R v Green
[2021] ACTSC 13
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
| Case Title: | R v Green |
| Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 13 |
| Hearing Date: | 3 February 2021 |
| Decision Date: | 3 February 2021 |
| Before: | Murrell CJ |
| Decision: | The offender is sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, with an effective nonparole period of two years’ imprisonment. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Threat to kill – Unlawful confinement – Damage property – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Use carriage service to menace, |
| harass or offend | |
| Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.17(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 403 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 35 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 30, 34 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A(2), 19AC(4)(b) |
| Cases Cited: | R v Avery [2018] ACTSC 64; [2018] ACTCA 57 R v Ayuel [2020] ACTSC 213 R v Barlow [2017] ACTSC 90 R v Froome [2018] ACTSC 152 R v Sanderson [2016] ACTSC 277 R v Stott (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 6 September 2011) Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 |
| Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Timothy James Green (Offender) |
| Representation: | Counsel |
| P Dixon (Crown) R Thomas (Offender) | |
| Solicitors | |
| ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) | |
| Paul Edmonds & Associates (Offender) | |
| File Number(s): | SCC 127, 128 of 2020 |
| MURRELL CJ: | |
| Introduction |
1. The offender is to be sentenced for the following offences:
(a) Count 1: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
(b) Count 2: Threat to kill, contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(c) Count 3: Unlawful confinement, contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(d) Count 4: Damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $160,000, 10 years’ imprisonment, or both.
(e) Count 5: Use a carriage service to menace/harass/offend, contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment.
2. The offender has been in custody since he was arrested on 17 April 2020.
3. On 19 August 2020, he entered pleas of guilty at a criminal case conference. Having regard to the factors in s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act), the appropriate discount for the pleas is 20 per cent.
Facts.
4. The complainant had known the offender for approximately four years, and they were friends.
5. In February 2019, the complainant separated from his wife and, with his dog Rollo, moved to stay in the garage of a house in Gowrie where the offender lived with his mother and teenage daughter.
6. On 12 April 2020, the offender discovered text messages between the complainant and his teenage daughter on the daughter's mobile telephone. The text messages suggested that the complainant had supplied the offender's daughter with methylamphetamine.
7. The offender concluded that the complainant had been grooming his daughter to engage in a sexual relationship. He became furious and decided to confront the complainant. He was particularly sensitive to the possibility of grooming because of his understanding that his daughter had previously been subjected to a sexual assault (by someone other than the offender).
Offending on 12 April 2020 (Counts 1–4)
8. At about 12 AM on 12 April 2020, the complainant fell sleep in his swag on a mattress in the garage.
9. At about 2 AM, he was awoken by the offender entering the garage and illuminating the lights. The offender was holding a 1.2 metre wooden axe handle raised above his shoulder, ready to strike down.
10. The offender used the axe handle to strike the complainant to the front of his legs. The
complainant screamed, “Tim, what are you doing!”. The offender replied, “you better
shut the fuck up, you better start telling me what I want to hear, I know what you are, I
have got the proof”. The complainant was confused. The offender said, “That look of
fucking content, that will be gone soon enough, I will cut your fucking face off”.
The offender continued to strike the complainant’s legs with the axe handle, causing
him to bleed through his thermal pants and cargo trousers.
12. The offender then sat on a stool in front of the complainant and began to abuse him,
stating that the complainant’s dog was sneaky like the complainant and that, had it
been the offender’s dog, it would have defended the complainant.
13. The offender produced a large Rambo-style hunting knife, about 50 centimetres in length, with a wooden handle and a 20-centimetre blade. He held the knife close to
the complainant’s face and repeatedly threatened that he would put the knife through
the complainant’s guts and slice his face off. The complainant was afraid and believed
that the offender would cause serious harm to him.
The offender told the complainant that he had cloned the complainant’s telephone and
knew everything about him. The offender said that he had text messages showing that the complainant was a paedophile, who was grooming his daughter and had been texting her. The offender asked the complainant how he would feel if someone had behaved in that way to his own daughter. The complainant began to feel sick with
concern for his daughter’s safety. The offender also accused the complainant of
stealing drugs from him and called him a “paedophile thieving cunt”.
15. The offender then jabbed the knife towards the complainant as though to stab him. He
said, “There is no way of you getting out of here without you going to hospital at best or in the boot of my car”. Each time that the offender jabbed the knife towards the
complainant, the complainant believed that he would be stabbed.
16. As morning approached, the offender stated that things had to be wrapped up soon. He started to heat a bowl of engine oil at the fireplace. The fireplace was 1.5 metres away from where the complainant was seated in his swag. The complainant was terrified and thought that he would be incinerated.
The offender said he would put a silenced slug (bullet) into the complainant’s head, to
make sure no one could hear him scream. The complainant believed that he would be
shot and killed.18. The offender demanded that the complainant start owning up to stealing from him and
talking to his daughter, failing which he would kill the complainant’s dog. The offender lifted the complainant’s dog, Rollo, by the scruff of its neck. He held the knife to the dog’s throat while saying, “I’m going to cut his fucking head off”. The complainant
feared that the offender would do so.
19. The offender told the complainant that he had already thought of things that he would tell people if they searched for the complainant, and that no one would find his body because he would cut it into pieces and bury them in a variety of locations.
20. During the ordeal, the complainant did not believe that he would escape with his life, as the offender was holding the axe handle and knife, had assaulted him with the axe handle, had made stabbing motions with the knife, and had repeatedly made threats to kill him and dispose of his body. Further, the rear yard was locked and there was a two-metre-high fence surrounding the premises.
21. The complainant was confined in the garage by the offender for four to five hours.
22. The offender then offered the complainant the option of going to the hospital or leaving his property immediately. The complainant chose to go to the hospital. The
complainant made his way slowly to the offender’s red Ford Falcon. The offender
placed the axe handle in the car boot.
23. At about 7:30 AM, the offender dropped the complainant at the Canberra Hospital. The
offender said to the complainant, “That’s a nasty bike accident you had, didn’t you, you better not fucking go to the cops”. The offender also told the complainant that he must
start to make himself useful to the offender. The complainant reassured the offender
that he would not inform the police.24. The complainant sustained a full thickness laceration to his mid-right shin with arterial bleeding. The injury was associated with swelling and bruising. The wound was
sutured under local anaesthetic. Redness was observed to the complainant’s right
kneecap. Bruising was observed over his left knee cap. X-rays of both legs revealed
soft tissue swelling and significant fluid build-up.
Following the incident, the offender burned the complainant’s clothing that had been
left at the offender’s residence.
26. After burning the complainant’s clothing, the offender sent the complainant text
messages, telling him that he had done so.
27. Later, the offender told police that he had burned the complainant’s clothes because
the complainant had interfered with his daughter.
Offending on 13, 14 and 16 April 2020 (Count 5)
28. At 8:23 PM on 13 April 2020, the complainant received a text message from the offender, saying:
I’m now having a bonfire with all your shit, cunt I told you to be thinking how you can be of
use to be because champ it aint over LOL FUCK NO! Last night was just a preview, an entrée, a simple, a brief introduction to the world you can now expect. If u not useful in any
way I’ll just proceed straight to the tormenting, the hurting, the destroying the fucking u and
punishing u and breaking u again and again over and over relentlessly in every conceivable sadistic way I can image for the rest of your sad sad (oh BTW god was being a cunt when
he made uhey what a prick) pathetic life you parasite cunt. I own u cunt, it’s be useful or be
tomentes
29. At 8:25 PM, the complainant received a text message from the offender, stating:
Ps: you got till the weekend income up with $1000 In cash to pay for the 7 you stole or im
REALLY GUNA SLAP U + provide … with your try hard pedo pathetic GROOMING txts and
other info
30. At 8:26 PM, the complainant received a text message from the offender, stating:
Mate the only think u b selling to … is ur arse
31. On 14 April 2020 at 3:08 PM, the complainant received a text message from the offender, stating:
Now I told you to spend your convslesence period identifying how you can be of use to me,
cuz if u not torment and torture is the only ongoing use I’ll have4 u, just bcz I can and doing
so will amuse me.
…
Do u think that was smart dikhead? Let’s put it this way, I’m guna do some work on your
upper body when I see u next to demonstrate my gratitude
32. At about 3:17 PM, the complainant received a text message from the offender, stating:
KEEP UPSETTING ME TO THEIVING LIEING ROCKSPIDER JUNKY CUNT ILK KEEL COMING UP WITH MORE AND MORE BETTER AND BETTER WAYS OF FUCKING MAKING YIUR EXISTENCE NITHINGBUT MISERY AND PAIN REPEAT AND SWING YOURSELF WILDLY FROM THE CLOSEST APPROPRIATE CONVENIENT OBJECT BUT REMEMBER UL BE USING UYOUR NECK TO HOLD ON
33. At 4:03 PM, the complainant received a text message from the offender, stating:
CONGRATULATIONS ON BECOMING A CLOSET SMACKY HOOORAY!!...A genuine
CRACKY, SMACKY, ROCKY!!34. At 4:34 PM, the complainant received another text message:
BTW2: Now we all know yiur a motherfucking retard halfwitted dumb ass truly fucking stuoid
individual WITHOUT DOUBT, but you’re a fucking absolutely hilarious funny fuk aswell…
YOURBOWN CHILDS ORRIFICES EXAMINED BECAUSE ITS HIGHLIGHLY LIKELY GIVEN ALL THAT TIME AT HOME WITH HER OVER THE YEARS THAT YOU WERE ALMOST CERTAINLY STICKING THAT TINY LITTLE COCK OF YOURS IN ALL 3 OF YOUR OWN LITTLE GIRLS HOLES EVERY CHANCE YOU GOT WERENT U YA SICK PEDO CUNT. YOU PROBLEY JUST FED HER VALIUM INSTEAD OF UR USUAL METH THAT YIU SUPPLY TO ALL THE OTHER UNDERAGE KIDS YOU GROOM U SICK PIECE OF KIDDY FIDDLING SHIT YOU
35. At about 3:17 PM, the complainant received the following text message:
If you don’t have a 1000 cash 4nme by Friday lunchtime this week to cover the 7 u stole u
Rocky cunt, IM GUNA BLEED YA, WORSE IM GUNA MAKE THAT RETARDED RACHEL CUNT MY NEW BFF AND PROVIDE HWR WITH SO MUCH INFO AND EVIDENCE I GUARANTEE YOU WILL NEVER ANY CHILD CALL U DADDY EVER AGAIN, LEAST OF ALL YOUR OWN
36. On 15 April 2020, the complainant was granted an interim personal protection order against the offender.
37. On 16 April 2020 at 3:30 PM, the complainant received a text message from the offender stating:
Here’s the problem you crack head lieing smacky ROCKSPIDER they read it grooming txts
so they know what it all about.
…
Well if u don’t have my 1000 tomorrow, u never see us dog again + I make Rachel my new
best friend and the whole world will know exactly what u r
38. At 7:51 PM, the complainant received a further text message from the offender, stating:
6.00pm tomorrow night cunt, $1,000 not a cent less or u don’t c is dog again + I’ll be knocking
on Rachel’s door by 7pm, and that’s just for starters you filthy smacky cracky lieing dumb
bottom feeding ROCKSPIDER cunt. 6pm cocksucker, 6pm
39. The complainant did not respond to any of the text messages.
On 17 April 2020, police attended the offender’s residence to arrest him and execute
search warrants for the premises and the offender’s red Ford Falcon. In the vehicle,
police located a large hunting knife matching the description given by the complainant.
41. Police searched the offender’s bedroom and drug paraphernalia was located
throughout. They located the complainant’s dog at the offender’s residence, and it was
collected by the complainant.
42. In a record of interview, the offender made limited admissions to police.
Victim impact statement
43. The complainant was subjected to a terrifying event and then menaced by text messages, which must have compounded the psychological injury that he experienced.
Since the incident, every aspect of the complainant’s life has been affected. He suffers
from mental health issues and needs to see a psychologist. The incident has affected
his relationships and ability to look for work. He never feels safe.45. The complainant is now homeless and couch surfing. The threats made by the offender have made it more difficult for the complainant to see his daughter, as his ex-wife fears for her safety. The inability to see his daughter is taking a serious toll on the complainant.
46. Physically, the complainant continues to suffer pain associated with the injuries to his knees. The pain affects his sleep and ability to ride a bicycle (previously his primary mode of transport). It limits the play activities in which he can engage with his daughter.
47. The complainant relies on his mother to help him buy even the basics of life.
Objective seriousness
Unlawful confinement
48. The period of unlawful confinement was approximately four to five hours.
49. The confinement was attended by physical threats (including the wielding of a weapon)
and by extreme intimidation, including threats to kill the complainant’s dog. The
aggravating feature of being in company was not present.
50. Many of the assaults and threats were independent of the subject matter of the other charges; the subject matter of the threat to kill and assault occasioning actual bodily harm charges will not be taken into account when sentencing for this charge. It is necessary to distinguish between the criminality involved in the confinement and that involved in the offences committed during the confinement: Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65.
The offender’s conduct and associated statements suggest that the offence was not
the subject of rational planning and was not committed for a rational purpose. It was motivated by the offender's genuine belief that the complainant had behaved inappropriately towards his daughter, and it was an unreasoning attempt to exact punishment and retribution for that perceived wrong.
The offender’s irrational behaviour and statements would have aggravated the terror
experienced by the complainant.
53. Courts cannot excuse vigilante conduct. The offender should have immediately reported any concerns to police, rather than taking the matter into his own hands. He acknowledged the proper process when he gave evidence in court.
54. Most offences of unlawful confinement are objectively serious. Regrettably, the objective seriousness of this offence was somewhat similar to many such offences.
Threat to kill
55. By his words and actions, the offender repeatedly threatened to kill the complainant while wielding a knife (clearly demonstrating that he had the capacity to give effect to the threats) and behaving irrationally.
56. The threats were made in the context of a terrifying and lengthy unlawful confinement.
57. Objectively, this was a serious offence of its type.
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
58. The offender used a weapon to inflict multiple blows, causing multiple injuries. Taken as a whole, the injuries were substantial (within the range of injuries comprising actual bodily harm) and required medical attention, including suturing under local anaesthetic to close a leg wound. According to the victim impact statement, the complainant continues to experience associated pain.
59. Within the spectrum of offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, objectively this was a very serious matter.
Damaging property
60. The clothing that was burned may have had limited financial value, but it would have been important to the complainant, who seems to have owned very little. The motive appears to have been extracurial payback.
Using carriage service to menace et cetera
61. Over a three-day period, the offender sent the complainant 10 separate text messages that were bizarre and threatening.
62. The messages were sent against the background of a serious assault, unlawful confinement, and serious threats to kill the complainant. This background meant that the complainant took the threats very seriously.
63. Objectively, this was a serious offence of its type.
Subjective features
64. The offender is 46 years old.
65. He has prior convictions for offences of dishonesty, drug offences, possession of prohibited weapons, and damaging property. His criminal history reflects a longstanding drug problem.
66. In 2003, he received a five-month sentence for possessing methamphetamine in 1998. In 2004, he received a sentence of 65 weeks' imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine in 2003. In 2006, he received a three-year partly suspended sentence of imprisonment for manufacturing a controlled drug.
67. There were no convictions between 2006 and 2015, when Magistrate Cook imposed suspended sentences of two months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of stolen property and minor theft, which had been committed in 2014. The offender was fined for the offence of possessing a drug of dependence on the day of his arrest, 17 April 2020.
68. The serious matters on the offender's criminal history are now quite dated. There is no criminal history for offences of violence.
69. The offender was raised in Whittlesea, Victoria. His parents separated when he was 10 years old. He has two daughters, currently aged 18 and 13. The offender has been in an intermittent relationship with the mother of his children. He was a single parent.
70. At the time of the offences, he was living with his elderly disabled mother to whom he was a full-time carer, and he was receiving a carer benefit. Since he has been taken into custody, his daughters have moved to live with their mother and, according to a reference tendered by the offender, they have been faring poorly. Friends are doing their best to care for the offender's elderly mother.
71. During an interview with Mr Van Meurs, a psychologist, the offender reported using cannabis between the ages of 16 and 21. In evidence, he said that he had commenced using cannabis at age 15. He had also used LSD at that time. At the age of 17 or 18, he first used amphetamines. His drug use continued for a period of about 10 years. There was then a period of abstinence, which continued until about four years ago.
72. The offender described his drug usage over the last few years as spasmodic and says that he has been abstinent from drugs for the past 10 months, since being incarcerated. The offender's criminal history is consistent with the history of drug use.
73. The offender gave evidence that, within a day before the incident, he took methamphetamine and he was feeling the effects of that consumption at the time of the incident. Because of his longstanding involvement with that drug, he was well aware of the impact that the drug might have upon him. Presumably, drug use explains his bizarre behaviour on the night, but because of his history of drug use, that explanation is no excuse for the conduct.
74. Mr Van Meurs concluded that the offender has a major recurring depressive disorder that is associated with moderate symptoms, and a substance use disorder in partial remission. The offender has used drugs to self-medicate for his mental health conditions.
75. Mr Van Meurs observed that the offender's depressive symptoms had no significant bearing on the offending conduct. He said that the offender required individual counselling with a psychologist, should consider medication for depression, and needed drug and alcohol counselling to promote abstinence from substance abuse.
76. In custody, the offender is receiving antidepressant medication. The offender is willing to undertake mental health treatment.
77. He also requires psychological counselling in relation to anger management issues.
78. The offender furnished three character references. The offender's conduct was
described as “genuinely out of character” by one referee, who said that the offender
was a “kind, caring, compassionate man of integrity”.79. Another referee, who had met the offender when he was working at Karralika (a drug
rehabilitation centre), described the offender as a “generous man who is committed to helping others in the community”. She also said that he was a selfless parent who was
dedicated to the care of his children. She had never seen him expressing anger and
considered him to be a gentle person.80. One referee was willing to offer the offender employment upon his release and noted the offender's expression of remorse and shame.
81. In evidence, the offender confirmed that he felt regret and shame for his conduct.
82. In custody, the offender has become involved in peer mentoring, and has maintained a longstanding interest in social work, particularly through drug and alcohol counselling and support. He wants to pursue further education in the social work field. In the past, he has been a caseworker at Karralika.
83. When released, he wants to return to being a full-time carer for his mother.
84. When he gave evidence, he impressed as an intelligent person.
Other sentencing considerations
85. I am aware that the provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), particularly s 16A(2), apply to sentencing the offender for the offence of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend.
86. In relation to all offences, relevant sentencing purposes include punishment, accountability, denunciation, and recognition of harm to the victim. As to the incident on 12 April 2020, the sentencing purpose of general deterrence is important, as vigilantism must be discouraged.
87. Rehabilitation is also an important consideration. The offender's minimal involvement in the criminal justice system for a lengthy period preceding the offences and his apparent capacity and motivation to address mental health and drug problems suggest reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation.
88. Having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences and relevant sentencing purposes, I am well satisfied that the only appropriate sentences are sentences of imprisonment. Anything less than sentences of full-time imprisonment would fail to reflect the seriousness of the offences.
Comparable cases
89. The following cases were said to be comparable in relation to the offence of unlawful confinement.
90. The complainant in R v Stott (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 6 September 2011) was unlawfully confined for over seven hours by six people. The 49-year-old offender had experienced a dysfunctional upbringing and was a drug
addict. She was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment (reduced from four years’ imprisonment) and the sentence was suspended after she had served two years
and four months’ imprisonment.
91. The complainant in R v Ayuel [2020] ACTSC 213 was forcibly confined by joint commission for approximately four hours and violently assaulted. Overall, the confinement lasted about eight and a half hours. The offender was sentenced to 25
months’ imprisonment (reduced from 26 months’ imprisonment), suspended after 10
months. The offender was 22 years old, had a limited criminal history (she had not previously served a sentence of imprisonment) and had demonstrated good prospects of rehabilitation.
92. The complainant in R v Avery [2018] ACTSC 64; [2018] ACTCA 57 was detained by a
group of seven offenders, forced into a car, taken to Avery’s house, duct-taped to a
chair, and detained and interrogated for three hours while he was violently assaulted.
On appeal, the original sentence was increased to two years and seven months’ imprisonment (reduced from four years’ imprisonment). The offender was 36 years old.
He had an undiagnosed mental health problem and a negligible criminal history.
93. In R v Froome [2018] ACTSC 152, one of Avery’s co-offenders received sentences of 15 months’ and seven months and ten days’ imprisonment for two offences of unlawful
confinement (reduced from starting points of approximately 22 months and 11 months’
imprisonment). He was 20 years old and presented strong subjective features.
94. In R v Barlow [2017] ACTSC 90, after trial, a 38-year-old offender, who had a drug addiction and a significant criminal history, but who had not previously served a
sentence of full-time imprisonment, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The
offender and the complainant had a drug dealing relationship that had turned sour. A
co-offender received a sentence of three years’ imprisonment (reduced from four years’
imprisonment for a plea of guilty): R v Sanderson [2016] ACTSC 277.
95. The limited sentencing statistics that are available show that sentences of imprisonment were imposed for 60 per cent of offences of unlawful confinement.
Sentences were often in the range of 18 months’ to four years' imprisonment.
96. For the offence of threat to kill, 83 per cent of offenders received a sentence of imprisonment, which was frequently one of 12 months' imprisonment.
97. For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, 53 per cent of offenders received a sentence of imprisonment, often in the range of one to two years' imprisonment.
98. For the offence of damaging property, 58 per cent of offenders received a sentence of
imprisonment, usually of six or 12 months’ duration.
99. Both Commonwealth and ACT database statistics show that, for the offence of using a carriage service to menace or harass, 50 per cent offenders received a sentence of
imprisonment, generally of six or 12 months’ duration. In other words, the ACT
sentencing pattern reflects the general Commonwealth sentencing pattern.
100. I am well aware of the limitations of sentencing statistics and refer to them only to the extent that they have been of some use in providing a yardstick.
Sentence
101. I convict the offender and impose the following sentences.
(a) Count 1: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm—24 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 30 months’ imprisonment), from 17 April 2021 to 16 April 2023.
(b) Count 2: Threat to kill—19 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 24 months’ imprisonment), from 17 December 2020 to 16 July 2022.
(c) Count 3: Unlawful confinement—32 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 40 months’ imprisonment), from 17 August 2021 to 16 April 2024.
(d) Count 4: Damaging property—12 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 14 months’ imprisonment), from 17 August 2020 to 16 August 2021.
(e) Count 5: Use a carriage service to menace/harass/offend—14 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 18 months’ imprisonment), from 17 April 2020 to
16 June 2021.
102. The total sentence is four years’ imprisonment, from 17 April 2020 to 16 April 2024.
103. As the offender’s recent criminal history is minor and the prospects of rehabilitation are good, I fix a nonparole period of 20 months’ imprisonment (effectively, two years), from
17 August 2020 to 16 April 2022. He will be eligible for release to parole on 16 April
2022.104. Pursuant to s 19AC(4)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), in relation to Count 5, I dispense with the requirement of a recognizance release order because the offender will be serving a Territory sentence immediately following the expiry of the Commonwealth sentence.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and four [104] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell.
Associate:
Date:
3
7
0