R v Kansou

[2022] NSWDC 451

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Kansou [2022] NSWDC 451

Hearing dates:

20 June 2022 & 14 July 2022

Date of orders:

14 July 2022

Decision date:

14 July 2022

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Bennett SC DCJ

Decision:

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years to be served way of intensive correction in the community

Catchwords:

CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug

CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity

SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders

Legislation Cited:

Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:

Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144

Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
Ibrahim Kansou (offender)

Representation:

Kate Kenny (Solicitor for the ODPP)
Peter Lang (Counsel for the offender)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Murphy’s Lawyers Inc. (Offender)

File Number(s):

2021/00118483

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

Introduction

1. Ibrahim Kansou appeared for sentence in my court on June 20, 2022 in respect of two charges to which he had pleaded guilty in the Local Court and from which he was committed for sentence proceedings to this Court.

The Offences

2. The first of the offences is one of supplying a prohibited drug, contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The charge was expressed thus: on 27 February 2021 at Menai in the State of New South Wales, [he] did supply a prohibited drug, namely 56.2 grams of cocaine.

3. The second was a charge of supplying a prohibited drug in an amount not less than the commercial quantity, contrary to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The offence was expressed thus: on 27 February 2021 at Menai in the State of New South Wales, [he] did supply a prohibited drug, namely 143.4 grams of 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug.

4. For cocaine, the commercial quantity specified in schedule 1, Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 is 250 grams. For 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine, the commercial quantity specified in the same schedule is 125 grams.

5. The maximum penalty specified for the offence of supplying cocaine is imprisonment for 15 years with a fine represented by 2,000 penalty units. There is no standard non-parole period specified for that offence.

6. For the supply of a commercial quantity of 3-4 methylnedioxymethylamphetamine the maximum penalty specified is imprisonment for 20 years with a fine represented by 3,500 penalty units. There is a standard non-parole period specified for the purposes of Part 4 Div 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, of ten years.

Pre-Sentence Custody

7. The offender has been on bail for a significant period of time, but upon arrest spent 35 days in custody until bail was granted to him. The Crown cover sheet specifies a period of 34 days but I have gone to the calendar and calculated the number of days covered by the relevant period, from the date of arrest 28 April 2021 until his release, and upon my calculation it is a period of 35 days, a marginal difference but one that I should not overlook.

The Pleas of Guilty

8. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was committed for sentence to this Court as I indicated; therefore the utility thus provided attracts a discount of 25% for the sentences that would have otherwise been specified, upon the application of s 25D(2)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The Form of the Sentence to be Imposed

9. This is an unusual case. Without the compelling subjective material that has been put before the Court, there can be little doubt that the offender would be entering custody from today to serve the sentences which I have identified as appropriate for this case. However, I make clear at the outset that though I propose a period of imprisonment for each of these offences, upon the application of the discount to the sentences that would otherwise have been imposed, in light of the material that has been put before me I shall order the aggregate sentence to be served by way of an intensive corrections order in the community.

The Facts

10. The agreed facts before me include the conduct upon which this offender engaged and further material identifying the conduct of others. There has been application to the media liaison office for access to the Crown bundle relevant to this offender; I have raised that with counsel and the Crown. There is no objection, indeed there could be none, to the Court making available to the media the documents relevant to this offender.

11. However, there is material to which I will be required to turn concerning a co-offender who is yet to be sentenced in this Court. In those proceedings, there are issues of fact to be resolved by the sentencing court and therefore it is not appropriate for that material be released for general publication. Moreover, there is another offender, I should say accused, who has been charged and listed for trial in this Court. Therefore, there should be no information published in respect of that person from the material provided in the proceedings against this offender, lest the information have inappropriate impact upon the task of the jury selected for the trial.

12. The case evolved from the conduct of two principals, not this offender, who were participants in an established network involving the supply of prohibited drugs, namely, methylamphetamine, cocaine, and 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine. Two persons, to whom as I should refer as SG and DC, were sources of the prohibited drugs. DC and another person I shall identify as JB were both in contact directly with purchasers and they would deliver the drugs. SG, DC and JB all generally worked at the direction of Jake Davies and the other principal.  This offender, Kansou, supplied drugs on only one occasion.

13. The participants communicated between themselves using CIPHR, an encrypted telecommunication service for use on mobile devices. This allowed users to send text, audio, and images, and video instant messages, using the Internet. Each user would be identified by a unique “CID” number, attached to a chosen username. The messages could be set to ‘delete’ after a chosen period of time. Phones so equipped could be used for the security they thus provided without the capacity to be intercepted by law enforcement agencies and third parties.

14. The offender had the username “Goat”. The usernames adopted by the other participants are included in the agreed statement of facts of para [2].

15. On 26 October 2020, an Assistant Commissioner of Police granted an authority for a controlled operation. On 6 January 2021, a further authority for a controlled operation was granted. This allowed for the ongoing investigation of the man Jake Davies and the person I have identified as JB.

16. The facts then turn to an event on 27 February 2021, concerning the supply of 56.2 grams of cocaine and 143.4 grams of 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine. The supply of these drugs were the offences with which the offender was charged upon the delivery of the drugs to an undercover operative.

17. On 26 February 2021, the undercover operative communicated with Davies and JB using a CIPHR group chat name created by the undercover operative.

18. The undercover operative asked for the urgent purchase of five ounces of MDMA and two ounces of cocaine. Davies replied saying there would be no cocaine available until next week but he could supply the five ounces of MDMA. On the same day, Davies updated the same group chat and added the user “Goat” and said;

“Goat, can you please pass apex 5 via OCKA’S of M tomorrow. He’s coming from Wollongong so pick a meeting spot that fits in with tomorrow’s schedule.”

19. Davies discussed a meeting location and confirmed the price for the MDMA as $2,100 per ounce, and that he could reduce it to $2,000 per ounce if the UCO purchased ten ounces. Later that day, Davies confirmed that he was able to source two ounces of cocaine from another customer’s order that he would sell to the undercover operative. He confirmed the total price for each drug as $10,500 for the MDMA and $16,000 for the cocaine.

20. On 27 February 2021, the undercover operative communicated with Goat via CIPHR and arranged to meet. Around 10.19am, police surveillance captured the offender entering his vehicle. He travelled to his home address at Revesby Heights and at 10.42am was observed to park in front of an address at Peakhurst. At 10.52 am, the offender was observed walking from the vicinity of the address in Peakhurst before entering his vehicle. He was then seen to travel to the vicinity of an address at Menai around 11am. The undercover operative parked outside and around 11.04am observed the offender’s vehicle with ‘Waterboys Plumbing’ graphics on it pass his vehicle twice and then park directly behind it.

21. Noteworthy is that this was the offender’s vehicle, and that ‘Waterboys Plumbing’ was his business name, graphically displayed upon the vehicle and clearly identifiable. This is a matter advanced in support of the subjective case offered on behalf of the offender, demonstrating perhaps his lack of sophistication in his participation in the enterprise.

22. The offender exited his vehicle. He entered the front passenger seat of the undercover operative’s vehicle and confirmed that he was the CIPHR user ‘Goat’. He indicated that the substance supplied might be a little bit over the weight requested. He took a plastic bag from his left jacket pocket and placed it in the glovebox. The undercover operative then handed him a package containing $26,500. The offender left the vehicle. The undercover operative opened the glovebox and observed that the plastic bag contained a number of smaller plastic bags with white powder and a brown rock substance. This was seized by police.

23. Upon analysis, 56.2 grams of cocaine was identified, about 11 times the indictable quantity, and 143.4 grams of 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine was identified, approximately 28 times the indictable quantity of the drug.

24. The offenders JB, DC, another person, AH, and the offender and SG were arrested.

25. In the offender’s home, the police located two $50 notes in a wardrobe or tallboy in the first bedroom, $1,900 in a separate bundle in the same item of furniture, $250 in a wallet, $150 in a Jimmy Choo bag, another $200 in the same item, $9,800 inside that first bedroom; there were scales and clear resealable plastic bags in a bag under the house. Total money seized was $12,400.

26. In contrast to the material relevant to the offender, the entire material provided by the Crown includes the statement of facts agreed and in dispute in the prosecution of Davies. That document extends to 24 pages with a multitude of episodes of misconduct, highlighting the contrast between the level of participation of this offender and that alleged of Davies.

The Offender

27. The offender was born in 1992. He has one antecedent offence determined on 12 September 2018 for which he was given a bond pursuant to s 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offence was driving whilst suspended. It is of no significance in the assessment of sentence in this case. I put it to one side.

28. I agree with the submission made on behalf of the offender that in the circumstances he comes before the Court as a person of good character.

29. Once more, there is contrast with the offender Davies who has a modest record for drug offences. Davies’ proceedings are listed for 26 September 2022 in the District Court at Sydney.

30. Were I to impose a sentence of imprisonment to be commenced today, it would be necessary to order the commencement date bringing to account the pre-sentence custody to which I have referred. In light of the course I am proposing, it is not necessary for me to take that course. The legislation governing intensive corrections orders requires that the sentence commence on the day upon which it is imposed. But when determining whether to extend that leniency to the offender, I brought to account the pre-sentence custody.

31. I also brought to account the constraints to which the offender was subject once he was granted bail which included, from 2 June 2021, residential obligations with proscription against leaving that address unless with his wife or brother, and then only for the purposes of employment, court, or legal and medical appointments. He could not posses or use a mobile phone for any reason. He could not use the Internet or any other encrypted device. He was proscribed from alcohol and drugs, unless the drugs were prescribed, and he could not be in contact or associate with any member of the enterprise or associated motorcycle group.

32. On 29 July 2021, there was a variation allowing him to possess one mobile phone, the details of which were to be immediately provided to the officer-in-charge, including the service number and IMEI number.

33. On 19 August 2021, the bail was further varied, allowing him to leave his home but not between the hours of 7pm and 5am unless with his wife, a brother or his parents.

34. On 16 September 2021, there was a further variation, allowing him to use the Internet for the purpose of employment or to obtain legal advice from his lawyers. On 16 December 2021, the curfew was varied to allow him to leave home other than between the hours of 10pm and 5am.

35. Clearly, these are matters that must be brought to account, reflecting punishment to which the offender has already been subject by reason of this misconduct.

36. I have been assisted with an array of documents in the defence bundle, including a report from Professor Stephen Woods of 19 June 2022. He consulted the offender on 5 August 2021.

37. He attended other medical practitioners, described in the report, including on the following occasions in 2021: August 19, September 23, October 15, November 11, and December 20; in 2022, January 11, February 10, March 7, April 6, and May 4th. He attended a formal review with the professor on 2 June 2022.

38. The professor had various documents to assist his assessment of the offender; he provided an executive summary which fairly reflects the balance of the document which is well supported by the material from which disorders identified were found to be burdening the offender. These included adjustment disorder with depressed mood – persistent, other specified trauma, stress related disorder with prolonged melancholic grief, generalised anxiety disorder, a gambling disorder previously severe, now in early-stage remission, substance use disorder, primarily cannabis and in an early stage in remission, and a stimulant use disorder for cocaine, previously identified as mild to moderate in severity, now in early stage remission.

39. Co-morbid mental disorders he developed pre-offence upon his background of anxiety arising from the Covid pandemic leading to the collapse of his plumbing business and resultant financial difficulties, fear as to how he would support his wife and infant son, and the cancer related deteriorating health of his paternal grandmother with whom he has always had a particularly close emotional attachment.

40. The professor writes,

“since commencing the treatment, Mr Kansou’s symptoms of anxiety and depressed mood have persisted but have, to a clinically encouraging degree, come quite under control”.

41. The symptoms of depression and anxiety will however likely continue pending the outcome of sentencing and his grandmother’s response to intensive cancer treatment.

42. Notwithstanding his continuing symptoms of anxiety and depression, Mr Kansou has benefited from the treatment provided and thus has been able to abstain from gambling and substance abuse.

43. In the professor’s opinion a clinical forensic nexus exists between the offender’s “co-morbid mood disorders, related addictive behaviours and his offending behaviour”.

44. The report provides an analysis of his financial circumstances. He incurred considerable cost in the acquisition of his equipment and tools and a reliable motor vehicle. Apart from small jobs, his business collapsed because of the Covid pandemic. He began to exhaust his savings. He was forced to freeze his home mortgage.

45. The cancer afflicting his paternal grandmother is described including the impact upon him from his relationship with her in which she was carer or caregiver through his developmental years providing a strong emotional bond.

46. The impact of this unfortunate development in his grandmother’s life was enmeshed with the sense of inadequacy that developed when he believed he would be unable to provide for his family.

47. It is against that background that the offending occurred. He is attributed with the proposition that the collapse of his business and related financial difficulties became known to persons in his local community, some of whom he had known from school. He was approached to do a favour for these people and in so engaging he committed the offence with which he is charged.

48. At the same time or within the same period more correctly, he began to gamble. It would appear to be the Star Casino where he attended for that purpose. He had gambled when a much younger person; that stopped once he married but with the decline of his business, loss of income, and financial imperilment he returned to it in the forlorn hope that he might win money to alleviate his problems. Unsurprisingly, he was not successful and he was forced to depend upon his brother to provide up to $400 per week to assist him with his circumstances.

49. He used cannabis when a young man in late teens when clubbing. He ceased at about 23 years of age when he became engaged and accepted the responsibility of marriage. However, he resorted to cannabis and cocaine consequent upon the collapse of his business. He did not expose his difficulties to others. He gambled to a greater extent when under the influence of cocaine. The substances enabled him to not think about his problems. Cocaine caused him to develop feelings of confidence and the cannabis alleviated his symptoms of anxiety and depression, clearly only as a temporary measure ultimately.

50. He is the eldest of five children. He comes from a loving and supporting family and there is nothing in his background or family circumstances that could explain the decision he made to embark upon this misconduct.

51. I accept what is said on behalf of the offender in this report, relying upon the representations attributed to him, that there is a connection between the decision he made to participate in this crime against the background of anxiety and depression evolving from the illness afflicting his grandmother, the loss of his business, and the possible loss of his home, accompanied by the sense of inadequacy that no doubt developed because he was not providing for his family appropriately.

52. On a brighter note, it appears that since his arrest and since he has been taken under control, to put it bluntly, he has changed his direction and has improved his and his family’s circumstances so as to address their financial difficulties.

53. The report I found particularly helpful in this case, describing as it does in detail the relationship he has with his family, the evolution of the symptoms throughout the difficult times that he experienced, and the attachment that he has now to his wife and his two small children.

54. He sought treatment and gained from what it provided. The period of time he spent in gaol has been salutary. The separation from his family, knowing they were suffering as a consequence, has impacted upon him. It would be to ignore common sense in my view not to appreciate, when an offender goes to gaol, the impact not only upon them but as it ripples through to their family, immediate and extended. In the decades I have engaged in practice as defence counsel, and later as a prosecutor, I have seen time and again the tragedy that befalls families when someone is in the position of this offender.

41. There is a line of authority that advanced the view that unless there was exceptional impact upon the family, the Court should in effect ignore it in determining what was the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon conduct such as this. Recently, dealing specifically with federal offences and the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), it has been said that the extent of the burden occasioned by such as the offender going to gaol upon family members is not a matter to be ignored. In my view, which I have held I might say throughout my professional life, this should never be ignored and is a matter to be brought to account when assessing the measure of punishment that a person must suffer for their criminal misconduct.

42. There are factors identified in the offender’s personality discussed in the report developed upon psychometric testing. I agree upon the assessment made that they explain why he chose the course that he did to commit this crime. The report at p 15 includes the following;

“In essence, Mr Kansou’s … clinical profile provides insight into why and extent to which he would have suffered a high level of distress and response to what was effectively the Covid pandemic - triggered collapse of his plumbing business.

The profile also provides insight in respect of the consciousness and compliant manner in which he has engaged in treatment as well as;

(a) the energy devoted to providing for his family and

(b) his readiness, indeed desire, to relocate … to the central coast in order to avoid any form of contact with persons from his local area, while also taking up potentially well paid work opportunities.”

57. The testing revealed someone with a compulsive personality type, high level desire to achieve and give attention to his responsibilities, general anxiety disorder, and features of traumatic stress. The report continues at 3.3.

“Mr Kansou’s METO and MCMI-IV clinical profiles are consistent with each other and his history of engaging in gambling and substitutes in a dysfunctional attempt to cope with stressors, anxiety, depressive episodes, and increasingly poor sense of self-worth, secondary to financial hardship (most notably ability to provide for his family, secondary to the Covid pandemic related collapse of his plumbing business).”

58. The opinion at item 4 in the report includes a diagnosis and explanation which I accept. At p 19 the following is written;

“Mr Kansou’s fears and sense of helplessness in respect of his grandmother appear to have become enmeshed with his fear based anxious worry in respect of what was effectively the collapse of his plumbing business and resultant financial stressors including difficulty with servicing his home and work related loans, the resultant poor relationships with his bank, and problems in refinancing the debts.”

59. The report continues at 4.4;

“In my clinical forensic opinion, a causal nexus exists between Mr Kansou’s pre-existing co-morbid mental disorders and his offending behaviour.”

60. Symptomatic of the disorders suffered by Mr Kansou were aspects of his judgement that would’ve been impaired, thus rendering him increasingly vulnerable to dysfunctional behaviour as a coping mechanism and to ultimately offend. A treatment program was advanced in which he demonstrated a high level of motivation and commitment to addressing his symptoms.  It is appropriate that he be required to continue with supervision that will enable ongoing monitoring of this program.

61. I pause to interpolate here that the offender did not give evidence, and one is always mindful of the guidance provided by Wilson J in the decision in Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144. However, the defence material was tendered by consent; there has been no challenge put forward to the representations attributed to the offender.

62. I find upon the analysis of the report and other documents that have been tendered consistency such that I would accept according to the standard for proof required of the offender what is said on his behalf and the reasons for it.

63. There is a report from Jenny Howell, forensic psychologist, on 18 June 2022. This deals with an assessment of the offender’s wife. She was accompanied by their two children. She described her feelings of depression, anxiety and stress associated with the current circumstances. She made an assessment of the relationship between the offender and his wife, and between the offender, his wife and their children, one of whom, the son, may exhibit signs of emotional dysregulation and stress. The opinion offered is that the offender’s wife currently meets the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder and an anxiety disorder, which she must, as she recognises, address in the interests of her children’s physical and emotional care needs.

64. Part of the preparation of this matter included steps taken to demonstrate that the offender has been abstinent from the misuse of prohibited drugs. This included analysis of hair samples taken which revealed there was no evidence of the use of any of the drugs evaluated, including cocaine, natural and synthetic cannabis, methylamphetamine or steroids.

65. The tests extended to assess the use of alcohol. Upon these results were that there was either no use or minimal use of alcohol by the offender during the period of time represented by the hair segments provided.

66. There is a letter from the offender, expressing apology and accepting responsibility for the offence, acknowledging the misconduct and his shame. He notes the impact of five weeks in gaol upon him and his family, and hence my observation earlier that it had salutary effect on him.

67. Since on bail, he has been working six days a week. He has restored his association with his religion and has continued with the psychologist in obtaining the help there available to him.

68. The evidence provided by this composition is consistent with the proposition that he is committed and devoted to his wife and children; I accept that he has recognised the significance of his wrongdoing and has turned away from that path, and that his prospects for rehabilitation are strong. There are character references speaking to his qualities before me unchallenged. These include from his wife, from his mother, from a director of a plumbing service, from an accountant, from the proprietor of a residential building company and a real estate agent. He has also a reference from a local government councillor and a medical practitioner who has been the family doctor for some years. There is a psychological report indicating the negative results upon analysis of fluids taken from the offender.

Consideration

69. As was made clear by Johnson in Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247, beginning of para [110] and then at para [112];

“In sentencing for an offence (whether or not a standard non-parole period offence), a court should make an assessment of the objective gravity of the offence applying general law principles, so that all factors which bear upon the seriousness of the offence should be taken into account...”.

70. The discussion his Honour offered traverses the objective seriousness of offending, and also the concept of moral culpability, which is one might accept an overlapping matter that involves other considerations.

71. The objective seriousness of an offence must be assessed, but the participation of the offender in that offence must be determined upon the extent of his moral culpability which, as was observed by his Honour, is a term used in a rather flexible way in various authorities. An antecedent criminal history will illuminate and perhaps identify the level of moral culpability, which might be found to be not so significant against the background of a particular offender, such as discussed for example by Wood J in the guideline judgement of Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 specifically at p 398 or para [273].

72. His Honour was there dealing with drug addiction and how it might shed light on the existence or non-existence of an alternative reason that might have operated in aggravation of an offence.

73. I agree with the submissions made on behalf of the offender that the evidence provided by way of Professor Woods provides an explanation for the offender’s unfortunate decision to engage upon this criminal misconduct.

74. He comes before the Court, not a young man, with effectively no antecedent criminal history, and although the offences as described and without more should be seen to be serious, and at least proximate to the mid-range of objective seriousness, when one synthesises the subjective case that has been presented, a different view evolves.

75. I have considered the quantity of the drug. I have considered the participation of the offender in the misconduct. I have considered the role he played and his position within the hierarchy in which he engaged, making the foolish decision to help his former associates in the way that he did. It was a single supply in the context of a far more extensive enterprise for which the others must answer.

76. I accept his plea of guilty as a reflection of his contrition and remorse, in addition to the utility that it provides. I have noted what has been said about gambling which does not necessarily mitigate misconduct, but one must bring to account the circumstances in which he made the decision to gamble and the factual matrix that has been identified by Professor Woods, ultimately leading to his decision to participate in this crime for some financial advantage to assist him in his perceived difficult financial circumstances.

77. I accept his prospects for rehabilitation are strong and are demonstrated. I accept that the period in custody operates in specific deterrence of the offender and I have taken into account the impact upon the offender’s family. I have had note of s 66 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the need for community safety be the given paramount consideration. I am satisfied that serving a sentence by way of an intensive corrections order in the community will best serve the community safety in this case.

78. The sentence assessment report is helpful to the offender. It confirms his stable accommodation with his wife and two children, the impact of Covid-19 upon his self-employment when loss of income arose. He has attributed his offending behaviour to his lack of work by way of his business, lack of income from his business, his resort to gambling, hopefully to find money to support his family, and his spiralling misuse of substances which ultimately was the explanation for his crime. There is reference to his counselling and his abstinence. He is attributed with awareness of the impact of his offending upon his family and upon the community generally. He is attributed with regret and his willingness to undertake whatever intervention is required. He is assessed with a low risk of reoffending and his supervision plan is there discussed.

79. The Crown does not diminish the significance of the wrongdoing but does not submit that the option that I am taking is beyond the options that are available in this case with this offender.

Conclusion

80. Accordingly, in each case, the offender is convicted of the offence. I shall specify an aggregate sentence of 3 years, bringing to account his constraints by way of bail and his pre-sentence custody. Applying a discount of 25% for his guilty plea to the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed in each case, upon the synthesis of objective matters and the subjective case, I have identified as appropriate for the offence of supplying cocaine, a sentence of 2 years.

81. For the offence of supplying the commercial quantity of MDMA, I have identified a sentence of 2 years and 10 months. If I were to impose this as a custodial sentence I would have identified a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months with a finding of special circumstances arising from the need for the offender to continue in the community under supervision for an extended period of time to build upon the progress he has made towards his rehabilitation.

82. I specify an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 3 years to be served by way of an intensive corrections order in the community. The order shall commence today. The standard conditions shall apply in accordance with s 72 and s 73 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The standard conditions are that he not commit any offence and that he submits to supervision by Community Corrections.

83. I indicated on the last occasion my view was that there should be an additional condition by way of a curfew. s 73A requires that there be at least one additional condition unless I was satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. I am of the view that there should be one additional condition and in this instance, I shall require that the offender be subject to a curfew for a period of ten months; the terms of the curfew are that he is not to leave his domicile unless for the purposes of medical treatment. [1]

    1. At this point counsel assisted me with the terms Cl 189B Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 providing for additional conditions in consequence whereof I noted the provision and made orders that the curfew extend from 10pm to 5am with exceptions to allow for the offender to attend medical treatments required for his children.

84. Make orders by consent in terms of short minutes which I have signed and will have stamped. They were pursuant to s 18(1) Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, the sum of $6,200 found at the address nominated is to be forfeited to the state.

85. Order that the offender report to the Bankstown office of Community Corrections for the supervision of the Intensive Corrections Order.

86. Exhibits to remain on file.

**********

Endnote

Decision last updated: 06 October 2022