R v Lachlan Houison

[2020] NSWDC 325

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Lachlan Houison [2020] NSWDC 325

Hearing dates:

1 August 2019, 6 December 2019, 25 February 2020, 23 June 2020

Date of orders:

23 June 2020

Decision date:

23 June 2020

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Wilson SC DCJ

Decision:

2 year Intensive Corrections Order imposed. Decision at [87] – [92]

Catchwords:

CRIME – Sentencing – s11 bail – successful rehabilitation – young Offender – remorse – reduced risk of reoffending – intensive corrections order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 NSW ss 97(1), 192E(1)(A), 527C(1)(A)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss NSW 3A, 21A(2)(o), 32

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 NSW ss 15, 16

Cases Cited:

Cummins v R [2019] NSWCCA 163

Liao v R [2007] NSWCCA 132

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242

R v Mobbs [2005] NSWCCA 371

Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Texts Cited:

None

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Mr Lachlan Houison (Offender)
Regina (ODPP)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Mr J Staples (Crown)
Mr G Stewart (Offender)

File Number(s):

2018/236920; 2018/270350; 2018/278444

Publication restriction:

None

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

1. These proceedings have been before me on 3 prior occasions (1 August 2019, 6 December 2019, and 25 February 2020). The reason for the delay in sentence was to facilitate the Offender’s continued participation in rehabilitation programs directed to treating him for his addiction to alcohol and other drugs, before determining whether the Offender should serve his sentence in full-time custody or by way of Intensive Corrections Order in the community.

2. The Offender, Lachlan Houison, appears for sentence today on a single charge of robbery with an offensive weapon in breach of section 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW. There is no doubt that this is a serious charge which would commonly result in full-time custody. The seriousness of the offending is reflected by the maximum penalty, that being a period of 20 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. The maximum penalty is a guidepost to sentence, representing the attitude of the community, through Parliament, towards the seriousness of the offending.

3. The Offender was born 25 July 1997 and is soon to be 23 years of age.

4. He committed the offence, the subject of this sentence, on 6 September 2018. He was arrested on 11 September 2018.

5. Shortly before the subject offending, the Offender was involved in the commission of other offences, being H number ending 221 (goods in custody and dishonestly obtaining property by deception), and H number ending 977 (alter prescription which included a prohibited drug and possess a forged prescription). Those charges have now been placed on 2 Form 1 documents and attached to the principal charge for sentence. The Offender has admitted guilt in relation to those charges and asked me to take into account pursuant to section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (‘the CSP Act’).

6. By signing the Certificates to those documents, I confirm that I have taken those charges, being (Form 1 charges) into account in sentencing for the principal charge. The charges on the Form 1 are to be taken into account with a view to increasing the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for the principal sequence. The court does so by giving greater weight to two elements which are always material in the sentencing process. The first is the need for personal deterrence, and the second is the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences: Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 at [65].

7. The first Form 1 attaches charges, arising out of the events which occurred on 13 July 2018 at Caringbah. The Court Attendance Notice alleged that the Offender:

did have in his actual possession a forged prescription which included a prohibited drug, Oxazepam, the accused knowing the prescription to have been forged.

8. That gave rise to 2 criminal charges in breach of sections 15 and 16(b) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The first being alter a prescription which includes a prohibited drug, and the second being in possession of a forged prescription. The pharmacist to whom it was presented contacted the doctor who apparently prescribed the medication, the latter confirming that she had not issued the prescription. Apparently, she had prescription pads stolen from her practice earlier in the year.

9. The second Form 1 also attaches to charges arising out of the events which occurred on 1 August 2018 at Caringbah. The Offender was charged that, in breach of section 527C(1)(a) of the Crimes Act he had goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen. The second charge was dishonestly obtaining property by deception in contravention of section 192E(1)(A) of the Crimes Act. Police located a is a card in the wallet of the accused in the name of Tarnia Quigley. A police check revealed a recent report of lost property and an allegation of fraudulent transactions. The 3 transactions ranged in value from $2 to $44.99. The total was less than $100.

10. In respect of those four charges, the Offender has indicated his guilt and has asked that I have regard to those charges when sentencing him in respect of the principal charge, robbery with an offensive weapon.

11. For the present matter, the Offender was committed for sentence from the Downing Centre Local Court on 28 March 2019. He entered a guilty plea at an early time entitling him to a discount in sentence of 25%, representing the utilitarian value of that plea.

AGREED FACTS

12. On Thursday, 6 September 2018 at approximately 1:15 AM, Feng Wang (‘the Complainant’) was walking from the Westpac ATM on Forest Road Hurstville towards the Club Central located at 2 Crofts Road Hurstville, via Diment Way.

13. As the Complainant was about halfway along Diment Way, he felt something hit the back of his head. He immediately turned around and saw a male person, who was the Offender.

14. The Offender was holding a metal object, about 20 cm long in his right hand. The Offender asked the Complainant for money. The Complainant took his wallet out, removed a $20 note and threw it on the ground. CCTV from the area captured the Offender bending over and picking up the $20 the Complainant had removed from his wallet.

15. The Complainant got scared and started yelling out “help”, while running towards Forest Road. The Offender chased Wang until he reached Forest Road, at which time he turned around and ran back in the opposite direction.

16. The Complainant attended Hurstville police station where he reported what had occurred. Police observed the Complainant to have a red, slightly raised mark on the back of his head, behind his left ear.

17. CCTV from Hurstville train station at 1:10 AM on 6 September 2018 showed the Offender wearing dark clothing consistent with that in the CCTV of the alleged offence - a dark blue-hooded jacket zipped up with white chords around the hood, light coloured pants and dark-coloured shoes with white soles.

18. On 11 September 2018, police executed a search warrant at the Offender’s address in Oyster Bay. He was shown a still of the CCTV footage from Hurstville train station on 6 September 2018 at which time he told police that the items of clothing captured on the CCTV footage were in the garage area of his premises.

19. The Offender was arrested and taken to Sutherland police station where he initially agreed to participate in a recorded interview, before later telling police that he no longer wished to participate in an interview.

SUBJECTIVE CASE

Criminal History

20. The Offender has a number of prior convictions which were dealt with in the Children’s Court, most of which relate to acts of dishonesty such as shoplifting and the like.

21. I do not consider the Offender’s criminal history as being a statutory aggravating factor, however, it does disentitle him to a finding of good character and any leniency which may otherwise flow from that finding.

Sentencing Assessment Report

22. I have read of the Sentencing Assessment Report by Mr McCrae dated 29 July 2019 (Exhibit B).

23. At the time of the assessment, the Offender was at the Dooralong Transformation Centre (DTC) pursuant to section 11 bail granted by this Court.

24. His caseworker indicated to the author of the report that he was progressing positively in the program. It was noted that his parents remain supportive and have visited him most weekends.

25. The Offender’s employment history was unremarkable, and noted that he had had limited employment in the past and was currently in receipt of the Youth Allowance.

26. He reported that his previous antisocial behaviour had been related to alcohol use and negative social associates.

27. The Offender acknowledged the seriousness of his actions and accepted responsibility for his offending behaviour. He was attending the DTC in an attempt to address his long-term alcohol problem.

28. At the time of the offending, the Offender described that he was feeling hopeless and suicidal and realised that he needed to change his life. He was provided with psychological counselling at the centre.

29. When discussing the police facts, the Offender was upset and shocked by his actions. The author of the report considered that the Offender had gained insight into the impact of his actions and the effect that they would have had upon the victim. This confirms my own opinion of the Offender.

30. The Offender confirmed that he was willing and motivated to comply with supervision conditions and obligations. He also stated that he is able to undertake community service work and is willing to comply with such a condition.

31. As at the time of the report (29 July 2019) the Offender indicated that he was motivated to complete the program which he had commenced on 7 May 2019.

32. The Offender was assessed as being a medium to low risk of reoffending and suitable for community service work of up to 21 hours per month.

Report by Anita Duffy, Psychologist

33. The Offender’s subjective case was further informed by a report by Anita Duffy, psychologist, dated 16 July 2019, which followed her assessment of the Offender on 1 July 2019. At the time of the interview, the Offender was still undergoing the program and had maintained strict abstinence from all substances. He was participating in groups and attending AA, NA and GA meetings in the community. He acknowledged the need to remain in a strictly controlled environment to prevent relapse. He has managed to achieve that.

34. The psychologist took a useful history. The Offender was born in Sydney and grew up with his family in the southern suburbs of Sydney. His parents separated when he was about three years of age and he moved between both homes. The Offender is the youngest of 4 siblings with two older brothers and one older sister. There was apparently some bullying from an older sibling.

35. His parents get along well and are on speaking terms. They refer to the Offender as being the “problem child”.

36. His schooling was affected by difficulties with literacy and a lack of reading ability. He left school in Year 9 following expulsion for fighting and truanting. He was then sent to Cook School for children with behavioural difficulties where there were just five pupils per class. Cook School helped him find an apprenticeship as a chef at the Post Box Cafe at Yowie Bay. Whilst he managed to complete the practical subjects in the Certificate III in Cookery, he had difficulty with theory. Towards the end of the apprenticeship, the Offender was transferred to a tapas restaurant in Sutherland where he worked evening or afternoon shifts.

37. He began using drugs heavily during this period, as it was commonplace to socialise with colleagues at the end of a shift. He returned to the Post Box Cafe working three days a week, but was eventually fired as he was “off his face on drugs”. At the time of the subject offending, the Offender was unemployed, receiving the New Start Allowance.

38. In late 2018, he commenced the Salvation Army run rehabilitation program at William Booth House, where he remained for 59 days before transferring to the farm at Dooralong, also run by the Salvation Army.

39. The Offender complained of restlessness, distractedness and anxiety in his childhood. He reported outbursts of anger and threatened to hang himself in front of his mother. At the age of 18, he self-harmed by cutting his leg when he lost the job at the Tapas Bar.

40. The Offender commenced binge drinking at the age of 15 or 16 engaging in more regular sessions after the age of 18. He went to the pub daily after work and, would drink from 6 to 15 schooners of beer. He began smoking cannabis at the age of 13, consuming heavily at times. At the age of 16 he was introduced to ice, which he smoked on a recreational basis initially, before developing a daily habit. He would smoke the drug after work with friends, referring to the hospitality industry as very drug-oriented.

41. He also referred to a heavy gambling habit which coincided with drinking at the pub. He would often gamble all of his wages on the poker machines and then borrow some money from each parent to continue gambling. He claims to have lost thousands of dollars on the poker machines.

42. He attended a rehabilitation program at Triple Care Farm, however, lasted for only six weeks before leaving and relapsing immediately. He reported even heavier use of drugs and alcohol, injecting between 5 and 17 points of ice a day and gambling on the poker machines. This continued until he was arrested and self-referred to the Salvation Army residential program. There have been some lapses following the consumption of alcohol where he was suspended for three weeks before resuming the course.

43. In the future, the Offender intends to enrol in a TAFE certificate in social welfare on the Central Coast with the eventual goal of working in a rehabilitation setting.

44. In terms of the index offending, the Offender reported that during the day prior to the offence he had been smoking ice with a mate before boarding a train to return home. He was drinking vodka on the train before getting off at Hurstville. That’s when he saw the complainant whom he followed after the complainant had withdrawn some money from an ATM. The Offender had a screwdriver in his hands and “on the spur of the moment” confronted the complainant. It is said that in the ensuing fight, he hit the man with the screwdriver and demanded money from him. The complainant threw down $20 and ran away yelling for help. At the time of the offence, the Offender was affected by alcohol and ice.

45. The psychologist undertook a number of tests revealing a composite IQ in the range of 73-87 as well as instability in mood and behaviour. The current symptoms suggested that he may require treatment for bipolar, drug dependence and anxiety.

46. The psychologist suggested that the Offender may have been substantially impaired in his judgment on the night of the offending due to his consumption of alcohol and ice.

47. The psychologist expressed the opinion that if the Offender completed the rehabilitation program his risk of recidivism would be reduced.

Rehabilitation

48. A joint report dated 29 July 2019 by Ms Moloney and Mr Stubbs from the DTC is Exhibit 2. It confirmed that the Offender was admitted to the DTC on 7 May 2019. The time which a participant spends at the DTC can vary from between 3 to 10 months. The joint authors of the report confirmed that the Offender maintained a consistent attendance at daily group sessions and provide insight into the group process. He also engaged in relapse prevention. The report indicated that the Offender also attended external Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. The Offender is required to subject to random urine drug analysis all of which have returned a negative result.

49. By way of a letter which became Exhibit 3 in the sentence hearing, the Offender wrote a letter of apology to the complainant acknowledging the serious physical and mental harm caused by the Offender’s conduct and requesting forgiveness.

50. On 25 February 2020, the Offender gave evidence. He confirmed that he was discharged from the DTC in November 2019. Subsequently on 7 January 2020, he re-commenced a rehabilitation program at William Booth House. He said that he was enjoying the rehabilitation course as it gave him “a sense of being stable which (he) had not experienced for a long time” (T4.40).

51. He told the court that he was extremely sorry for what he did and at the time of the offending he couldn’t comprehend what he was really doing. He acknowledged the fear that he would have cause the complainant and said that he was ashamed of what he had done. I accept that the Offender has accepted responsibility for his actions and the harm done to the complainant.

52. As at 25 February 2020, the Offender had spent 299 days in rehabilitation and expected it to continue for another 6 weeks. His plan is to move into a post rehabilitation centre.

53. In rehabilitation, the Offender has been tested for alcohol and drugs on a regular basis and on all occasions was negative.

54. The Offender’s father, Anthony Houison, also gave evidence. It is plain from his evidence that the Offender enjoys his father’s support which will be a significant factor in determining the appropriate sentence.

55. Exhibit 4 in the sentence hearing was a further report from the DTC. It confirmed that the Offender had completed 14 weeks in Level 2 before being discharged for disciplinary reasons. He was placed on a 21 day stand down and was open to apply for reassessment and readmission. The matter giving rise to the disciplinary concern arose from the Offender engaging in horseplay with another youth at rehabilitation centre. My understanding of what occurred is that it was a fairly trivial incident, however it contravened very strict house behavioural rules. The authors of the report referred to this as being a lapse of judgment by behaving inappropriately.

56. Otherwise, the report indicated that the Offender had been in the program since 2 May 2019, a period of 28 weeks and had actively participated in the various support sessions. It was reported that he displayed consistent compliance across all levels of the therapeutic community. He integrated well into the program, worked well with his caseworker and has committed within the group process.

57. On 7 January 2020, the Offender was admitted to the Bridge Program at William Booth House. In a report dated 24 February 2020 (Exhibit 5), the caseworker confirmed that he remained a participant in the program. The program was described as “a recovery orientated, residential program for individuals suffering from alcohol, drugs or gambling addictions”. The author confirmed that during his admission, the Offender has been subjected to random drug and alcohol testing with no positive results.

58. In anticipation of this sentence, a further report was obtained from William Booth House. It is dated 22 June 2020 and will be marked Exhibit 6. The report confirmed that the Offender had completed the “Induction Phase” (three weeks), “Recovery Phase Level I” (nine weeks) and “Recovery Phase Level II” (12 weeks) as at 19 June 2020. Yesterday, he commenced the “Re-entry Phase” (12 weeks) during which he will be engaging in employment, training programs and community involvement focused on assimilation within the broader community.

59. The author of the report stated that the Offender had utilised his time to benefit from the Bridge Program and had gained valuable insight into the underlying behavioural issues that maintained his addiction. The Offender displayed increasing honesty, humility and willingness to change his behaviours. He has further demonstrated a commitment to change through his consistent participation in individual counselling, group therapy, attendance at internal and external 12-step meetings and engagement in the spiritual component of the program. The caseworker, Luke Rombi, stated:

In my respectful opinion, if Mr Houison continues to display his current level of commitment and motivation, he will successfully complete the Bridge program and become an asset to the community, living a rewarding life in recovery.

60. Mr Rombi again confirmed that the Offender has been the subject of random drug and alcohol tests, never returning a positive result.

Crown’s Written Submissions (MFI 2)

61. In its written submissions, the Crown referred to Henry and accepted the analysis advanced by senior counsel for the Offender. It was submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending was below the mid-range of objective seriousness for such offences but not at the bottom of the range. It is accepted the offending was opportunistic and unsophisticated with a small amount of money taken it but it was submitted that the confrontation must have been frightening for the victim.

62. The prosecution did not press for any findings of statutory aggravating factor, is pursuant to section 21A(2), and accepted that the prior convictions did not aggravate the offending but rather disentitle to the Offender to some degree of leniency which otherwise may be afforded to a first time Offender.

63. The Crown accepted that a finding of remorse was open, that the Offender was entitled to a discount on sentence of 25% for his early guilty plea and that, given the age of the Offender, rehabilitation, is a purpose for sentencing assumes a greater role.

64. The Crown submitted that the use of drugs and the intoxication of the Offender at the time the offence was committed was not a mitigating factor. I accept that submission.

65. The Crown noted the diagnosis of ADHD on testing performed by the psychologist and conceded that this made the Offender a very slightly less suitable vehicle for general deterrence.

66. The Crown referred to the sentencing assessment report in which the Offender was defined as having a medium to low risk of reoffending a finding for which the Crown contended.

67. The Crown further conceded that the conditions of the residential rehabilitation program satisfied the test for quasi custody entitling the Offender to a discretionary adjustment in sentence.

68. The Crown submitted that the section 5 threshold was crossed and that any sentence other than imprisonment would be inappropriately lenient.

Offender’s Written Submissions (MFI 1)

69. Written submissions were prepared on behalf of the Offender (MFI 1). It was submitted on behalf of the Offender that the objective seriousness of the Offender’s criminality for index offending fell towards the lower end for offences of this type. I accept the submission that the offending was opportunistic, committed spontaneously and ought generally be regarded as less serious than similar offending which is planned (R v Mobbs [2005] NSWCCA 371 at [50]).

70. It was conceded for the Offender that the Henry guideline judgement applied to the subject offending. In the matter of R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Chief Justice Spigelman stated at [162]:

It appears from the cases that come to this court, including the present proceedings, that there is a category of case which is sufficiently common for the purposes of determining a guideline:

(i) young Offender with no or little criminal history;

(ii) weapon like a knife, capable of killing or inflicting serious injury;

(iii) limited degree of planning;

(iv) limited, if any, actual violence but the real threat thereof;

(v) victim in a vulnerable position such as a shopkeeper or taxi driver;

(vi) small amount taken;

(vii) plea of guilty, the significance of which is limited by strong Crown case.

71. At [165] the Chief Justice expressed an opinion that sentences for an offence of the character identified above should generally fall between 4 and 5 years for the full term, subject to any aggravating or mitigating factors which might exist.

72. It was conceded in behalf of the Offender that, save for (v) the features referred to by the Chief Justice exist in the present case. I accept that submission and make that finding.

73. The court was urged to have regard to the actual bodily harm suffered by the victim, stating that it would not be an error to take that matter into account in the case of armed robbery (Liao v R [2007] NSWCCA 132, [8]-[12]). According to the facts agreed in this case, fortunately, the injuries suffered by the complainant appear to have been both relatively minor and transient. There is reference to a red, slightly raised mark on the back of the head of the complainant. There is no evidence of any ongoing effect or disability.

74. Submissions were advanced on behalf of the Offender that the fact that the case falls within the Henry guideline judgement does not preclude the matter being dealt with by way of an Intensive Corrections Order. Reference was made to a decision of Cummins v R [2019] NSWCCA 163 where Justice Price stated and the other judges agreed at [97]:

It is trite to observe that the Henry guideline is not to be applied as a standard. The appropriate sentence depends upon the circumstances of the case.

75. It is also plain from the remarks made by the Chief Justice in Henry that it was never intended that the guideline judgement would be applied as a strict standard for sentence.

76. In relation to the Offender’s prior record, it was submitted on his behalf that his offending commenced around the age of 15 for relatively minor offences, and that whilst his prior record does him no credit, it cannot be used to increase the objective seriousness of his current offending (R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242). I accept that submission.

77. In relation to rehabilitation and the likelihood of reoffending, it was submitted that with appropriate psychological and psychiatric assistance the Offender can return to a law-abiding life.

78. It was further submitted that the Offender had displayed remorse. I accept that submission and it will be reflected in the findings I make below.

79. The submissions the Offender ended with suggested alternatives to full-time imprisonment.

FINDINGS

80. Having given careful consideration to the evidence and the submissions referred to above, I make the following findings:

1. that the following statutory mitigating features exist:

1. the injury or harm to the complainant was not substantial, for the reasons provided above;

2. that the offending was not part of a planned or organised criminal activity, but rather as an opportunistic act on the part of the Offender;

3. the Offender does not have a significant criminal record;

4. in my opinion, the Offender is unlikely to reoffend, given the success of rehabilitation;

5. the prospects of rehabilitation are excellent, and almost complete;

6. the Offender has accepted responsibility for his conduct and the harm it caused to the complainant entitling him to a finding of statutory remorse;

7. the plea of guilty;

2. that the objective seriousness of the offending is towards the low range given the unsophisticated nature of the offending, the amount stolen and the transient nature of the injuries suffered to the complainant;

3. that special circumstances exist warranting a departure from the statutory ratio of non-parole to parole periods;

4. that the Offender is entitled to a discount of 25% on sentence for his early guilty plea;

5. that the Offender’s young age at the time that offending (21 years) is a mitigating factor which reduces his moral culpability;

6. I accept the opinion of Ms Duffy that, at the time the offending, the Offender was affected by alcohol and ice both of which may have substantially impaired his judgment and enhanced his impulsivity. Self-intoxication, however, is not a mitigating factor, except to observe that the Offender’s addiction to illicit substances commenced at a young age, and a time when he was probably not at an age of rational choice. In my opinion, those circumstances slightly reduce the Offender’s moral culpability;

7. it is likely that the Offender suffered from a number of undiagnosed psychological conditions that the time of the offending, however, the evidence does not permit a nexus to be drawn between any such conditions and the acts giving rise to the offence. I do accept the results of the personality and clinical questionnaires completed by Ms Duffy, and find that the Offender is a person who is emotionally labile, impulsive, with poor controls over negative emotions. I accept that he tends to have marked mood swings which may have been previously exacerbated by stimulants or other drugs. These conditions and his age raise questions as to the suitability of the Offender as a vehicle for general deterrence;

8. that the Offender’s participation in rehabilitation through the Salvation Army has been exceptional;

9. that the Offender poses no risk to community safety;

10. that, due to the Offender’s health and psychological conditions a period of full-time custody would weigh more heavily upon him than for another Offender;

11. that, having considered all possible alternatives, no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate; and

12. that the mitigating factors which exist in this case warrant a departure from the guideline judgement in Henry.

DETERMINING THE SENTENCE

81. The Offender has spent the best part of 12 months in residential rehabilitation. In my opinion, that entitles him to a discount on sentence of about six months as it represents a form of quasi-custody.

82. The Offender is further entitled to a discount on sentence of 25% on account of his early guilty plea.

83. Having regard to those factors and the objective seriousness of the offending, mindful of the guideline judgement in R v Henry, I consider that a sentence by way of imprisonment of no more than 2 years is appropriate and would satisfy the purposes for sentencing set out in section 3A of the CSP Act. In my opinion, this would represent adequate punishment for the subject offending, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offending, the subjective features and any mitigating factors.

HOW SHOULD THE SENTENCE BE SERVED?

84. Given that the sentence will not exceed 2 years, the question arises as to whether it should be served by way full-time custody or by way of ICO in the community. I am mindful of the fact the community safety must be a paramount consideration when deciding whether to make an ICO in relation to any Offender. For the reasons already given, I do not consider that the Offender poses a risk to community safety.

85. The next consideration is whether serving a sentence by way of an ICO rather than full-time detention is more likely to address the Offender’s risk of re-offending.

86. I find that having given careful consideration to the Offender’s success in rehabilitation, and his present transitioning back into the community, the risk of reoffending would best be addressed by an ICO, with conditions.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

87. Mr Houison please stand. You are convicted of robbery with an offensive weapon in contravention of section 97(1) the Crimes Act 1900.

88. I impose a sentence of imprisonment for a duration of 2 years. The sentence is to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order.

89. The commencement date for the ICO is today, Tuesday, 23 June 2020.

90. The following standard conditions apply, pursuant to section 73 of the CSP Act:

1. the Offender must not commit any offence during the term of the ICO;

2. the Offender must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections Officer.

91. In addition, I impose the following conditions on the ICO:

1. a community service work condition requiring the Offender to complete 150 hours of community service during the term of the ICO;

2. a rehabilitation or treatment condition requiring the Offender to participate in a rehabilitation program as directed by the Community Corrections Officer after liaising with the Salvation Army. Consideration should also be given to the recommendations for therapy suggested by Ms Duffy in her report dated 16 July 2019;

3. an abstention condition requiring the Offender to abstain from alcohol and drugs during the period of the ICO.

92. In order to commence the Intensive Corrections Order, I order that you attend the Sutherland Office of Community Corrections within 48 hours of today. That is, no later than 2:00pm on Thursday 25 June 2020. Further, I direct that you provide the Community Corrections Office with a copy of the report by Ms Duffy and all reports from the Salvation Army Rehabilitation Centres which you have attended.

93. If you fail to comply with the terms of the Intensive Corrections Order then you will be brought to the attention of the State Parole Authority who will determine how the remainder of your sentence is to be served. That could include a period of full-time custody.

**********

I certify that the previous 93 paragraphs are the reasons for the Remarks on Sentence of his Honour Judge D Wilson SC.

Associate

James Bailey

Decision last updated: 24 June 2020