R v Lucas

[2018] NSWDC 480

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Lucas [2018] NSWDC 480
Hearing dates:	30 May 2018; 28 September 2018
Decision date:	28 September 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	SEQ 002: Form 1 matters (SEQ 003, 006, 007) taken into account. Convicted. Special circumstances found: background, need for a longer period on parole to address his drug use & criminal offending, and assist in rehabilitation and return to a lawful life in the community. Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 6 years and 5 months, comprising a NPP of 4 years and 5 months to commence on 4 July 2016 and to expire on 3 December 2020, and a balance of term of 2 years to commence on 4 December 2020 and expiring on 3 December 2022. Eligible for release to parole on 3 December 2020.
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentence - robbery while armed with dangerous weapon, sawn-off .22 rifle – larceny – joint criminal enterprise – parity - home invasion - subjective matters – deprived background - extensive history of illicit drug use – criminal history – mental health problems
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v the Queen (2013) HCA 37 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 R v Fernando (2002) NSWCCA 28 R v Huynh (2003) NSW CCA 239 R v McVittie (2002) NSW CCA 344 R v Moffatt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Robert Henry Lucas
Representation:	Counsel: Defence: Mr B Walsh   Solicitors: Crown: Mr J Gibson
File Number(s):	2016/00003600

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Robert Lucas appears for sentence in respect of a single offence, being robbery armed with a dangerous weapon, contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty provided is 25 years and there is no standard non-parole period.

2. In addition, he asks, when being dealt with in respect of that offence, to have taken into account a further three offences, the first being robbery armed with a dangerous weapon, in respect of which when dealt with alone the maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment, and two further offences of larceny. In respect of each of those there is a maximum penalty of five years when dealt with alone.

3. All of the offences were committed on 26 December 2015. He was arrested on 4 January 2016 and has been in custody since that time.

4. However, from 4 January 2016 until 26 February 2017, he has been serving the balance of parole, having been on parole at the time of committing these offences. From 27 February 2017, he has been in custody only in relation to these offences.

5. The facts are as follows:

6. On the evening of 25 December 2015, the victims, Jordan Khatter and Zac Cubbin, Caleb Pholi and Brett Caughlan, were all inside Unit 2, 27 Moad Street, Orange.

7. At about 4am most of the victims had gone to bed and were either sleeping or about to go to sleep. Khatter and Cubbin were about to go to sleep in the lounge room. Khatter heard a knock at the front door and got up to open the door. When the door was opened he immediately saw the co-offender Douglas Vale standing at the door. Khatter had known Vale for about three years, having first met him at school.

8. The co-offender asked Khatter, “Have you got any weed?” Khatter replied “No”. The co-offender again asked the same question, and was again told “No”. Khatter began to close the door to the unit when he noticed the offender approaching the door from the right hand side of the front of the unit. Khatter saw that the offender was holding a rifle in his right hand. The rifle appeared to be a sawn-off .22 calibre rifle with a bolt action. The offender pointed the rifle directly at Khatter’s face saying “Sit down”. The offender started yelling and screaming at Khatter.

9. Realising the offender was armed with a firearm, Khatter attempted to close the door, however the offender began to force his way into the unit. Cubbin came to assist Khatter in closing the door to prevent the offender and the co-offender from entering. A struggle ensued for about 30 seconds, during which time the offender was waving the firearm around while partially inside the unit.

10. As the struggle at the door continued, the offender struck Khatter over the head with the butt of the rifle, Khatter and Cubbin then forced the offender backwards out of the door.

11. Khatter and Cubbin continued to try and close the door and almost got the door closed; however the arm of the offender prevented the door from closing. At this point the co-offender, Vale, assisted the offender and applied significant force to spring the door open. As a result of this Khatter and Cubbin were knocked to the ground and ended up against a wall.

12. The offender entered the unit and approached the lounge and coffee table, the co-offender also then entered the unit and said “Quick let’s get out of here”. The co-offender picked up a PlayStation 3 console and pulled it away from the television cabinet. The co-offender also picked up a Dell laptop computer. The co-offender ran towards the front door and exited the unit.

13. The PlayStation 3 console and the Dell laptop computer were the property of Zac Cubbin (Form 1 offence - armed robbery).

14. Meanwhile, the offender was still holding the firearm and grabbed an Apple iPhone 5C, the property of Gordon Khatter (Count 1 on the indictment - armed robbery). He also picked up a wallet containing $20 and two ATM cards belonging to Caleb Pholi and one Apple iPhone 6 plus belonging to Brendan Caughlan (Form 1 offences - 2 x larceny). The offender ran out of the unit and fled on foot towards Moad Street, following the co-offender.

15. About 1.30pm on 26 December 2015, police attended a house in Orange after receiving information the offender was at the location. The police entered the premises to search for the offender, who was located hiding under a pile of clothing in the main bedroom.

16. The offender participated in an interview with police which was recorded on a handheld recorder. During this conversation, the offender was cautioned and asked a number of questions relating to the armed robbery in Moad Street. The offender stated he knew nothing about the robbery and was at home with his partner at the time of the robbery. The offender was also offered the opportunity to participate in an identification parade and declined.

17. Police subsequently searched the house in which the offender was residing with his partner. During the search, the following items were located in the garage:

• One Apple iPhone 5C belonging to Gordon Khatter.

• One Apple iPhone 6-plus belonging to Brendan Caughlan.

• One Dell laptop computer, a PlayStation 3 console and four controllers belonging to Zac Cubbin.

18. On 4 January 2016, the offender was placed under arrest and participated in a record of interview with police.

19. During the interview, the offender denied being involved in the armed robbery. The offender stated he had been using large amounts of drugs, “ice” and heroin over previous weeks and could not remember what had happened, however he appeared to understand what was being asked by investigators and answered their questions. The offender gave the answer of “No comment” to most of the questions regarding the armed robbery, however adamantly denied ever being at the location. The offender stated he had previously purchased drugs from someone that lived at Unit 2/27 Moad Street, however could not give a name, and stated that he had never attended the unit and would buy the drugs from the nearby bus stop. The offender was again asked if he wished to participate in the identification parade and stated he did not.

20. It is clear that the offender was part of a joint criminal enterprise to rob the premises or persons at Moad Street, attending at 4am in the morning when there was clearly an expectation that there would be people present, and the co-offender making an inquiry in circumstances where they must have anticipated that access could be gained because the co-offender was known to at least one of the residents.

21. It appears not to have been an endeavour to purchase cannabis, as suggested by the question asked when the door was opened, but in order to obtain the opportunity for the door to be opened so that the two offenders could then rob the premises and the persons there present. Hence the offence had clearly been planned, and a sawn-off .22 obtained for the purpose of carrying out the robbery and intimidating the resident or residents.

22. Although there is no Victim Impact Statement, significant fear must have been caused to Mr Khatter from the presentation of a sawn-off rifle in his face. Although there was limited violence, the rifle was used by the offender to strike Mr Khatter to the head with the butt. There is no evidence of any injury but it is reasonable to anticipate that at least some pain was caused.

23. Having forced their way into the premises, they proceeded to take a number of items, the value of which is not referred to in the agreed facts but a number of items which must have had at least significantly inconvenienced their owners. The most significant items in terms of value were probably the PlayStation 3 console and the laptop computer.

24. In relation to the offences on the Form 1 relating to items taken from the unit in Moad Street, although they are listed as separate charges because of the different owners, they are essentially part of the same offence, being the robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon.

25. This offence was in essence a home invasion by two persons in the early hours of the morning. The residents legitimately within the residence were entitled to enjoy the privacy and security of those premises without being confronted by armed offenders attending and inflicting any degree of violence, those persons being either in their own premises, or in premises which they were visiting. This is an objectively serious matter in the mid-range.

Subjective Matters

26. Before the Court is the criminal history of the offender, a Community Corrections Conviction, Sentence and Appeals report, some relevant documentation from the State Parole Authority, including a breach of parole report, a Sentencing Assessment Report dated 27 September 2018 under the hand of Gareth O’Rourke, a psychiatric report from Dr Mary Jurek, dated 4 August 2017 and prepared for the purpose of determining whether the offender was fit to stand trial, and finding that he was fit; and a further report from Dr Adam Martin, forensic psychiatrist, dated 27 July 2018. Subjective matters are drawn from that material.

27. Before referring to the subjective matters, I note that on 10 August 2016 at Orange, I sentenced the co-offender, Douglas Vale, and because of that, supplied as part of the Exhibit 1 are the agreed facts in respect of Mr Vale’s sentence proceedings, as well as his criminal history and the reasons I expressed for the sentence imposed on 10 August 2016.

28. Returning to the subjective matters, I will substantially rely on the concise summary as provided in the Sentencing Assessment Report.

• Mr Lucas is currently on remand at Bathurst Correctional Centre; he was returned to custody on 5 January 2016 on balance of parole and has been on remand since the expiration of the sentence on 26 February 2017.

• Mr Lucas was released to parole supervision on 18 September 2015 to reside with his de facto partner in the Orange area. Mr Lucas reported after returning, that due to antisocial behaviour, this relationship broke down, and he was rendered homeless approximately six weeks before the current offences.

• Mr Lucas is one of nine children, and he described an upbringing marred by domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse. He reported limited contact with his family since his incarceration.

• Community Service NSW records indicate that Mr Lucas commenced his schooling at the age of eight years and was expelled at 13 years. He has little to no literacy or numeracy skills.

• Mr Lucas reported no employment history in the community. Although he is not currently employed in the custodial environment, he has previously held employment for extended periods of time in custody.

• Mr Lucas has an extensive criminal history dating back to age 13. He has 29 juvenile convictions and ten adult convictions. Mr Lucas’ criminal history is characterised by serious break and enter offences, theft and assaults.

• At the time of the current offences, Mr Lucas was on parole after receiving a six year sentence at Orange District Court on 9 December 2011 for the offence of aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence.

• Mr Lucas claimed to take responsibility for his offending behaviour, however he minimised his involvement by claiming he did not use the weapon referred to in the police facts.

• Mr Lucas attributed his criminal behaviour to illicit substance use, mental health issues and the extensive network of antisocial influences in the Orange area.

• Mr Lucas grew up in the Orange area, and stated he had been involved in the drug fuelled criminal sub-culture since he was a teenager. Mr Lucas blamed his companions for his immediate return to illicit substance use on release from custody.

• Mr Lucas reported an extensive history of illicit substance use including heroin, methamphetamine and cannabis, starting at the age of 10. At the time of the current matter, Mr Lucas claimed he was using heroin and methamphetamine on a daily basis (I note in respect of his claim of the use of prohibited drugs starting at the age of 10 that he has variously been referred to in other documentation as starting at the age of 11, 12 or 13).

• On release from custody in 2015, Mr Lucas was referred to drug and alcohol intervention and placed on a wait-list for opioid substitution therapy.

• Since his return to custody, Mr Lucas has 14 institutional misconduct charges relating to drug use, and he openly admits to continual substance use in the custodial environment.

• The current offences before the Court included the use of a firearm. Mr Lucas has a history of violent offending and utilising weapons, including an offence for which Mr Lucas was on parole at the time of the current matter.

• Mr Lucas completed the self-regulation program for violent offenders in custody between 26 May 2014 and 30 July 2015. It is concerning that Mr Lucas returned to violent offending shortly after completing an intensive intervention program.

• Mr Lucas was admitted to Orange Health Services for mental health assessment the day before the current offence. Mr Lucas claims he escaped from the cell shortly before the commission of the matters before the Court.

• Orange Health Service records confirmed Mr Lucas was admitted to hospital between 24 December 2015 and 4 January 2018 to be assessed for a psychotic illness. A psychotic illness was deemed unlikely; however, he was diagnosed with polysubstance abuse, drug-induced psychosis and antisocial personality disorder.

• Mr Lucas is currently being treated by way of the antipsychotic medication Risperidone. On release from custody in 2015 Mr Lucas reported he ceased taking his prescribed mental health medication and made no efforts to seek mental health services in the community.

• Although Mr Lucas was able to identify the contributing factors which led to his offending behaviour, he appeared to lack insight into the effect his antisocial behaviour had on the victims and the greater community.

• Mr Lucas has unresolved drug dependencies and mental health issues which need to be addressed prior to being considered suitable for community service work.

• Mr Lucas’ historical response to supervision has been recorded as superficial and unsatisfactory. On his most recent period of parole supervision, he failed to address his illicit substance use, failed to comply with his mental health treatment and he committed the offence for which he is before the Court.

29. He has been assessed as a medium to high risk of reoffending by the Community Corrections Officer.

30. The offender was born on a mission in Bathurst in March 1985; he is the oldest boy of nine siblings, his parents were both indigenous persons and they separated when he was a baby and he was raised by a maternal aunt and his grandmother. He thought his step-father was his father until he met his biological father when he was aged about 15 years. According to the offender, all of his siblings have mental health issues, a brother and sister have spent long periods in Bloomfield Hospital and another brother and sister and other relatives are in gaol or have been in gaol. He apparently has a daughter aged seven years with whom he has limited contact. The daughter is living with her mother, from whom he is separated. He attended Bowen Public School but was suspended frequently for behaviour problems. He was diagnosed as suffering from some hearing loss in his left ear. He did not like school and although he had never repeated a grade he left after Grade 7 without learning to read or write. He can apparently at least spell his name.

31. As an adult he enrolled at Orange TAFE to address his literacy problems but quit after one month. Apart from a brief period of picking fruit and cherries he has been unemployed. At the time of the offences he was receiving the NewStart allowance.

32. As to his use of prohibited substances, he informed Dr Jurek that he withdrew into his own world to escape reality, and started using drugs after he was raped by an older cousin when he was aged nine years. He started smoking marijuana so much that it hurt his chest. When not in custody he smokes marijuana daily. When he was 13, he injected amphetamine daily and more recently had used methamphetamine or “ice”. He has also injected heroin. He has been on Buprenorphine and Methadone treatments for opioid addiction; five years ago he was on Methadone for two years, two years ago he applied unsuccessfully to be put back on Methadone.

33. At the time of the offences, he is said to have been smoking marijuana and injecting “ice” and heroin daily and had not slept or eaten for five days.

34. He informed the psychiatrist that since being in gaol he had withdrawn from drugs and had not used any, although they are available. That assertion is contradicted by the Community Corrections Report which shows a significant number of matters in his past history of using drugs while in gaol.

35. He has apparently completed drug and alcohol programs as well as anger management while in custody.

36. He has had a history of being detained in Juvenile Justice institutions at least since about the age of 12, and he once spent a year in a boy’s home in Dubbo. He has recently had two lengthy sentences of seven years and eight months and six years and eight months, each for break and enter.

37. As a result of the revocation of his parole because of the commission of these offences, he served the balance of term of parole of approximately 14 months from 4 January 2016 until 26 February 2017.

38. He claims to have attempted suicide on a number of occasions in the past: at the age of 12 endeavouring to hang himself from a tree, however the branch broke and then when he tried again the rope brok, and then apparently his step-father came by and told him to go home.

39. He claims to have tried to shoot himself by putting a gun in his mouth at a later age, but his brother took the gun from him. When he was 15 he said he tried to kill himself by crashing a car, he also claims that he has overdosed on heroin and pills on numerous occasions but people keep saving him.

40. Dr Jurek, in relation to his mental state, said that when he was spoken to he was orientated as to place and person but did not know the date. His cognitive function was grossly intact, he impressed as a poorly educated young man of low/average intelligence, his insight was limited and he intended to blame others for his predicament. His judgment was impaired.

41. The medical records from the Bloomfield Hospital regarding his admission on 24 December 2015 to 4 January 2016 record a diagnosis of drug induced psychosis with polysubstance abuse and dependence and antisocial personality disorder. He was prescribed treatment with Risperidone and multivitamins.

“There was some doubt whether Mr Lucas had a chronic psychotic illness and whether he was manufacturing or exaggerating symptoms. I agree with those diagnoses....he does not satisfy the diagnostic criteria of those conditions now. In addition he does not satisfy the diagnostic criteria of major depression. His depressed and disordered moods are probably related to personality disorder and substance use. Mr Lucas has a history of conduct disorder in childhood and satisfies the diagnostic criteria for an antisocial personality disorder.”

42. Dr Jurek also refers to observations of him when he was in the hospital for about a week.

“Reportedly his symptoms were inconsistent and he did not demonstrate any other features of a chronic psychotic illness such as schizophrenia. He absconded twice from hospital. His absconding was well executed and purposeful as was the alleged offending behaviour. His subsequent behaviour showed that he knew that what he had done was wrong. Upon his return to hospital, urine drug screen was positive for amphetamine and cannabis. Mr Lucas’ presentation raises the possibility that he was intentionally producing or exaggerating psychological symptoms for external gain... Furthermore at the time of the commission of the alleged offences, Mr Lucas was not substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition.”

43. Dr Adam Martin in his report noted:

“He said he started using drugs at the age of 13”.

“... he demonstrated limited insight and poor judgment in my opinion”.

44. Dr Martin also referred to the documentation in relation to the offender’s admission at the Bloomfield Hospital following arrest. The report includes in part:

“In progress, he was documented to be complaining of various psychotic phenomena and it was noted that he “gave the impression to multiple doctors as malingering/disingenuous.” It was thought that the psychotic symptoms were ‘inconsistently displayed, more likely factitious than a chronic psychotic disorder, especially given the context of secondary gain.” He was prescribed antipsychotic medication and was discharged into custody.”

“In terms of diagnosis, while he does report sustained psychotic symptoms and has been prescribed various antipsychotic medications, the impression that I formed was that his self-report of these symptoms may be somewhat rehearsed and made in the context of attempts to externalise responsibility. In my view the most prominent problems are that he has a substance use disorder (amphetamine and opioids) on a background of antisocial behaviour in the context of a chaotic developmental history. That is, I am not entirely convinced that he has a chronic major mental illness such as schizophrenia....notes from Bloomfield Hospital certainly read as if clinicians thought that his presentation was not completely genuine....Regarding the future, he has a very poor prognosis unless he is able to engage meaningfully in assertive drug and alcohol rehabilitation aiming for abstinence from all substances. He has very limited coping abilities and in my view, he is at high risk for future recidivism unless significant lifestyle changes are made...While in custody he is self-reporting using other inmates’ medication for substance abuse.”

45. I accept that the offender has suffered the unfortunate consequences of a disjointed and deprived upbringing which has adversely impacted on his ability to make moral judgments and to appreciate the significance or consequences of his own actions. I accept that his personal background in those circumstances compromises his capacity to mature and learn from experience, and that that reduces his moral culpability in respect of the offending. However, I am of the view that the offender was no doubt fully aware of the nature of his offending. His upbringing remains relevant to take into account, according to the “principles” as they are sometimes referred to outlined in Fernando (1992) 76 ACrimR 58 and as endorsed in Bugmy (2013) HCA 37 and I will take that into account in determining the sentence.

46. As previously referred to, the offender has a significant criminal history. He was on parole for a similar offence and he has served periods of time in custody in past for similar offences.

47. Having been released on parole on 18 September 2015, he committed these offences approximately three months later while subject to parole, which is a significant aggravating factor as referred to in such cases as R v McVittie (2002) NSW CCA 344 and R v Fernando (2002) NSWCCA 28 at 42.

“Parole is a privilege and abuse of that privilege calls for a harsher punishment. Offences committed while on parole demonstrate the rehabilitation which parole is designed to assist has failed and the Court cannot proceed to the same expectation of rehabilitation that is open in other circumstances.”

Greg James J in R v Huynh (2003) NSW CCA 239 stated that:

“...it is a consequence of having enjoyed conditional liberty upon an undertaking to be of good behaviour that if you breach that undertaking you aggravate your culpability for the offence you have committed which constituted the breach, you surrender the prospects of liberty which you have enjoyed conditionally on your not committing a breach, and you must expect to serve in custody the sentence from the custodial nature of which you have been liberated conditionally”.

48. In R v Moffatt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114 it was held that the offender should not only suffer the revocation of his parole and a consequent need to serve out the balance of the original sentence, but should also suffer a significant punishment for the offence to mark the gravity of his conduct in abusing his parole.

49. In respect of the co-offender Douglas Vale, I note that he was some 20 years of age at the time, and that in sentencing him I was required to take into account a further matter on the Form 1, being a separate offence of break, enter and steal. Otherwise the offences in relation to the two offenders are the same.

50. Mr Vale entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity and was entitled to a utility discount of 25% which was provided. This offender did not enter a plea of guilty until 28 May 2018, which was the first day of the trial listing: that is, almost two and a half years after the offending conduct. He gave evidence on sentence today, most of which was mere repetition of material contained in the reports. He again claimed to have no memory of the offending, which is of course contrary to his denial of using a weapon, being the shortened .22.

51. As to remorse and contrition, he gave evidence as follows; that he “was sorry for what he had done and that the victims had had to live with it” before then endeavouring to absolve himself by again stating, as he has to various persons, “Yeah I was off my head and I didn’t know what I was doing”.

52. I note that those statements, to the extent that they might disclose remorse and contrition, are the only such statements. In the circumstances where it has taken the offender approximately two and a half years from committing the offence to finally say he is “sorry”, I do not accept that his evidence provides acceptable evidence of genuine remorse or contrition, rather than simply being, as I perceive it, a statement made in the knowledge that such a statement can usually be expected to result in some amelioration of sentence.

53. The offender’s past history certainly indicates that he is a significant risk to the community, at least until such time as he deals, in particular, with his drug problems. Clearly, this matter passes the s 5 threshold and there is no sentence other than fulltime imprisonment that can be appropriate.

54. I have carefully considered the sentence imposed on the co-offender in this matter. The plea being belated, that is on the first day listed for trial, I accept that an appropriate discount for the utility of the plea is 5%. Particularly in view of the fact that this was a joint criminal enterprise and each of the offenders being liable for the conduct of the other, I have commenced consideration of an appropriate sentence from the sentence which I provided to the co-offender pre the 25% discount for the early plea, that was in the order of six years and nine months.

55. I note in relation to this offender that I regard both specific and general deterrence as being important; a 5% discount brings the sentence down to approximately six years, five months. I have taken into account the period of time that he has served as a result of the revocation of parole, absent this charge, and it being outstanding, there may have been some past possibility of parole being granted during that period. Accordingly, to take account of that factor, I will commence the sentence to be imposed in this matter from 4 July 2016, which is six months after he went into custody and well before the revoked parole period expired, a discretion referred to by Simpson J in Callaghan [2006] NSWCCA 58.

56. I have also taken into account the history of the offender’s incarceration. I note that as an adult he entered custody on 28 April 2003 and was paroled on 5 August 2003. He was unfortunately only at liberty in the community for one month, returning to custody on 5 September 2003. He was next released on parole on 9 December 2008 before returning to custody approximately six weeks later on 11 January 2009, before being released on parole on 23 February 2010, but remaining at liberty only for approximately nine months, returning to custody on 11 November 2010, where he remained until being granted parole again on 18 September 2015, that is, the period of parole breached by the commission of these offences. That is in my view a relatively continuous period of custody since early 2003.

57. It is likely, although there is no report to that effect, that the offender has in fact become institutionalised as a result of the significant periods of custody that he has spent. I intend to provide for a longer period of parole than would be the case if the statutory relationship between the non-parole period and the balance of term was applied, in the hope that if provided with a two year period of parole the offender at the age of 33 might finally realise that he actually does need to do something about his consumption of prohibited drugs and the commission of criminal offences. I will indicate that I do not have great hope that the offender is capable of doing that, but I intend to provide him with the opportunity. It will be a matter for him as to whether he can convince the authorities that he is suitable for parole on the expiration of the parole period and whether on parole he can address his issues of drug use and criminal offending. He of course must well understand by now that if he does not do so, he either will not be released at the earliest opportunity, or having been released, he will be returned to custody. So I intend to provide for a full two years as the balance of term.

58. You are convicted, Mr Lucas. I take into account the three matters contained on the Form 1.

59. You are sentenced to a non-parole period of four years and five months commencing on 4 July 2016. You will be first eligible for parole on 3 December 2020. The balance of term is two years and the total sentence of six years, five months will expire on 3 December 2022.

60. All right, you can sit down, thank you, Mr Lucas.

61. Now, is there any matter?

GIBSON: Nothing from me, your Honour.

WALSH: Nothing further, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I am not sure I specifically referred to rehabilitation, the purpose of the more extensive period of parole is hopefully to assist the offender to rehabilitate himself, although I do not, as a result of his record, see that there is a good prospect of rehabilitation, particularly considering his continuation of consuming prohibited drugs while in custody.

I point out to you, Mr Lucas - stay seated. I point out to you in relation to your use of prohibited drugs while in custody that there is very little prospect that you will be released at the completion of the non-parole period, should you continue to be detected using prohibited drugs, whether they be prohibited drugs or drugs prescribed for other persons, while in custody. It is one of those matters that usually results in prisoners not being considered appropriate to release. All right, I’ll adjourn.

**********

Decision last updated: 04 March 2019