster, on five or six occasions and another counsellor, Mr McDonald on four to six occasions.
-
Mrs Wise saw changes in the offender in 2017. He had constant employment and she described him as “improving in leaps and bounds”. He is now dedicated to his job and has matured a great deal.
-
Mrs Wise gave evidence that he understood the potential for a full-time custodial sentence, given the seriousness of the offending. However, he had turned his life around and was trying to improve himself as a person and a father. He had insight into his offending and was extremely remorseful. He demonstrated empathy to the victim and had never shown that type of maturity before. Further, he had embraced his role as a father and she described him as “one of the best fathers I have seen”.
-
In cross-examination, Mrs Wise denied being a safety net for the offender, saying “I am his mum”. She would see him on one or two occasions per month, but they did talk all the time on the phone. She had spoken to him about the offence, for which he was remorseful, both to the victim and the impact it had had on his own family.
The offender’s submissions
-
Learned counsel for the offender submitted that for 680 days the offender had complied with strict bail conditions, reporting to Woy Woy Police Station on a daily basis and complying with a curfew between 8pm and 6am. They were onerous conditions amounting to quasi-custodial conditions.
-
Counsel conceded that the s 5 threshold had been passed. However, the offender was 18 years and 3 months at the time of the offending. Whilst it was a serious case of robbery in company, he had made a significant turnaround, and in particular had reduced his consumption of alcohol. This was described as a rare case of demonstrating a degree of maturity and development.
-
Counsel distinguished the sentencing of the co-offender OVB in the Children’s Court. On the question of parity, it was submitted that there were different jurisdictional issues. Further, the co-offender had been called up in respect of five breaches of separate bonds, whereas the offender had breached one s 10 bond. Whilst the offender was not disadvantaged in his upbringing, it was troubled and he had suffered behavioural issues leading him to leave school in year 9 and to abuse alcohol.
-
The offender’s late plea of guilty would entitle him to a discount of between 10 and 15%. It was submitted that he did try to negotiate a plea and that he admitted facts which demonstrated that his remorse and contrition were genuine. Applying principles of parity, it was submitted that a sentence of two years or less was appropriate and given his youth, he should be sentenced by way of an Intensive Correction Order. He had significant references in his favour and was prepared to accept conditions of Community Service, supervision, alcohol rehabilitation and anger management. His Sentencing Assessment Report had been positive.
-
In the event of a full time custodial sentence being imposed, counsel submitted that this was an appropriate case for special circumstances being found pursuant to s 44 of the CSPA. Otherwise, general deterrence and specific deterrence were important in the sentencing process.
The Crown submissions
-
The Crown submitted that this was an objectively serious offence for which Parliament had imposed a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. The offending was in the mid-range and general deterrence was important in the sentencing process.
-
The Crown submitted that it was an appropriate case for a full time custodial sentence with a period in custody to be served. The Crown conceded that the offender’s subjective case was one of “incredible progress”, and that was relevant to the court’s determination as to his prospects of rehabilitation. However, the impact of the offending on the community was paramount and the court had to apply principles of parity, notwithstanding the different sentencing regime for the co-offender who was sentenced to an effective term of a head sentence of 15 months and a non-parole period of 5 months.
-
The Crown conceded that youth was a factor to be taken into account in the sentencing process here.
Determination
-
Section 3A of the C(SP)A sets out the purposes of sentencing as follows:
“3A The purposes for which a Court may impose a sentence on an offender are as follows:
(a) To ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
(b) To prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,
(c) To protect the community from the offender,
(d) To promote the rehabilitation of the offender,
(e) To make the offender accountable for his or her actions,
(f) To denounce the conduct of the offender,
(g) To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.”
-
Having viewed the CCTV footage of the assault which commenced on Pennant Hills Station, and proceeded through the public concourse to the stairs, and then on Yarrara Street, Pennant Hills, where the victim was knocked unconscious and subsequently beaten by the offender and kicked by the co-offender, it is clear that this constituted objectively serious offending within the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The injuries suffered by the victim are an indication of the ferocity of the attacks upon him, which were cowardly and which involved the offender striking the victim from behind, rendering him unconscious, and then, notwithstanding that he first pulled the co-offender away from the victim while he was kicking him, the offender returned to further reign blows on the victim whilst he was unconscious on the ground.
-
I take into account the maximum penalty imposed by Parliament of 20 years imprisonment as a guidepost in the sentencing process here. General deterrence is also important, in that a clear message must be sent to the community that such wanton violence will not be tolerated by the community, and that Parliament has set harsh maximum penalties and the court will impose lengthy custodial sentences in appropriate cases.
-
Specific deterrence is also important in the sentencing process here, in that the offender must understand that such alcohol-fuelled violence is entirely unacceptable in this community.
-
I was impressed with the evidence of both the offender and his mother, Mrs Wise, in outlining the remarkable turnaround of this offender in the two years following this offence. The offence occurred in the early hours of the morning, the very day after he had been penalised by way of a s 10 bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months on a charge of damage/destroy property. The only explanation for the offending was that it was alcohol-fuelled. The offender had been abusing alcohol since 14 years of age and had only just turned 18 three months before the offending. I take into account his troubled upbringing, but more particularly, I give weight to the maturity that he has since shown in turning his life around, obtaining work, taking responsibility for his own family, but also I accept that he is remorseful for his conduct and the injuries that he caused to the victim.
-
I accept the offender’s remorse and contrition for his offending here. He has taken responsibility for his offending and has turned his life around. He has made quite remarkable progress with his rehabilitation, and notwithstanding that he may have overstated his advancement in the workplace, he has been in continual employment and has the support of his employer to continue that employment, while at the same time taking responsibility for looking after his own family. These are significant subjective factors to be taken into account here, against a background of the offender’s youth, immaturity and abuse of alcohol which led to the subject offending.
-
I find that the offender is entitled to a 15% utilitarian discount on sentence in respect of his plea of guilty, albeit that it was somewhat late. He did, however, make appropriate concessions as to the assault prior to trial.
-
The parity principle is described in Le v R [2017] NSWCCA 26 per Hoeben CJ at CL (Walton and Latham JJ agreeing) at [35]:
“The parity principle upon which the argument in this Court was mainly based is an aspect of equal justice. Equal justice requires that like should be treated alike but that, if there are relevant differences, due allowance should be made for them (see Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; 154 CLR 606 at 610-611, per Mason J). In the case of co-offenders, different sentences may reflect different degrees of culpability or their different circumstances. If so, the notion of equal justice is not violated. On some occasions, different sentences may indicate that one or other of them is infected with error: Lowe v The Queen at 617-618 per Brennan J. Ordinarily, correction of the error will result in there being a due proportion between the sentences and there will then be equal justice. However, the parity principle, as identified and expounded in Lowe v The Queen, recognises that equal justice requires that, as between co-offenders, there should not be a marked disparity which gives rise to ‘a justifiable sense of grievance’: (fLowe v The Queen esp. at 610 per Gibbs CJ; at 613 per Mason J; and at 623 per Dawson J.). If there is, the sentence in issue should be reduced, notwithstanding that it is otherwise appropriate and within the permissible range of sentencing options. Discrepancy or disparity is not simply a question of the imposition of different sentences for the same offence. Rather, it is a question of due proportion between those sentences, that being a matter to be determined having regard to the different circumstances of the co-offenders in question and their different degrees of criminality.” (Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; 189 CLR 295 at 301-302 per Dawson and Gaudron JJ).
-
Whilst roles played in the offending by the offender and his co-offender were equivalent, there are significant differences which have to be taken into account on sentence. First, the co-offender was sentenced pursuant to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. The co-offender was called up in relation to five separate bonds, and ultimately was sentenced to a non-parole period of 5 months in a juvenile facility. The offender, who was just three months older than the age of majority, was subject to one s 10 bond imposed the day before the subject offence. Further, his criminal record had one offence of robbery in company with no record of violent offences against persons.
-
Further, the offender’s rehabilitation is well advanced. He himself has sought out psychological treatment and has benefitted from it. I accept his mother’s evidence that he has turned his life around and he is now showing maturity, as well as taking responsibility for his own actions. I further accept that for almost two years he has been subject to very strict bail conditions which he has not breached. They included a residential condition, reporting daily to the Woy Woy Police (while holding down a full-time job and working seven days per week to make up lost time for the time it took him to report), and a nightly curfew. Those are quasi-custodial conditions which have to be taken into account.
-
I find the s 5 threshold has been crossed here and I am satisfied, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. Having regard to the 15% utilitarian discount on sentence and the subjective matters referred to above, an appropriate term would be 20 months imprisonment. However, I am satisfied that that sentence will be best served in the community to enable the offender to progress with his rehabilitation and to maintain his full-time employment. I therefore intend to impose an Intensive Correction Order pursuant to s 7 of the CSPA. It will be subject to the following conditions:
That he accept the supervision of Community Corrections for the term of the order.
That he accept any direction by Community Corrections as to rehabilitation, both for drug and alcohol abuse, relapse prevention and anger management issues.
That he remain under the care of his psychologist for such a period as the psychologist may determine appropriate.
You will be required to carry out 100 hours Community Service.
-
Otherwise, the standard conditions will apply pursuant to s 73 of the CSPA, which include a condition that the offender must not commit any offence.
Offence
-
I make the following orders:
You are convicted of the offence of robbery in company pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.
I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for a period of 20 months.
Pursuant to s 7(1) of the CSPA the sentence imposed on you is to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order to commence on 21 November 2018.
You are to report to Gosford Community Corrections within 7 days in order to comply with the Intensive Correction Order.
The standard conditions pursuant to s 73 are to apply:
You must not commit any offence; and
You must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections Officer.
The following additional conditions are to apply:
You are to accept any direction as to drug and alcohol rehabilitation and relapse prevention.
You are to accept any direction as to rehabilitation for anger management.
You are to remain under the care of your psychologist for such period as the psychologist may determine is appropriate
You are required to carry out 100 hours of Community Service.
**********
Decision last updated: 22 November 2018
2
4