R v El Hassan, George

[2009] NSWDC 233

CITATION:	R v El Hassan, George [2009] NSWDC 233
HEARING DATE(S):	08/05/2009, 22/06/2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	20 August 2009
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	s.12Good Behaviour Bond - Breach call-up/ Malicious wound - The breach of the section 12 bond proved. s.12 bond revoked. Sentenced to impriosnment - non-parole period of 12 months. Balance of term of 3 months . Robbery -Convicted -Sentenced to imprisonment - non-parole period of 22 months. Balance of term of 14 months. Refer the offender to the compulsory Drug Court for inclusion into the Compulsory Drug Treatment Centre.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentence - after trial - robbery - breach of s.12 good behaviour bond (suspended sentence) - victim at ATM - victim's head forced against ATM - victim becomes disoriented - $220 taken - offender in area waiting for opportunity for 7 minutes - submission causation drug dependence - rejected - offender poor historian - difficulties in accepting reports - Drug Court referral.
LEGISLATION CITED:	s.12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
CASES CITED:	R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329 R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 R v Palu v 134 A Crim R 174 R v Rause unreported NSWCCA 8 August 1992
PARTIES:	Regina George El Hassan
FILE NUMBER(S):	2007/21/0149; 2008/11/1149
COUNSEL:	Defence: D Shridhar
SOLICITORS:	Crown: Mr M Finlay O DPP

JUDGMENT
1. On 27 January 2009 George El Hassan was arraigned upon a charge that he had robbed Yan Li on 28 May 2008 at Redfern of $250. There was a lot more riding on any conviction for this offence than any sentence he might receive. Six and a half months earlier than the date of the robbery he had received a fifteen month suspended sentence. Upon conviction for a robbery he would be exposed to a revocation of the Section 12 Good Behaviour Bond and the subsequent activation of that fifteen month term of imprisonment.

2. The Crown case on the robbery charge was strong, nonetheless George El Hassan pleaded not guilty and put the Crown to proof as he was entitled to do. On 28 January the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. Today the offender is to be held accountable for his criminal involvement in the robbery and, as events have turned out, in the breach of the Section 12 Bond imposed by Judge Woods QC on 30 November 2007 for an offence of maliciously wounding a man, indeed a neighbour, named Naggar in the course of a street fight.

3. As sentencing Judge it falls to me to resolve a number of competing tensions as I strive to determine the appropriate sentence for this offence before this Court committed by this offender harming the victim he did in this community. My initial task requires an assessment of the objective criminality of the offence before the Court. I will also need to have regard to matters personal to the offender, subjective matters.

4. The starting point for such assessments requires a sentencing Judge to make findings of fact from the evidence that was before the jury consistent with their verdict, and facts before the Court relating to the offender. The facts that I may find arising from the offence are not necessarily the most favourable facts that I can find from the jury’s verdict, but rather upon my view of the offence and in recognition of the jury verdict, facts that I deem appropriate to find.

5. The offender’s rehabilitation prospects will have to be assessed even if looking through a glass darkly. Before any sentence can be made there are technical questions relating to deterrence, whether special circumstances are to be found and of course the ultimate length of term of imprisonment or other penalty that is to be imposed. What weight needs to be given to all of these matters against an imperative that all sentencing should have as its primary focus the protection of the community will also need to be determined. See R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329, R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597 and R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740.

Facts
6. The Commonwealth Bank has a branch in Redfern Street, Redfern. On the street façade of that branch are located two ATM machines. Each has, as part of its security system, a camera installed internally within the machine, situate at a height to take photographs of faces and upper torsos of those using the machine. In so doing it will often take photographs that show objects within the forward viewing range of the camera’s lens, indeed objects across the road. There is a third camera installed above the machines. Its lens is capable of capturing images of persons in or approaching what I might call the “vestibule” area in front of the two ATM’s.

7. On 25 August 2008 the cameras were taking and recording images so that at the very least every five seconds the area of the ATM was recorded by these three cameras. Police retrieved a record of all activity captured by the cameras trained on the ATM area for a period commencing 2:14:04pm and concluding 2:44:56pm for 25 May. Apparently selected from that group was a number of photos covering the period 2:23:21 until 2:30:57pm. Those photos show that for more than seven minutes the offender must have remained in the immediate vicinity of the ATM’s or nearby. By that I mean that he was not always in the focus of the camera, but he was there sufficiently frequently to suggest that when he was not in focus he was not far away.

8. At 2:30:11pm he is almost immediately in front of one of the ATMs. At the same time Ms Li has her face pressed against the glass screen of the ATM she is in front of. The photo at 2:30:12 shows the offender in the area of the ATMs. The photo taken at 2:30:34 shows Christian Prokash at his car looking across Redfern Street to the ATM. Another photo taken at the same time shows the offender moving, it would seem at some speed away from the area to his right side of the area.

9. Miss Li and Mr Prokash fill in the gaps left by the photos. The jury must have accepted the account of each. Miss Li approached the ATM machine intending to withdraw $270. She approached the ATM on the right hand side, the offender was to her left. As the machine dispensed the money to her she was hit on the head just forward of her left ear and above the hairline with sufficient force for her head to hit the glass panel above the dispensing mechanism. She turned around, perhaps momentarily, disoriented. A bank note became dislodged from the delivery chute, it was a twenty dollar note and was seen falling through the air by Mr Prokash. It was later seen on the ground by Miss Li. The other five (I assume) notes of $50 were taken by the offender.

10. Miss Li was distressed rubbing her hair and having difficulty speaking. The offender de-camped to the left of the machine. I still think it is to the right but it might have been to the left as the machine took the photo.

11. I am satisfied his purpose in lurking near the machines for some seven minutes was that he was waiting for an opportunity to do the very thing he ultimately did, that is to grab the money from the machine as it was delivered to a bank customer.

12. Two minutes before the robbery, Maria Ayoub(?) was drawing money from the machine. She noticed the offender close to her. She took her money and confronted the offender. She said to him: “What do you want?” He replied: “I want to ask you for the time.” She told him to go away. The photo taken at 2:19:19pm shows the offender very much in her “personal space” with his left arm so close to Miss Ayoub that his hand could well be touching her. Such conduct appears inconsistent with an innocent inquiry as to the time. One second later they are further apart. I am satisfied that is because Miss Ayoub moved backwards. See her arms, they are behind her.

13. The offender did not give evidence. His case simply was that while he was seen in the vicinity it was not he who committed the robbery. His case is that he was doing no more than looking around in the area. The victim described the attacker in terms that may have excluded the offender and identification was an issue in the trial. However the jury determined otherwise, that is to say the jury determined that Miss Li’s description was not an accurate one.

Objective Criminality
14. From the facts as he finds them to be the sentencing Judge is required to assess the objective criminality of the offences as an essential step in assessing the seriousness of the criminal behaviour of the offender. That is done by comparing objectively the criminality exhibited in the instant case, that is in this case, with criminality of offences of a similar kind, that is other robberies. It is in this way that the objective seriousness of the criminality of this offence is evaluated. The objective criminality quite obviously has a very important impact upon the overall sentencing outcome.

15. Chief Justice Gleeson when presiding in New South Wales encapsulated the essence of the legal wrong or the criminality done by robbers and the reason why substantial punishment is required in the R v Rause unreported NSWCCA 8 August 1992. His Honour said:

“One of the primary purpose of the system of criminal justice is to keep the peace. In this connection the idea of peace embraces the freedom of ordinary citizens to walk the streets and to go about their daily affairs without fear of physical violence. It also embraces respect for the property of others. Offences of the kind committed by the present [offender] are not trivial instances of disrespect of private property, they are serious breaches of the peace, they are direct attacks upon the security of the person and the property which the law exists to protect.”

16. That is to say it is a double pronged attack. One upon the person and the other upon the person’s property. That is why the law views robbery as a serious offence. Robbery is only accomplished by the violence of an offender towards his victim or the threat of violence towards his victim of such magnitude that the victim is willing to forego his custody over the property which may be his or may be someone else’s but in his care. In this case the overbearing of the will of Miss Li to possess her property was violence rather than a threat of violence. The force used in the robbery was a single blow to the left temple region. It had sufficient force to knock her into the ATM, but not sufficient force to otherwise unbalance her. She remained on her feet throughout. The violence in that sense is towards the lower range. The person targeted was a woman, predictably physically weaker than the offender. She was alone. In that sense she was vulnerable, but her vulnerability was not such as to constitute a statutory aggravating feature. Had she been more aged or perhaps infirm the vulnerability would have been of such an order.

17. The offence was being contemplated by the offender for a full seven minutes. In that sense it was clearly pre-conceived. The method by which the robbery was to be accomplished mush have been worked out at least to the extent that the offender recognised force would be needed in order to divert the attention of the victim or to secure the money when first delivered by the ATM.

18. It cannot, however, be said the offence was planned in any sophisticated way.

19. The loot taken was limited to money. Street robberies often include the taking of a handbag and contents, that is not this case. The sum taken was also relatively small. In so far as the planning is concerned it will be noted that I disagree with defence counsel’s concession to the contrary. It is not difficulty to imagine any time a robbery, even an opportunistic one is undertaken that some thought or forethought is necessary, but the level of planning contemplated by s21A (2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act requires more than forethought or simply waiting.

20. The impact upon the victim was to cause her immediate distress to the point of having difficulty speaking. Robberies often cause a lingering sense of trauma and on occasion post-traumatic stress disorder. While there is no evidence before me to prove post-traumatic stress disorder, I am prepared to find there was a strong sense of trauma and that that sense of trauma lingered for some time, although its duration could not be pinpointed. I can do no more than assume it was for a relatively short period.

21. By its objective facts this offence falls towards the lower range of criminality associated with crimes such as this. However to that assessment of the objective criminality is the aggravation occasioned by its being committed whilst the offender was on a Section 12 Good Behaviour Bond in lieu of serving a fifteen-month sentence of imprisonment. The fifteen-month sentence was suspended conditional upon him agreeing to be of good behaviour. There were other conditions to assist him in achieving good behaviour. His breach of his undertaking to the Court and obviously his breach of the bond constitutes aggravation of the objective criminality of the offence I am dealing with.

22. Defence counsel seeks a finding the offence is motivated by drug dependency. His difficulty is there is no evidence in support of this proposition that there was any caused or link between the offender’s drug addiction and his unlawful taking of the $250. The offender certainly did not give evidence to that effect. He told Dr Richard Furst, a psychiatrist retained by the defence, in June of 2009: “That he was with his son celebrating his son’s birthday on the day he was accused of robbing the victim and was angry about the trial”. That statement seems to be a retraction of the concession at the trial he was in the area at the time of the robbery. He also told Dr Furst that he was using illicit drugs on “a couple of occasions and both benzodiazepines and Panadeine Forte on a more regular basis, however, he maintained attendance at Clinic 36 for his methadone supply of up to 70 milligrams per day”. Those disclosures to Dr Furst, if accepted, do not establish any causative link that would justify a finding as sought by defence counsel.

23. That does not mean that the offender’s drug abuse is not something to be considered in the subjective matters.

24. In March of 2009 in consulting with Cherise Ciepulcha, a psychologist working with Lennings Seidler Collins, he said he was present at the offence but denied taking the money from the victim or coming into physical contact with her. Again a denial of involvement coupled with an absence of any material supporting a nexus between his drug use and his violence crime precludes a mitigatory finding that his drug dependency played some role in his criminal conduct. While in the circumstances of this case there is no evidence supporting of the objective criminality as a result of any direct causative nexus between the offence and drugs, I would still find the offence was related or connected to his long term drug dependency and associated lifestyle.

25. El Hassan has a significant criminal record to which I will shortly come. I note here however, that I reject the defence submission that his criminal history constitutes and aggravating feature of his objective criminality. He is certainly disentitled to leniency on account of his record and it may impact adversely upon any assessment of his rehabilitation prospects, but it is not appropriate to regard this particular record as constituting an aggravating feature of the objective criminality pursuant to s21A (2)(d) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

26. My overall review of the objective criminality is to find the objective criminality falls towards the lower end, although aggravated upwards on account of the breach of conditional liberty.

Subjective Matters

27. I turn now to the subjective factors I am both entitled and required to do that. Not only am I sentencing for the criminal offence but I am also sentencing this offender for it. Each offender coming before the Court varies from other offenders who stand or have stood for sentence. Circumstances personal to an offender may offer to the Court some explanation and insight into the commission of this offence by him or some reason why a more or a less sentencing outcome is appropriate.

28. The subjective features are gleaned from forensic reports prepared by two psychiatrists and a psychologist. I am conscious of the observations of the CCA (eg. R v Palu v 134 A Crim R 174) that I must exercise care in giving weight to self-serving matters arising from such reports in the absence of oral evidence from the offender. That is particularly appropriate in this case.

Family Background and Relationships

29. The offender is aged thirty-two. He is one of seven siblings born in Australia of Lebanese parents. There were four brothers and two sisters. He claims a supportive family upbringing, a caring and supportive family environment. If that is true then events appear to have overtaken him. He left home aged thirteen, an unusual feature in a strongly supportive family environment, to live with a sister. One of his brothers was murdered, is currently in custody and at least another one other has been in custody. His “best friend” is one of his brothers.

30. The father had returned to Lebanon to participate in family mourning for a deceased relative and felt unable to return because of ill health. When hearing news of the demise of the murdered son, the father suffered a severe stroke and died. El Hassan who was the second youngest child was devastated by the death of the older brother and the father said to have occurred on the same day. At the time El Hassan was twenty-one. He still has grief issues arising from this.

31. El Hassan presented to Miss Ciepulcha as engaged to his present partner. He says the relationship commenced fifteen years ago. He says to Miss Ciepulcha they have a twelve-year-old son. I have already made reference to that son. However he appears to have told Dr Allnutt in November of 2007 he was a single man with no children. He presented to Dr Allnutt as having had two long-term relationships, initially a girlfriend of seven years and in 2007 the current one involved in a relationship of six years who was said to be supportive. A Miss McKenna, I think it was, gave evidence before Woods DCJ, I have assumed she is his partner. Her evidence in 2007 was the relationship was ongoing and she continues to be supportive. But it does not appear that she has been able to be contacted by probation and parole for confirmation of any of the history given by El Hassan while his sister and others do appear to be capable of being contacted.

32. It would seem the offender is an unreliable historian. However the probation and parole service prepared a full background pre-sentence report for Woods DCJ in November of 2007. In preparing this report they contacted the offender’s sister and a personal support program worker but not his claimed partner. On the basis of that report I was prepared to accept he had a son.

33. Having already prepared those remarks on family history from the various reports, I was this morning given a pre-sentence report prepared for 3 April 2009, it contains the following:

“Mr El Hassan reported to this service that he was particularly close to his father and one older brother, both are now deceased. The offender stated that his life changed when he was nineteen years old due to the murder of his brother and death of his father.” (I pause here to note that he says to others that occurred when he was twenty-one).

“He stated that his father did not cope with the news of his brother’s death and gave up his battle with an illness and died a short time later. It was confirmed via interviews with the offender’s family that his brother was murdered and that his father death followed in the subsequent years.

At the time of the offender’s brother’s death Mr El Hassan was approximately fourteen years old and because of the age gap between his brother and himself the length of time the brother spent in custody and the lack of contact that his brother had with his family, their relationship was not incrementally close.

It was mentioned throughout the phone interview with the offender’s family that he often distorts the truth and that his family do not trust the information he provides them with”.

34. I think I read elsewhere that the father died seven years afterwards. Thus it’s difficult to assess the relationship and the impacts of events within the family upon him. Indeed the inaccurate reporting may itself be a consequence of the trauma or may be some manipulation by him. I am certainly not in any position to know.

Education, Employment and Skills

35. He has told the professionals that he left school part way through Year 11. On his account he did not encounter significant learning, social and behavioural difficulties during his early school years. He claimed satisfactory grades. There was a significant sporting accident resulting in a broken jaw and loss of hearing in the left ear. He claims memory and concentration difficulties arising from the accident. However there is nothing before the Court other than the history given to the professionals that is capable of establishing any traumatic brain injury at the time his jaw was broken. Nonetheless, the loss of hearing to the left ear may well have had a detrimental impact upon his abilities to function in an educating environment because of the diminution in hearing capacity. But there is no evidence as to what that diminution is and whether there has been any compensation of it from the other ear.

36. As often happens he found high school more demanding, began to associate with negative peers, became behaviourally difficulty, disruptive and non-complaint. He was truanting towards the end, he was smoking on school grounds and fighting. It is likely his intellectual capacity for academic work is impaired and probably has always been impaired. His work choices involved manual labour. Included among past employment are roof tiling, ground maintenance, brick laying, painter and air-conditioner repairer. In respect of that last occupation, he has expressed an interest in returning to it upon release. The time of appearance before Woods DCJ his income stream was sourced from NewStart Centrelink benefits. He was participating in the personal support program. His caseworker with that program reported that at that time he had been fully participating in their program having recently undertaken a number of courses with a view to finding employment. The most recent pre-sentence report again throws some doubt upon some of the matters that he has told the professionals, but time does not permit of a more close analysis of that in respect of his working history.

General Health

37. He is a drug abuser. His general appearance confirms that fact. He looks older than his thirty-two years. His other most significant medical problem is loss of hearing in the left ear. As I say the extent of that disability is not clearly made before me. He suffers headaches, sees stars in front of his eyes from time to time, he also experiences dizziness and physical tension.

Mental Health Issues

38. He complains of restless sleep and weird dreams. Dr Furst found he is still deeply affected by the deaths of his brother and father earlier referred to. He suffers from depressed mood, poor sleep, anxiety, panic attacks and hears voices of deceased relatives that are thought to be part of the pathological grief reaction. Reviewing the history given to Dr Furst by the offender, it is difficult to resist a finding of paranoia in terms of those he was interacting with during the period he was on the bond. From the forensic reports provided it would appear he experiences depression. There is a history of interpersonal aggression and difficulties managing emotion. Dr Furst’s diagnosis include opioid and cocaine dependence, adjustment disorder and depressed mood. Dr Furst also notes borderline personality traits. It is also likely there is cannabis dependence, that is a poly-drug dependence.

39. This offender’s cognitive assessment indicates an intellectually low functioning man with compromised functioning aggravated from other sources, drug abuse, unresolved grief, depression, difficulties managing emotion.

Character and Criminal History

40. El Hassan is a poorly functioning thirty-two year old long term unemployed poly-drug abuser. He has impaired intellect verging, on one account, to borderline intellectually disabled and mental health issues. He is vulnerable psychologically. It is likely he has limited supports in the community. There is a past history of employment in the manual labouring work. He has a long association with the criminal justice system starting in his adolescence in 1990 with a malicious damage matter, 1992 there were break enter and steal, assault and possession of offensive implement. 1993 armed robbery in-company, 1994 assault, being unlawfully carried in a conveyance. 1995 break enter and steal, assault police, stealing, driving offences. 1997 marks his first appearance in the District Court with robbery in-company, there was also a resist arrest, carried unlawfully in a conveyance. 1998 carried unlawfully in conveyance. 2001 aggravated break enter and steal. He was before the Drug Court as I read the record on two other break enter and steal that same year. 2002 there was an assault, a break and enter with intent. 2004 shoplifting times two. 2006 larceny and possessing a prohibited drug. 2007 goods in custody and malicious wound. As an adult El Hassan has been sentenced to imprisonment on eight occasions. On two of those in 2007 the sentence was suspended. Since 1998 he has served on my calculation more than three years in prison.

Attitude to Offence

41. The offender denies any involvement in the robbery. While he is said to understand the impact of violence upon the victim, he still denies responsibility for that violence. In those circumstances making a finding of any contrition is impossible.

Rehabilitation Prospects

42. El Hasssan’s rehabilitation prospects, absent any serious intervention program, are dismal. To the extent his past record is indicative of future conduct the outlook is bleak. While it appears he has attempted rehabilitation in the past, including the Drug Court program, none has succeeded. He has long term unemployment issues, although there is a suggestion of past work history extending to his mid twenties. A positive note is his effort in 2007 with the personal support program. He has no accommodation. There are stressors between some of his family and himself. The status or involvement of his claimed partner is unclear. Whilst in custody he has been subject to two charges for breach of discipline, one in July of last year, failed to attend muster, and one in the same day, disobey a direction for which he received two days in the cells and fourteen days off amenities. On the other hand whilst he has been in custody he has also self referred to alcohol and other drug services.

43. There can be little doubt El Hassan needs close oversighting and supervision during his post-release period. Absent structured release programs, he is in real danger of becoming an entrenched recidivist.

44. This is complicated by the need to deal with this offender for the breach of the Section 12 Bond given by Woods DCJ. The facts of that offence are set out in his Honour’s judgment:

“The offender lived in a complex in south Granville near to the victim a Mr John Naggar. They knew each other and there had been some friction between them. On February 2007 the victim was standing outside his unit and El Hassan and his partner Cheryl McKenna were walking along Chiswick Road involved in an argument. Mr Naggar intruded himself into that argument and the offender threatened him. Naggar placed himself between McKenna and El Hassan and there was a fight.

During the course of the course of the fight the offender ended up on the roadway with the victim on top of him. The offender struggled and the victim ended up lying on the roadway with the offender standing over him. During the course of the struggle the contents of Mr Naggar’s pockets became dislodged, including a wallet, a set of keys, a small folding knife and some coins. El Hassan picked up one of the items on the ground and was seen making repeated punching motions towards Naggar with a silver object in his hand. The object was either the small pocket knife or the keys…

[There was] a slight cut to the face of Naggar and there were other wounds as well. A linear wound behind the knee joint and a few other minor wounds. The offender was also injured behind the ear and on the shoulder”.

45. The conditions of the bond were designed to assist the offender rehabilitate. They included, one, to be of good behaviour, two, to accept supervision and guidance and comply with all reasonable directions of Probation and Parole during the term of the bond, three, to reside at Foster House or in community housing approved by Probation and Parole, and four, continue methadone program to the satisfaction of Probation and Parole.

46. The breaches that have been notified are that he was charged with and now convicted of the offence of robbery on 25 May 2008; he failed to reside at Foster House or Probation and Parole Service approved housing, and he failed to continue on the methadone program to the satisfaction of Probation and Parole. It is not difficult to see the importance of each of those conditions to advancing the offender’s rehabilitation. His breach of them undermines his stability and the consequence flowing from that was his re-offending. In respect of the fifteen month sentence, his Honour did not set a non-parole period, I shall do so now. The non-parole period will be twelve months and the balance of term will be fifteen [as said] months.

Custodial History

47. The offender appears to have been in continuous custody since 2 July 2008 when bail was refused in this matter.

Deterrence

48. Given that I am satisfied the offender’s intellectual impairment is described as “very low cognitive ability”, deterrence will play a much more muted part in the sentence I seek.

Sentencing

49. El Hassan I find the breaches of the Section 12 Good Behaviour Bond given to you by Judge Woods to be proved. I revoke the Section 12 Bond. I sentence you to a non-parole period of twelve months to date from 2 July 2008 and to expire on 1 July 2009. That sentence is already served.

50. There is an additional term or a balance of sentence to expire on 1 October 2009. The overall sentence I am setting for the robbery is one of three years. I find special circumstances. The sentence however will be cumulative to the twelve month non-parole period I just imposed. For the offence that you on 25 May 2008 at Redfern did rob Yan Li of $250 I convict you and sentence you to a non-parole period of twenty-two months to commence on 2 July 2009 and to expire on 1 May 2011. I find special circumstances. I set a balance of term of fourteen months to expire on 1 July 2012.

Drug Court Referral

51. I refer this offender to the Drug Court for inclusion or for consideration of inclusion into the compulsory Drug Treatment Centre at Park Lea. I am satisfied the unexpired portion of his sentence exceeds eighteen months. I am satisfied in the proceeding five years at least two and probably three of the offences for which he was given imprisonment reflect or are related to his drug use, long entrenched drug history and lifestyle. In particular I note the goods in custody charge of 1 July 2006 and the malicious wound charge of September 2007.

52. The basis of the ill-feeling between John Naggar and the offender related to the stealing from Naggar of seventy dollars and Naggar perhaps coming to a view that the offender may have been involved because of his offer to re-pay that money. I have no doubt that Naggar formed the view he did because of the offender’s lifestyle. There are shoplifting offences falling just outside the five year period that reinforce the long term nature of the lifestyle and offending relating to drug addiction. I also note that the consequence of the effects of drugs upon his psyche and lifestyle would have impacted upon the offender firstly arguing with his partner and secondly his responding to any intervention by Naggar with violence.

53. I order that copies of Dr Allnutt, Dr Furst and Miss Ciepulcha’s reports be attached to the warrant and made available to Corrective Services. I order that they also be referred to the Drug Court.

54. In the event the offender is found not to be a suitable candidate for the compulsory drug program I recommend to the custodial authority serious consideration of the recommendations made by Miss Ciepulcha towards the last pages of her report commencing at paras 47, 48 and 49. I order a copy of that judgment be published as soon as possible so that it can be referred to the Drug Court and to the Corrective Services.