R v Johnson
[2015] ACTSC 192
•15 May 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Johnson |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 192 |
Hearing Date: | 27 March 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 15 May 2015 |
Before: | Penfold J |
Decision: | See [44] to [51] below. |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – offender to be sentenced for 13 offences, mainly burglaries and thefts, committed in 2009 and 2010 – sentences served for similar offences in NSW in intervening period – offender still on NSW parole order – offender’s longstanding drug abuse – time spent in residential rehabilitation – offences of low-level seriousness – offender reliant on Centrelink – reparation order made in favour of individual victim – co-offender – breaches of earlier good behaviour orders. |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 49 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 20 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32 |
Cases Cited: | Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Reid v Smith & Anor [2014] ACTSC 349 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Shane Edmund Johnson (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr T Hickey (Crown) Ms T Warwick (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kim Bolas Criminal Law (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 336A of 2010; SCC 336B of 2010; SCC 336C of 2010; SCC 336D of 2010; SCC 336E of 2010; SCC337 of 2010 |
Shane Johnson has pleaded guilty to 13 offences, as follows:
(a)two aggravated burglaries arising under s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 20 years;
(b)three burglaries arising under s 311 of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 14 years; and
(c)seven thefts and one attempted theft arising under s 308 and, for the attempt, s 44, of the Criminal Code, and carrying a maximum penalty in each case including imprisonment for 10 years.
In sentencing Mr Johnson, I am also asked to take into account the following scheduled offences:
(a)one charge of driving while disqualified, contrary to s 32 of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for six months; and
(b)one charge of failing to appear on a bail undertaking arising under s 49 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for two years.
The offences
The offences for which I am sentencing Mr Johnson were committed over a six-month period in late 2009 and early 2010.
Burglary and theft (CC2010/4579 and CC2010/4580)
The first burglary and theft, committed on a Sunday evening in November 2009, involved Mr Johnson trying unsuccessfully to open the locked front doors of a food services warehouse in Fyshwick, then finding an open door at the back of the building through which he entered the warehouse. He opened an unlocked safe and took from it nearly $7,000 in cash, 15 cheques to the total value of nearly $11,000, and two black cash tins. Mr Johnson was identified using CCTV footage.
Theft (CC2010/4582)
Around mid-morning on a Friday in January 2010, Mr Johnson and a co-offender, Michael Williams, entered the reception area of the Superkarts business in Hume. They walked around inside while an employee was serving other customers. When the employee left the reception area to speak to her supervisor, Mr Johnson went behind the counter, opened the cash register and took $535 in cash while Mr Williams kept a lookout. The two men then left the premises and drove away. CCTV footage was subsequently given to police.
Burglary and theft (ex officio and CC2010/2874)
On a Sunday afternoon about a week later, Mr Johnson walked into the office of a car repair workshop while Mohammad Zouiten was working on a car in the workshop. He used several sets of keys in the office to try to open the drawer in which cash was kept, but was unsuccessful. He was also unsuccessful in trying to open a metal petty cash tin and then left the office (apparently with one of the sets of keys in his pocket) after speaking to Mr Zouiten. Mr Zouiten was suspicious about his visitor; he viewed the relevant CCTV footage and then called police. He identified Mr Johnson in a photoboard process some weeks later.
Burglary (CC2010/4583)
Later in January, on a Wednesday evening, Mr Johnson and another man walked into a joinery in Hume. They entered the office and jemmied open locked cabinets, causing damage of various kinds to the cabinets to an estimated value of $150. Fingerprints were subsequently taken from the scene but did not identify an offender.
Theft (CC2010/4585)
Shortly after 5.00 pm on a Thursday in February 2010, Mr Johnson walked into a vacuum cleaner showroom in Fyshwick while the staff were in the rear office having a meeting. He opened the cash register and took $505 in cash. When one of the staff members came out to the showroom to check for customers, he saw Mr Johnson and they had a short conversation about vacuum cleaners before Mr Johnson left. When, shortly afterwards, the staff member counted the cash in the till, he realised that money had been taken. By this stage Mr Johnson had disappeared from the area.
Aggravated burglary and theft (CC2010/2875 and CC2010/2876)
At mid-morning the next day, Mr Johnson and another man walked into a butcher’s shop in Fyshwick despite the “Closed” sign on the door. They went upstairs to the office and took two calico banking bags containing just over $2,800 in cash, which they put into another bag. The owner of the business disturbed them in the office; they told him they were looking for jobs, and then left. That afternoon the owner’s wife realised that the cash had been stolen, and police were called. One of the calico bags was later found in a car Mr Johnson was driving, and the business owner identified Mr Johnson during a photoboard process.
Theft (CC2010/2877)
Around lunchtime on a Wednesday in late February, Mr Johnson and another man walked into a newsagency at the Lanyon Marketplace, where a magazine salesperson had put her handbag on the floor while she did some work with the magazines. Mr Johnson removed from the handbag the salesperson’s wallet, which contained a variety of cards, a $50 movie voucher and about $15 in cash. The newsagent returned to the store and challenged Mr Johnson, who then left while the newsagent was checking the CCTV footage which showed the theft from the handbag. Mr Johnson was later identified by the newsagent in a photoboard process.
Aggravated burglary and theft (CC2010/2878 and CC2010/2879)
Later that same day, Mr Johnson and another man walked into the reception area of a business in Fyshwick where the owner was still working in his office. Mr Johnson walked behind the counter and took cash totalling $946 from the counter area. He then walked into the corridor, where he was observed by the owner from his office. The owner confronted Mr Johnson and the other man, who claimed they were looking for work. Despite his suspicions, the owner then gave the men job application forms which they said they would bring back the next day. The next morning a staff member discovered that the cash was missing, and police were called. Later, the owner identified Mr Johnson in a photoboard process.
Attempted theft (CC2010/6231)
Early on Sunday evening in May 2010, Mr Johnson went into the Canberra Centre where he managed to open the locked door to a muffin shop. He took the till, containing $450, out of the cash register before being observed from the floor above by a security guard. Several security guards approached the muffin shop and confronted Mr Johnson, who tried to run away; he was blocked by the guards, and after a struggle was restrained until police arrived to arrest him.
Drive while disqualified (scheduled offence)
The first of the two scheduled offences was committed on 25 February 2010, when Mr Johnson was observed driving in Yallourn Street, Fyshwick by Mr Zouiten, whose office he had entered in January. Mr Zouiten called police, who arrested Mr Johnson. His licence had been disqualified by a New South Wales court for two years from 1 July 2008.
Fail to appear (scheduled offence)
On 2 July 2010, Mr Johnson was granted bail on condition that he attend a rehabilitation facility. He signed a bail form including a requirement to report forthwith to a police station if he was discharged from the facility for any reason and an undertaking to appear in the Magistrates Court on 2 August 2010. On 16 July 2010, Mr Johnson was discharged from the rehabilitation facility for drug use, and on the morning of 2 August 2010 he failed to appear in the Magistrates Court. That afternoon, Mr Johnson attended the City Police Station. He told police he was in breach of bail for failing to report that he had left the rehabilitation facility, and also that he had failed to appear in court that morning. He was then arrested.
Other matters
Mr Johnson was again granted bail in January 2011 to attend residential rehabilitation in New South Wales. He apparently made some progress in rehabilitation, remaining at the Wayback facility until June 2011. At that point, he was given leave from the rehabilitation program to attend a family funeral, but relapsed into drug use shortly afterwards and on 18 June 2011, he was arrested in connection with burglary, theft and assault offences in New South Wales. Mr Johnson was injured while trying to escape from police after the incident, and was initially in custody in hospital, but was formally remanded in custody on 22 June 2011. He remained in custody until 1 November 2014, serving several terms of imprisonment for offences committed in New South Wales during the period in which the current ACT offences were also committed, and for the June 2011 offences. When Mr Johnson was released from prison in New South Wales on 1 November 2014, he was extradited to the ACT and again remanded in custody. He has been in custody ever since.
At the time of the offences, Mr Johnson was on conditional liberty, subject to good behaviour orders made in April 2009 when a Magistrate suspended two prison sentences, one for attempting to escape from custody or arrest., and one for theft.
Pre-sentence custody
Although there is some uncertainty about the exact dates, it seems that Mr Johnson has been in custody in the ACT in connection with some or all of the current offences for periods totally 394 days (around 13 months), as well as serving roughly 40 months in New South Wales custody for the New South Wales offences I have already mentioned.
Not only does Mr Johnson’s sentence need to be backdated to take account of his time in ACT custody, but I consider there should also be some concurrency with the New South Wales sentences, given the temporal and other connections between the ACT and New South Wales offending.
Mr Johnson’s counsel submitted that he should also be credited with the five months he spent in the Wayback program on ACT bail in 2011. I do not consider that time in residential rehabilitation should necessarily be credited to an offender, especially in circumstances such as the current one where it is apparent that the rehabilitation did not, at least in the short term, work successfully (Reid v Smith & Anor [2014] ACTSC 349 at [19] and [20]). However, noting Mr Johnson’s unchallenged claim that he has not used drugs during his recent periods in prison in New South Wales and the ACT, I shall have regard to the rehabilitation period in determining the appropriate concurrency with the New South Wales sentences recently served.
Pleas of guilty
Before being released on bail in January 2011, Mr Johnson had pleaded guilty to the 2009 charges and to the Superkarts offence (committed on 8 January 2010). Both pleas were entered in the Magistrates Court, but after briefs of evidence were prepared. He was committed to the Supreme Court for trial on the other offences, and in January 2015, after being extradited from New South Wales, he advised that there would be guilty pleas to those offences as well. Those pleas came after negotiations that involved the dropping of several charges.
Evidence
As well as the Statement of Facts, the following material tendered by the prosecution is in evidence before me:
(a)Mr Johnson’s criminal history in the ACT and New South Wales;
(b)a pre-sentence report dated 16 March 2015 reporting that Mr Johnson had failed to attend his meeting with the pre-sentence report author and that there was accordingly little information available;
(c)a CADAS report dated 23 March 2015;
(d)a Statements of Facts relating to the June 2011 New South Wales offences; and
(e)the criminal history of Michael Williams, Mr Johnson’s co-offender in relation to one of the ACT offences.
The defence tendered:
(a)a letter written by Mr Johnson to the Court;
(b)two certificates evidencing participation in rehabilitation programs respectively in March 2011 and April 2014; and
(c)a release certificate provided by Corrective Services indicating that Mr Johnson’s most recent custodial term in New South Wales ran from 22 June 2011 to 1 November 2014.
As well, oral evidence was given by Mr Johnson. I shall refer to aspects of this evidence at relevant points.
Objective seriousness
As to the objective seriousness of the offence, I note that the offences were committed in breach of several good behaviour orders. As already mentioned, by the time of the May 2010 attempted theft, Mr Johnson was also on bail, having been released on 16 April 2010 after he was arrested on 25 February 2010 as a result of Mr Zouiten’s sighting of him in Fyshwick.
The prosecutor conceded that with the exception of the joinery burglary in which Mr Johnson damaged some cabinets in trying to jemmy them open, there was no forced entry and no damage caused to property in the course of the burglaries. He noted that the food services warehouse burglary and theft were also relatively more serious than the others, but conceded that when Mr Johnson came across the occupants of the premises he was burgling, there were no violent confrontations and that Mr Johnson was quite conciliatory. I am satisfied that these offences were generally of low-level seriousness.
Mr Johnson expressed some remorse for his offences, both in oral evidence and in the letter he wrote to the court. He said that he shouldn’t have broken into people’s properties and stolen from them, and that he would like to repay some of the money he stole to show that he was sorry.
Offender’s circumstances
I have also had regard to Mr Johnson’s subjective circumstances.
Mr Johnson is now 45. His criminal history in the ACT spans the last 25 years and includes traffic and other relatively minor offences including one offence of driving while unlicensed more than 20 years ago, two assaults, offences relating to contraventions of domestic violence orders, three burglaries and several thefts and minor thefts.
His New South Wales criminal history covers the same period and contains a similar mix of offences as well as a number of street offences such as offensive language. It includes at least 10 each of offences that in the ACT would be described as burglaries and thefts, as well as a number of offences arising out of the possession of stolen property.
As already mentioned, Mr Johnson had declined to speak to the Probation and Parole officer for the purposes of a pre-sentence report. In oral evidence he said that he had not attended the scheduled meeting with the pre-sentence report author because of a misunderstanding, in that he thought he was being called to attend an art class rather than the pre-sentence report interview.
However, some information about his background is provided in a CADAS report dated 24 March 2015:
Mr Johnson reported that he was born in Condobolin, New South Wales. He has family in various locations, but stated that he calls the ACT and Queanbeyan home. ...
Mr Johnson reported that his highest level of education was completing Year 10 of secondary school. He has held a white card, and has previously been employed in factories. He stated that his last job was as a cleaner in Condobolin.
Mr Johnson is the second youngest of four children, with an older brother and sister and one younger brother. His parents separated when he was a child and he never knew his birth father. His mother remarried and he saw his step-father as his own father.
Mr Johnson’s step-father died two years ago from heart complications. He is yet to visit the grave as he was in prison. His mother is 68 years old and suffers from diabetes. She lives in Condobolin. Mr Johnson reports that she wishes him to return to Condobolin to care for her.
Mr Johnson is currently single. He has one adult daughter aged 22 years to his ex-girlfriend. He has had no contact with his daughter following his remand to the AMC. She lives in Canberra.
Mr Johnson reported that he had a normal childhood. He reported that he has a “pretty good” family and that they all get on well. He stated that his siblings all have their own family and that they have brought their children to visit him in the AMC from interstate.
Mr Johnson reported suffering knee and back pain. He stated he was prescribed Lyrica for nerve pain. He also reported currently being prescribed methadone for opiod dependence. ...
Mr Johnson reported that overall he was satisfied with his health. He denied ever seeing a doctor or psychiatrist for emotional issues or symptoms of mental illness. He stated that his mood currently was “pretty good”, although felt some anxiety relating to court. ... He was unaware of any family history of mental illness. He rated his current mood as 9 out of 10 where 10 was excellent mood.
In oral evidence, Mr Johnson gave a slightly different picture of his childhood, reporting that his mother and stepfather had abused alcohol and fought with each other at times, and that his stepfather spent periods in prison. Physical violence was used sometimes in disciplining the children. Mr Johnson said that he began drinking at age 14 or 15, and smoked heroin when he went to prison in his early 20s. He has been in trouble with the law ... and in and out of prison since he was 18. I note the High Court’s conclusion in the matter of Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 that the impact of childhood disadvantage should not be assumed to become less relevant as an offender gets older.
It seems that Mr Johnson’s offending is connected largely with drug abuse, although in oral evidence he also mentioned the need to fund a gambling problem.
Mr Johnson says he wants to be rehabilitated. He claims to have abstained from alcohol for the last 10 years and not to have used any drugs since going to prison in New South Wales in 2011. He says he doesn’t wish to live the life of a heroin user now.
As already noted, Mr Johnson spent five months in residential rehabilitation in New South Wales in 2011 in the Wayback program. In oral evidence, he said he had made good progress at Wayback until his distress about the suicide of his young cousin led him to using drugs again and then re-offending. Mr Johnson said that he had planned on release from prison in New South Wales to live with his mother until a bed became available at Wayback (these were the conditions of his New South Wales parole), but that those plans were overtaken by his extradition to the ACT. Mr Johnson said that if he is released from prison in the ACT before the New South Wales parole expires on 1 May 2016, it will be a condition of his parole that he return to Wayback, but he also said that his mother is happy for him to live with her in Condobolin.
Mr Johnson said that he has not worked for at least seven or eight years, and has done only casual cleaning work for some time before that. He expressed interest in working if he can find a good job that he can do.
The CADAS report noted Mr Johnson’s wish to stay on pharmacotherapy and his application to return to Wayback. The author reported that Mr Johnson seemed to have reasonable insight into his substance abuse.
I accept that, right now, Mr Johnson has a genuine interest in rehabilitation. However, I do not share the optimism of his counsel that the New South Wales parole requirements to which Mr Johnson would be subject if he were released in the near future, involving living at home, participation in Wayback, and parole supervision, reduce his assessed risk of re-offending to any significant degree. Among other things I note that, in discussion, counsel indicated that Mr Johnson wasn’t necessarily enthusiastic to return to Wayback after his release but might prefer to stay in Condobolin. Unless Mr Johnson can find a convenient source of methadone or an appropriate alternative, and useful work to occupy a reasonable proportion of his time, I am not convinced that a return to Condobolin, even accepting the presence of family support, will protect him against a boredom-induced relapse into illicit drug use.
Specific orders sought
The Crown sought reparation orders in favour of several victims. The prosecutor conceded that since there was no evidence that Mr Johnson had obtained the benefit of the cheques stolen in the November 2009 burglary, or that anyone had sustained a loss to the value of the cheques, their value is not properly the subject of an application for reparation. That reduced the total amount claimed as reparations to just over $11,300. I cannot see any point in making reparation orders to that value against a 45-year-old who is for the foreseeable future likely to be reliant for his income on either Centrelink or an unskilled and possibly casual job. As a general proposition, it seems unlikely that any of the victims would ever receive any reparations, and at the same time the existence of the orders might substantially reduce Mr Johnson’s incentive ever to get a job. However, I do propose to make one reparation order, being an order in favour of the only individual mentioned in the Crown application, being the magazine salesperson whose handbag was stolen while she worked in the newsagency at the Lanyon Marketplace. That order, which involves an amount of $135, will give Mr Johnson a realistic opportunity to make amends for his thefts on at least a representative or symbolic basis.
The Crown also sought an order disqualifying Mr Johnson from driving, in reliance on the scheduled offence of driving while disqualified in February 2010. However, I am persuaded by counsel for Mr Johnson that a future disqualification from driving would make it far harder for Mr Johnson to pursue rehabilitation, in particular by accepting pharmacotherapy, finding work, and reporting for parole supervision, and accordingly I will not make such an order. Mr Johnson should not, however, take this as any kind of permission to drive without obtaining a driver’s licence in the proper way.
Other matters
General deterrence is always important for offences of this type, not only because they are serious offences that cause community concern, but also because, as in this case, they are often committed deliberately rather than in the heat of the moment. It is clear from Mr Johnson’s record that personal deterrence is also relevant, although less clear that any form of punishment is likely to be effective as such a deterrent.
None of Mr Johnson’s guilty pleas were particularly early, and those that were entered after he was returned to the ACT from New South Wales came after negotiations that resulted in the dropping of several charges. Nevertheless, those pleas do have utilitarian value and I shall allow a sentence discount of roughly 20% for the earlier guilty pleas and 15% for the later ones.
In late 2010, Michael Williams, the co-offender in one of the offences I am dealing with, pleaded guilty to aid and abet minor theft for his role in the Superkarts incident, and was sentenced to three months imprisonment. This was the same removal of goods from Superkart in respect of which Mr Johnson was charged with theft, rather than minor theft. Mr Williams is 15 years younger than Mr Johnson and was 25 years old when sentenced. His criminal history was not impressive but was somewhat shorter than Mr Johnson’s, although that may be a difference that reflected only Mr Williams’ relative youth. No other co-offenders have been identified.
Sentence
Mr Johnson, please stand. I record convictions on two charges of aggravated burglary, three charges of burglary, seven thefts and one attempted theft. I also note the scheduled offences of drive while disqualified and fail to appear, and I have taken them into account in sentencing for the aggravated burglary committed on 24 February 2010.
As mentioned earlier, some or all of those convictions put you in breach of several good behaviour orders made in the Magistrates Court in April 2009, being:
(a)a 24-month good behaviour order made on the suspension of a 9-month sentence for attempting to escape from custody or arrest, and also expressed to apply to offences of common assault and resist Commonwealth public official;
(b)a 12-month good behaviour order made on the suspension of a 5-month sentence for theft, and also expressed to apply for offences of fail to appear and minor theft; and
(c)a 12-month good behaviour order made in respect of another minor theft charge.
I now cancel all the good behaviour orders and impose the 9-month and 5-month sentences to be served concurrently. I take no further action in relation to the other offences to which the good behaviour orders relate.
Next, under s 20 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), I order that you pay $135 to the complainant, Janice Boland, in two instalments, the first, being the amount of $65, to be paid on or before 31 August 2015, and the second of $70 to be paid on or before 31 November 2015. Ms Warwick will explain to you that those payments are to be made to the court, not directly to the complainant.
I now sentence you to imprisonment as follows. I have got a table here for counsel and will go through that. I have already imposed the two previously suspended sentences and next is the first of the other offences in chronological order:
(a)for CC10/4579, which is a burglary, you are sentenced to 19 months imprisonment reduced from 24 months;
(b)for the associated theft (CC10/4580), to 10 months imprisonment reduced from 12 months, to be served concurrently with the burglary sentence;
(c)for CC10/4582, a theft, to 4 months imprisonment, reduced from 5 months for the plea of guilty;
(d)for the burglary and theft committed on 17 January, one of which is CC10/2874, and one of which is an ex officio charge, for the burglary, to 18 months imprisonment reduced from 21 months and for the theft, 3 months reduced from 4 months (those two to be served concurrently);
(e)for the burglary committed on 20 January 2010 (CC10/4583), to 20 months imprisonment reduced from 24 months;
(f)for the theft committed on 4 February 2010 (CC10/4585), to 3 months imprisonment reduced from 4 months;
(g)for the aggravated burglary and theft on 5 February 2010 (CC10/2875 and CC10/2876), for the aggravated burglary, to 20 months imprisonment reduced from 24 months, and 8 months imprisonment for the theft, reduced from 9 months;
(h)for the theft (CC10/2877), to 4 months imprisonment reduced from 5 months;
(i)for the aggravated burglary and theft on 24 February 2010 (CC10/2878 and CC10/2879), for the aggravated burglary, to 20 months imprisonment reduced from 24 months, and for the theft, to 7 months imprisonment reduced from 8 months; and
(j)for the attempted theft on 30 May (CC10/6231), to 10 months imprisonment reduced from 12 months.
Now, those are accumulated as shown on the table that I’ve given counsel, and I won’t go through the details of the accumulation orally, but the effect of that is a total sentence of 43 months imprisonment, which is to run concurrently with that original 9-month sentence that I’ve just imposed as to 4 months. That gives a total sentence of 48 months, or four years, imprisonment.
That sentence, that 48 months, will be backdated 31 months to 15 October 2012. That backdating reflects the roughly 13 months of pre-sentence custody in the ACT, and another 17½ months which represents some credit for time in Wayback in 2011 and a reasonable amount of concurrency with the New South Wales sentences that you were serving until November 2014. The total sentence that I’m now imposing will accordingly run until 14 October 2016.
That means that the imposed sentences that were suspended in 2009, and six of the new sentences – and that’s shown on the table that I’ve given counsel – have already been completed, leaving a current total sentence of 34 months being served from 15 December 2013 until 14 October 2016. I set a non-parole period for that sentence of 19 months from 15 December 2013 and expiring on 14 July this year. I have deliberately set a non-parole period rather than suspending this sentence because I consider it desirable that when you are released from the AMC, you will be subject to parole on both the ACT sentences and the New South Wales sentences, rather than subject to New South Wales parole and ACT supervision under a suspended sentence. I assume that the ACT parole supervision will be transferable to New South Wales if that’s where you finish up living.
The effect of that backdating and the non-parole period, Mr Johnson, is that you will be eligible for parole, at the earliest, in two months time, so you will probably want to begin the process of applying for parole very soon.
Mr Johnson, I’m giving you a chance, of a sort, to implement your plan to rehabilitate yourself, possibly with time in Wayback or possibly, depending on your New South Wales parole requirements, back with your family, but really at this stage it’s up to you. You need to take responsibility for staying off drugs, finding something useful to do with your time, and not re-offending. I know that won’t be easy, but I also know that it won’t work if every time something distressing happens in your life, you go straight back to drug-using. So it’s up to you.
You may sit down.
| I certify that the preceding fifty-four [54] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Penfold. Associate: Kate Harris Date: 23 July 2015 |
2
4