R v Harkins

[2020] NSWDC 823

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Harkins [2020] NSWDC 823

Hearing dates:

09 October 2020

Date of orders:

09 October 2020

Decision date:

09 October 2020

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Bennett SC DCJ

Decision:

Sentence of imprisonment of 2 years 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months

Catchwords:

CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

CrimesAct 1914

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Attorney General’s application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518

Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571

Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58

Imbornone v the Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144

Ponfield v R (1999) 48 NSWLR 347

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
Ryan Harkins (Offender)

Representation:

Josephine Menzies (Crown)
Fiona Raphael (solicitor for the Offender)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (NSW)

File Number(s):

2020/00000533

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

Introduction

1. Ryan Harkins was born in 2000 and recently celebrated his 20th birthday. For one so young, he has an unenviable record of antecedent offences to which I shall come in due course.

The Offences and Maximum Penalty

2. He is before this Court today for sentence upon a charge of aggravated break and entering with intent to steal, contrary to s 113(2) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years. There is no standard non‑parole period for the purposes of Part 4, Division 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

3. At the same time, he asks the Court to take into account an additional offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to steal contrary to s 113(1) Crimes Act 1900. That is an offence without the circumstance of aggravation and it carries a lesser penalty.

4. The intended serious indictable offence in each case was larceny. As is made clear in the submissions put forth on behalf of the offender, this will inform the assessment of the objective gravity of the offence. Serious indictable offences can extend from offences that carry a maximum penalty of five years, for example, larceny, to those that involve substantial violence with a maximum penalty of 25 years. Larceny at the bottom end of the scale must be a relevant consideration together with the objective circumstances of the offence to inform where it fits within the array of such misconduct to assess its objective gravity and the scale of seriousness.

Utility

5. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court; that was relatively recently I might say. He adheres to that plea of guilty in this Court and therefore he is entitled to a discount for utility at 25% of the sentence that otherwise would have been imposed.

The Form 1 Offence

6. The additional offence on the Form 1 signed by the offender and on behalf of the Crown is a matter to be brought to account in accordance with the guideline judgement Attorney General’s application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518.

7. He must suffer a sentence of imprisonment for the principal offence that will provide appropriate punishment subject to further consideration to be given to the sentence to be imposed with the inclusion of an appropriate period to reflect the additional offences on the Form 1. The additional offence should impinge on the sentence for the principal offence, requiring an appropriate increase in the sentence that would otherwise be applied, thereby to reflect the need for greater weight to be given to the aspect of personal deterrence arising from the extent of the offender’s continuing misconduct and the community’s entitlement to retribution for both of the offences.

8. He has avoided separate punishment for the additional offence taking this course, but at the same time he has facilitated the judicial process in the determination of these matters and that must also be brought to account in his favour.

Pre-Sentence Custody

9. He has been in custody since his arrest for this offending on 1 January 2020. However, the period he has been in gaol since then has not been referable at all to these crimes. The reason is that at the time of the commission of the offence in each case he was subject to an intensive corrections order extended to him in respect of other episodes of misconduct. It had been recently extended to him, and yet, notwithstanding the opportunity that was presented to rehabilitate with supervision, he committed these further crimes.

10. Thus in the exercise of the discretion that I have, as discussed by Simpson J, in Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58, I must assess when I should commence the sentence I am about to impose. I have come to the view upon the array of offences he committed leading to his incarceration that there should be some accumulation upon the sentence that he is presently serving upon revocation of the intensive corrections order. I intend to commence the sentence today, on 1 June 2020.

11. I should also make clear that I will find special circumstances for reasons that will be revealed as this judgement proceeds, so that he may be on parole for an extended period. It will be a significant period during which he will be subject to parole, and he will no doubt understand, with the benefit of further supervision extended to him, that should he fail to comply with the conditions of the parole, specifically, if he continues to commit criminal offences, he can look forward to another year and more in custody, until the entirety of the sentence is complete after he is released to parole.

12. He has, as I said, a record of antecedents, which I shall discuss when I deal with his subjective case. But, for present purposes, I should note the history of the proceedings that led to the intensive corrections order, that was, in due course revoked, to which he was subject at the time of this misconduct.

13. On 15 November 2018, he committed an offence of aggravated break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence, namely larceny; the circumstance of aggravation was people present in the house. There were matters taken into account when he was dealt with for that offence, namely goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen, and other offences in like terms, possessing prohibited drug and giving a false name.

14. He was sentenced to an intensive corrections order, with supervision for 15 months, from 13 August 2019, concluding on 12 November 2020. The intensive corrections order was in respect of further offences of aggravated enter dwelling, knowing there were people present, aggravated enter dwelling knowing people were present, a second charge, and stealing property within a dwelling house.

15. He was thus serving the subject intensive corrections order at the time of the present matters. On 28 January 2020, by reason of these further offences, the intensive corrections order was revoked, whereby he was obliged to serve the balance of the period, commencing on 1 January 2020, to expire on 12 November 2020.

16. There are two breach reports. One on 19 November 2019 warning him against breaching the intensive corrections order dealt with his failure to submit appropriately to supervision, as I recall it. The second report, on 10 January 2020, recommended revocation upon the commission of these further offences.

17. There are further offences, that were dealt with on 17 April 2020, of entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence, for which you were sentenced to imprisonment for two months from 21 March 2020; larceny, for which he was fined; breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to steal, for which you were sentenced to imprisonment for six months from 21 March 2020; entering inclosed lands, for which he was convicted, but upon the application of s 10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, no penalty was imposed; for goods in custody, there was a community corrections order of 12 months, commencing on 17 April 2020; possessing a prohibited drug, a further community corrections of nine months; and then for possessing or attempting to possess a prescribed restricted substance, a further community corrections order of six months, again from 17 April 2020.

18. Then for a further offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to steal, on that same day 17 April 2020, he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months, from 17 April 2020; and for two offences of supplying prohibited drug, he was given a further community corrections order, with supervision for 20 months, commencing on 3 August 2020.

19. His misconduct is properly described in my view as rampant when one looks at the accumulation of offences that have been dealt with.

20. Present before me today are the charges, in respect of one, of which I am to impose sentence, and the additional offence, which is on the Form 1, which is before the Court as a related offence. There is also a back‑up charge of break and enter with intent to steal, without any circumstance of aggravation. I expect that will be withdrawn.

The Agreed Facts

21. According to the agreed statement of facts, the victim of the principal offence was in the subject premises on the morning of Friday 6 December 2019. At 7.14am that day, the offender arrived at Dulwich Hill railway station by train. He was captured there on the closed-circuit television system; there are available images showing his arrival and movement from the railway station out onto the street.

22. He left the railway station at Dulwich Hill, went north on Bedford Crescent, and about 7.30am attended the victim's premises, about 240 metres from the railway station. The premises consist of a church, with a granny‑flat dwelling. The offender entered the premises via the closed but unlocked door. This woke the occupant, who was asleep in bed. When the victim heard the front door open and heard footsteps, she called out, "Who's there?" and looked over the railing and saw the offender. She yelled at him. He then left the location, ran out the front door, closing it behind him. She walked outside and saw that the gates to the property were open, and held open with rocks so they could not close. This was a step taken by the offender in the course of the offence.

23. The offence to be taken into account occurred in MacArthur Parade, Dulwich Hill. About 7.40am, he attended those premises. This is about 280 metres from the earlier place. He knocked on the door for about two minutes. The occupant was woken, but when she looked at her phone and saw that it was 7.40am, decided not to answer the door. The bedroom was at the front of the house. There was captured CCTV footage of the offender riding his scooter up the side path between these and adjoining premises. The timestamp is noted, and the real time calculated to be at 07.41 hours.

24. Five minutes after the knocking on the front door stopped, the offender opened the closed bedroom door, and was confronted by the occupant, who yelled, ‘Who are you?’ She then saw the offender run down the hallway, toward the rear, and exit the house. She went to her front bedroom and saw the offender running away. She saw that he had a scooter. CCTV footage captured the offender entering and leaving the property where this dwelling house was located, subject to the correction needed of the assessment of the timestamp.

25. From 9 January 2020, the police executed a search warrant at the home where the offender was living, and, as I understand it, this is his grandmother’s home. They located clothing worn by him at the time of these offences. The facts note that there was no property damaged and no property stolen as the result of either one of these incidents.

26. He was arrested around 12.15pm on 1 January 2020 and taken into custody. The custody sergeant provided him with the particulars of his rights, and, after speaking with the Aboriginal Legal Service, he was advised not to participate in an interview, and did not do so. Nothing is significant in that, he was entitled to exercise his right to silence, and he bears no burden as a consequence. Of course, it does not impact, either, on the early plea of guilty that he’s entered in this matter, or the decision to ask for the additional offence to be taken into account. The extent that this demonstrates contrition and remorse is not diminished by the decision not to participate in an interview with police.

27. The first breach report from Leichhardt Community Corrections Office on 19 November 2019 is included in the material before me, with reference to his unsatisfactory compliance with the Intensive Corrections Order. It’s noted that illicit substance use was identified as a contributing factor to his misconduct, and that he had been engaged with mental health services and a drug treatment facility since 10 January 2019. The treatment plan was initially weekly, and thereafter fortnightly appointments were scheduled.

28. His treatment consisted of motivational interviewing and reduction/prevention. Further recommendations were made with regard to his immediate supervision, and a warning to him was recommended because he had, at that point, engaged and continued with suitable intervention to address his criminogenic needs. Unfortunately, though, because of this further misbehaviour another report was issued recommending revocation, and that was implemented. The recommendation was because of the additional offending.

29. As I said, he has an unenviable record of antecedents, and I note on the antecedent report his indigenous heritage. His mother, as I understand it, is of indigenous origin, but his father is European. I note that his paternal grandmother is present in Court supporting him, and intends to be there for him to continue with whatever she might be able to provide to assist in his rehabilitation, for which we all hope.

The Offender

30. The antecedents begin with an entry in June 2018 in the Children’s Court at Surry Hills, the offences goods in custody, possessing housebreaking implements, carrying a cutting weapon, larceny, entering a vehicle without the consent of the owner, and aggravated break and enter, commit serious indictable offence. Conditional liberty was imposed in each case. In September 2018, the same Court dealt with a larceny, which was dismissed with a caution.

31. In August 2019, he was in the District Court at Parramatta for giving a false name, possessing a prohibited drug, and two offences of goods in custody. All of those were taken into account for the determination of sentence for the next offence, of aggravated enter dwelling with intent, knowing people were there. In respect of that, he was given the intensive corrections order, 15 months; for a stealing in a dwelling on the same occasion, he received intensive corrections order for 15 months; and, for another aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, another intensive corrections order of 15 months: all were concurrent.

32. January 2020 an offence of possessing counterfeit money was dismissed, and the weapon or the implement was forfeited to the Crown. Self‑administering a prohibited drug was dismissed pursuant to section 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999. The counterfeiting offence was dismissed pursuant to the corresponding provision in the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, namely section 19B. For possessing a prohibited drug he also had the benefit of section 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

33. In April 2020 for breaking and entering a dwelling house he suffered imprisonment for six months; in August 2020, supplying a prohibited drug, two community corrections orders for 20 months commencing on 3 August 2020. In September 2015, intentionally marking premises, dismissed with a caution; that was in September 2015, when he was a juvenile; it was dealt with in the Children’s Court under the relevant legislation.

34. In June 2018, for driving and having never held a licence he was again given the benefit of section 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, with a bond for 9 months. In September 2018, for using offensive language, going onto running lines, which I take that to be a railway offence, and behaving offensively on a public passenger vehicle, all while he was a juvenile, he was dealt with by way of dismissals with a caution, pursuant to the relevant Children’s Court legislation.

35. April 2020, in the Local Court, goods in custody and attempting to possess a prescribed substance, he was given community corrections orders; and, at the same time, for entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence and possession of a prohibited drug, for the first of those he was imprisoned for two months; for the second, he was given a community corrections order. The last item, he was fined for entering inclosed lands, he was convicted without penalty upon the application of section 10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, and for breaking and entering a dwelling house he was sentenced for six months.

36. So, I’ve repeated, effectively, what was contained in the table helpfully provided by the Crown, drawing on what appears as it’s said in the antecedent report.

37. I should note that this is his first time in custody. I see him on the screen: he is a diminutive young man; he still has the benefit of his youth, upon which he can draw for the purposes of the determination of sentence, but that opportunity is likely to diminish over the next few years if he persists in his misconduct.

38. His case includes two reports from psychologists and a letter from his grandmother.

39. His grandmother, as I note today, is in court and she has my sincere sympathy for being called upon to sit in court once again no doubt to hear a judicial officer rehearse the litany of misconduct upon which her grandson has engaged. She is clearly, upon the material I have, committed to his welfare and wants to do what she can to assist him and hence I accept that is the reason for her being in court here today; I accept the representations contained in her letter, that she will be there for him throughout the time to come in custody and for when he is released to parole.

40. He began living with her on 28 February 2011 when he was aged ten. His mother had been recently arrested by police and did not expect to be extended bail or to be able to arrange bail, and therefore contacted the offender’s grandmother in the hope that she would take her two children, this offender and his brother. She was willing and intended to travel to Kempsey, from where the call was made, to retrieve the two boys and bring them to Sydney. The other brother decided to remain with his mother.

41. She writes of the years of domestic violence to which the offender was exposed. Both his parents were drug users. Indeed, his mother is said to have been using heroin, I note, in the course of the pregnancy, and there is the risk, at least, that the misuse of those substances has impacted upon the offender, limiting his opportunities and his development. It is also said that he experienced sexual abuse at the hands of other partners with whom his mother engaged after the relationship with his father broke down.

42. He was diagnosed with ADHD and was prescribed Ritalin, which he took for a period of time. His schooling has been all but non-existent. His relationship with his father was described as sporadic, although I note elsewhere in the material that at least some time in custody was spent sharing a cell with his father, hardly the ideal opportunity for parental nurturing. He is attributed with expressions of regret and remorse.

43. She represents in the second page of her document,

“In my discussions with Ryan since he has been incarcerated, he has expressed that he deserves to be incarcerated in his actions and would like to help address his drug and alcohol and mental health issues. I believe a well-supported, structured program that addresses these issues would be beneficial for Ryan and the best chance for him not to reoffend.”

44. That observation is one I would accept but regrettably there is a period of time that he must spend in custody until the opportunity to pursue such arrangements can be made available to him.

45. The psychologist’s reports need to be read in the context of when they were written. The first was in July 2019 and the second in September 2020.

46. In July 2019 a report was written to assist the earlier courts called upon to deal with the offender and in this report, Mr Peter Ashkar offered the view that at an assessment he performed, the offender was at a crossroads. Clearly he, at that point in his development, took the wrong turn because it was after this assessment that he embarked upon this further criminal misconduct.

47. All of that said, there is a consistency between what the psychologists have provided, including his history of challenging formative years, and the misuse of substances, beginning with cannabis, alcohol and more serious drugs. He has had opportunities toward rehabilitation, which he has described to the report writers as opportunities he enjoyed and which he wants to continue to pursue when he gets the opportunity to do so.

48. I note in the document a reference to the program at Redfern, the Tribal Warrior program, which is something that was developed with the Aboriginal community in Redfern in conjunction with Superintendent Freudenstein from Redfern Police. The principals from the Rainbow Warrior program and the Superintendent have presented in a couple of venues where I have been a member of the audience, speaking of the success that they have achieved addressing the poverty and limited opportunities that indigenous people suffer or had suffered in that part of our city. I am aware of the progress they have made in that program and the reduction in crime in the south Sydney area as a consequence, which is properly described as profound. I hope that, when given the opportunity, the offender is moved to pursue the chance to return to that program and complete his deckhand training, which he had begun until he found himself arrested once again and put into gaol.

49. The more recent report is from Brian Bembrick, written for the purposes of these proceedings today. He had access to a wealth of material including a letter from the offender’s paternal grandmother. I note also that he took the opportunity to speak to Ms Harkins by telephone in September and with other individuals who have sought to assist the offender, including a drug health nurse practitioner and the staff at the Tribal Warrior program. That supplemented, no doubt, the written documents that were provided to him.

50. The report provides a detailed history of the life pursued by the offender’s parents and the impact that it had upon him, first with his ADHD, his behavioural and concentration difficulties, his frequent suspensions at school for bad behaviour and fighting. Neuropsychological assessment was performed by Peter Ashkar in July 2019, upon which Mr Ashkar provided the following opinion,

“The course of his emotional and behavioural dysregulation is complicated and multifactorial, but his mother’s heroin use during his pregnancy with him (to the extent that his belief his accurate) and the chaos and stress of his family environment during his early developmental years... have likely combined to undermine his neurological development, impacting on his intellectual and cognitive functioning and his ability to regulate his behaviour and emotions.”

51. There is reference to his relationship with his grandmother, the need for placement in a specialist school environment for children with his burdens, his misuse of cannabis evolving to alcohol, Benzodiazepine and his experimentation with methylamphetamine, as I remember from the material. There is reference to his connection with Tribal Warrior and the benefits he derived and it is said that he will need further professional support, a fact of which I have no doubt. The information provided by his grandmother is discussed and her commitment to him is recorded.

52. His introduction to methamphetamine is included under the heading, “Regarding his offending.” This involved his involvement with others less desirable, including his mother. He is attributed with regret and remorse and the record continues with discussion of the stable environment that will be in due course available to him at home. There is reference to his vulnerability as a consequence of his disadvantage in early life, which I would accept.

53. I note that I had the opportunity that I had to speak with him directly on the screen. He is troubled by his first experience of the custodial setting; hopefully, it will be sufficient to discourage him from further episodes of misconduct in the future.

Submissions

54. I complimented both representatives on the care with which they provided their written submissions in this case. It is unfortunately not often the case that one receives such documents in such succinct but comprehensive form; both documents have been of immense assistance to the Court.

55. By way of an overview, Ms Raphael concedes imprisonment is inevitable in this case. She suggests the offending is low on the scale of objective seriousness. I agree that it is below mid-range but perhaps not toward the lower end of the range, bearing in mind the circumstances of the offending as I have described, the serious indictable offence intended, and the recency with which he had before been engaged upon other comparable misconduct before he embarked upon these two offences.

56. I accept his significant background of disadvantage. I accept by reason of that he has been left with limited opportunities and that he has perhaps almost been programmed into his lifestyle; accordingly there should be seen to be a reduction in his moral culpability. But at the same time, the Court has an obligation to provide the protection that it might to the community from the depravations upon which this young offender appears to want to engage. I accept his youth and the impact it has upon this exercise. I agree there are special circumstances. I accept the proposition of totality as a relevant consideration, hence the date upon which I have decided to commence this sentence with some accumulation but a significant level of concurrence.

57. The matters upon which Ms Raphael relies to assess the objective seriousness are listed in a series of dot points. I agree that there is a measure of unsophistication and opportunity in this misconduct. He entered premises which do not require a breaking other than to open closed and unlocked accesses. There was no forced entry, there was no damage and, upon being detected, he fled without causing or engaging upon conduct that might otherwise cause fear and alarm apart from his mere presence in the home where he ought not to have been.

58. The degree of planning involved in this case might be said to be extremely low with regard to the specific offence, but he was clearly about, one might conclude, looking for houses into which he might enter after breaking the seal to take what property might be available to him. The Form 1 offence was committed in close proximity to the principal offence but it still impinges upon the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed. The history of offending, including the conditional levity to which he was subject, is an aggravating factor but not so as to increase the objective seriousness of the offence, nor the punishment that is otherwise proportionate to the misconduct. But it does inform the need for specific deterrence and denies him a measure of leniency.

59. Mitigating factors are identified. The injury, emotional harm, loss and damage were not substantial. It was not planned or organised criminal activity and I am prepared to extend to him the benefit of a finding of remorse. Good prospects of rehabilitation are submitted but with regard to that I must say I am somewhat guarded. History is not of benefit to him. There are prospects, I accept, and he is attributed with expressions of remorse and wanting to change his life. One hopes that he is able to do so but I could not find that he has good prospects of rehabilitation; I must structure the sentence in such a way as to provide the best I can protection from his persistence.

60. His background of disadvantage is discussed and I find that he falls within the parameters that was what was set by the High Court of Australia in Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; I have brought that to account. He has had a long history, which should be properly expressed as a relatively long history of drug use, bearing in mind his youth, which does attract what was said in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at 275. But nothing has been said to me as to what his motivation was in entering these homes to steal and for what purpose he might put the items that might have been available to him. At the same time, questions of impulsivity, the absence of any evidence of an alternative reason and his state of mind are all relevant, bearing in mind that he had gone back into the drug milieu and started using methylamphetamine not too long before this misconduct.

61. The Crown submissions, as I say, are equally helpful, particularly with regard to the ongoing misconduct dealt with in other courts. I am reminded of the general principles in the judgement in Ponfield v R (1999) 48 NSWLR 347, which is, as has been noted, largely absorbed in its importance on the application of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 and specifically s 21A. The Crown acknowledges that the offending is below midrange of objective seriousness. I confess I misread that earlier and I understood her to have written that it was near to, but below mid-range to the extent that I have been unfair in that regard I apologise. I would, however, find, as I indicated earlier, he is not at the lowest end of the range but he is certainly below the midrange of objective seriousness in the commission of these offences.

62. The Crown correctly points out that all of us in the community have the right to expect our homes to remain free of intrusion from others such as this offender and the Court has an obligation to provide the necessary protection to the extent that it might be able to do so. There is a need for personal deterrence in this case and there is a need to treat these offences with a measure of seriousness, and although there are more serious crimes available under the law, it still means that there’s a sense of violation experienced when one’s home is entered unlawfully such as in these instances.

63. I’m reminded of the effect of conditional liberty, the requirement for some accumulation, and there is commentary upon the subjective case. With reference to the absence of evidence from the offender, I’m reminded of what was said by Smart AJ in R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353, [2001] 127 A Crim R 369. To that, I would add Imbornone v the Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144, and the judgement of Wilson J, beginning at paragraph 57 where her Honour analysed the effect of authorities addressing untested, out of Court statements upon which an offender might wish to rely, and the extent to which they should be addressed with appropriate circumspection.

64. I observed in the course of the preparation of this matter that quite often people in the position of this offender turn out to be their own best advocate when they take the opportunity to enter the witness box, submit to the oath or affirmation and face cross-examination in support of their asserted contrition and remorse. Regrettably, not many do. However, having said that, I note in this case there is, from the various documents including the letter from his grandmother and the history of offending itself, sufficient to conclude the facts which I have indicated I would find are available, subject to what I’ve said about the prospect for rehabilitation, which must be guarded in light of the history that he has accumulated.

The Sentence

65. That brings me to the determination of sentence, taking into account the additional offence on the Form 1, and applying the discount of 25% to the sentence that would have otherwise been imposed.

66. I’ve reached a head sentence of 2 years and 10 months, including a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months, which will leave him on parole for a period of 1 year and 4 months, commencing on 1 June 2020.

67. Thus, the offender is convicted of the offence of breaking and entering with intent to steal in the circumstances of aggravation that there was person in the premises.

68. I specify a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months commencing on 1 June 2020. That shall expire on 30 November 2021 when he will be eligible for parole. There’ll be a further period during which he shall be subject to parole of 1 year and 4 months, commencing on 1 December 2021 and that shall expire on 1 March 2023. The parole will no doubt be supervised by the authorities responsible for that, in accordance with the legislation and the regulations under which they are made, and it will be for them to determine what will best the offender’s circumstances at that time.

**********

Decision last updated: 01 February 2021