R v Miller
[2017] ACTSC 150
•26 June 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Miller |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 150 |
Hearing Date(s): | 3 May 2017, 13 June 2017. |
DecisionDate: | 26 June 2017 |
Before: | Robinson AJ |
Decision: | See [89]–[96] below. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drive-by shooting – trafficking – supply – giving false or misleading information – destroy potential CCTV evidence against the principal – accessory after the fact – prospects for rehabilitation – small steps taken – first intervention by the criminal process in offender’s life regarding drug trade activities – turning point. |
Legislation Cited: | Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) s 145 |
Cases Cited: | DPP (Vic) v McMaster [2008] VSCA 102; 19 VR 191 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Erin Maree Miller (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr A Williamson (Crown) Mr P Bevan (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bevan & Co Lawyers (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 251 of 2016; SCC 252 of 2016; SCC 272 of 2016; SCC 273 of 2016 |
ROBINSON AJ:
Erin Maree Miller, whom I will refer to as the offender, has pleaded guilty to a number of offences and stands for sentence.
The Crown has grouped those offences into what it maintains are three discrete courses of conduct and has used the nomenclature of ‘series’ for convenience. I will continue that system.
Series 1
Accessory after the fact to what is colloquially called a drive-by shooting, contrary to s 717 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code), punishable by five years imprisonment and/or 500 penalty units.
Series 2
A charge of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code, punishable by 10 years imprisonment and/or 1000 penalty units.
Series 3
Participation in the supply of a drug of dependence, namely methamphetamine — contrary to s 164(2)(b) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) (Drugs of Dependence Act), punishable by five years imprisonment and/or 500 penalty units.
Take a prohibited item into a correctional facility — contrary to s 145(1) of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) (Corrections Management Act), punishable by one year’s imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units.
Give false or misleading information to a Territory Official — contrary to s 338 of the Criminal Code, punishable by one year’s imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units.
Timing of the pleas
The offender pleaded guilty to the offence referred to as Series 1 in the Supreme Court on 1 March 2017. At the time she entered that plea a trial date had been set for 29 May 2017.
The offender pleaded guilty to the offence referred to as Series 2 in the Supreme Court on 1 March 2017. That offence is an ex-officio count which ‘rolled-up’ a number of charges pending before the ACT Magistrates Court. The parties agree that although the plea was entered in the Supreme Court, the plea should be treated, for presently relevant purposes, as an early plea entered in the Magistrates Court.
The offender pleaded guilty to the Series 3 offences in the ACT Magistrates Court on 23 August 2016. These offences were then committed for sentence to the Supreme Court.
I propose to allow a discount for these pleas of guilty respectively, at approximately 10%, 20% and 20%. Although the Crown case was very strong, there was utility in all pleas and the second and third Series pleas were made in a timely manner.
I propose to backdate any sentences imposed upon the offender to take account of pre-sentence custody. The parties have agreed upon the following table:
| Date | Reason for custody |
| 07/04/2016 | Offender arrested for the Series 1 offence but released on police bail that same day. |
| 13/04/2016 14/04/2016 | Offender arrested for breaching bail. Bail continued. |
| 25/06/2016 | Offender arrested for Series 3 offences. Her bail was refused and she has been in custody ever since. |
In the circumstances, I propose to commence any sentence from 22 June 2016.
Series 1 – Accessory after the fact to a drive-by shooting
As at 1 February 2015, the offender and Ms Tracey Organ were engaged in a dispute concerning an outstanding drug debt. Ms Organ claimed to have purchased a quantity of what she believed was methamphetamine from the offender, only to find out later that it was, in fact, an inert substance.
On 1 February 2015, Ms Organ came to learn that her nephew, Mr Mitchell West, had stolen a quantity of jewellery from the offender’s safe. Ms Organ purchased the jewellery from Mr West in order to assist her to obtain leverage concerning the outstanding drug debt.
The offender enlisted her close friend, the co-accused Mr Harley Stott, to assist her in retrieving her jewellery. It is not necessary to set out all the interactions and communications of that day and the following day.
At about 2:30am on 2 February 2017, a car with Mr Stott and other unidentified males inside it entered Dalziel Street, Gowrie. At the time, Ms Organ was making school lunches for her two young children inside her house. Ms Kim West and Mr Andrew Colman were watching television in the lounge room, and Mr Benjamin Hunt was in the toilet. Ms Organ’s two children were asleep in their bedroom.
At this point, five rounds were discharged from a .22 calibre sawn-off rifle from the front passenger side of the vehicle
One of those bullets went through the lounge room window and hit Ms West in the stomach. It broke the surface layer of the skin but did not go any further than that.
Ms Organ immediately reported the shooting to police and nominated the offender as one of the people she believed to be involved. As a result, police patrolled the general vicinity of the offender’s house.
At 3:32am, the offender sent Mr Stott two SMS messages saying ‘don’t come back yet’ and ‘the cops just did a drive by’. By sending those messages, the offender assisted Mr Stott in avoiding detection and apprehension by the police who were patrolling the vicinity of her house.
Later that same day, the offender, at the request Mr Stott, provided the other co‑accused, Mr Corey Brown with the hard drive containing the recorded CCTV footage from her house and instructed him to dispose of it. Mr Brown subsequently gave it to a friend, Mr Adrian Masters, who burned it.
Mr Stott was extremely anxious to ensure that the footage was destroyed as he knew it could prove to be highly incriminating.
The offender now accepts that she arranged for the hard drive containing the recording of the CCTV footage of the front of her house in the hours before and after the shooting to be destroyed. She had initially lied to police about this fact.
Series 2 – Drug trafficking between 31 January 2015 and 30 May 2015
Prior to setting out the relevant facts, it is first necessary to say something more about the actual count to which the offender pleaded guilty.
The indictment dated 28 February 2017 read: ‘AND FURTHER THAT between 31 January 2015 and 30 May 2015 at Canberra aforesaid Erin Maree Miller trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methamphetamine.’
The statement of facts recites: ‘The single count for series 2 is a “representative” or “sample” count within the meaning of DPP (Vic) v McMaster (2008) 185 A Crim R 247 at para 42.’ Elsewhere in the statement of facts it is stated that the offence is ‘an ex‑efficio count which “rolled up” a number of charges’ pending in the Magistrates Court.
These two characterisations referred to above, appear to be contradictory. Before coming back to the application of sentencing principles to this method of proceeding it is convenient to set a summary of the agreed facts on this count.
Prior to February 2015, neighbours noticed that a large number of cars came and went from the offender’s residence at Howson Place, Richardson (the Howson Place residence). One particular distinctive car was often noticed. This turned out to be a car used by the supplier of drugs to the offender.
During the period in question, Ms Donna Lane, regularly attended of the offender's residence. This attendance, however, came about in unusual circumstances. Ms Lane first met the offender when Ms Lane learned that the offender was selling drugs to Ms Lane's son, who, I interpolate, was at that time over the age of 18 years.
Ms Lane confronted the offender and out of this confrontation a relationship between Ms Lane and the offender developed to the point that Ms Lane would attend the Howson Place residence to care for the offender's young children. Ms Lane was motivated by a desire to provide an escape for the offender's children from the trading activities, which I will shortly describe, occurring at that residence. Much of the information in the statement of facts comes from Ms Lane’s observations when at the offender’s residence.
During periods at which Ms Lane was present at the offender's house, she would observe the offender meet with the offender’s drug supplier. The offender would pay him in cash. The supplier would then leave the house and return later with a bags of ‘crack’ or ’ice’, sometimes referred to as ‘shards’.
Ms Lane observed that the offender would keep the ‘crack’ in her coffee table drawer, as well as a small bag in her bra. Ms Lane states that the offender would top up the bag in her bra from the bag in the coffee table drawer.
Ms Lane observed persons purchase the ‘crack’ from the offender. Ms Lane states that in such a purchase from the offender, the person would hand the offender a $50 note.
Ms Lane observed that the offender would also sell cannabis.
Between 21 January 2015 and 2 February 2015, intercepted text messages with the offender give a guide to the scale of dealings. The supplier was offering to sell ‘balls’ which he would commonly abbreviate to ‘b’ and ‘half balls’ which he would commonly abbreviate to ‘hb’. The messages indicated that the supplier would sell a ‘ball’ for between $1000 and $1300, and would sell a ‘half ball’ for between $550 and $700.
In a further interception on 1 February 2015, the supplier sent a text message to the offender stating: ‘will do games at 1000 for u it's good let me no yes or no’. A ‘game’ is a reference to a ‘full game’, which is another reference to an ‘8 ball’ or 3.5 grams of methylamphetamine.
On 5 February 2015, police obtained search warrants for the supplier’s address and also for the Howson Place residence.
During the execution of the warrant at the Howson Place residence, the offender was searched by police, which resulted in a clip seal bag containing 0.822 grams of methylamphetamine being located in the offender's right trouser pocket. During the search of the premises, police also located a clip seal bag containing 22.4 grams of cannabis in a coffee table situated in the lounge room of the premises. Police further located three cannabis plants in the rear yard of the premises.
Surprisingly, the offender subsequently continued using her old phone number with a new mobile telephone handset and continued selling drugs.
On 13 February 2015, a Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) warrant issued allowing police to access stored communications between the offender and her supplier.
That led to the execution of another warrant on 25 February 2015 at the Howson Place residence.
Police located a clip seal bag with a ‘Peace and Love’ motif on it containing 1.452 grams of methylamphetamine. Also located during the search of the premises were multiple empty clip-seal bags featuring the same 'Peace and Love' motif, as well as multiple sets of scales. Police also located a green purse on the lounge in the lounge room of the premises. Police located $3,824.55 in Australian currency inside the purse, including 62 Australian $50 notes. A number of gift cards and pre-paid credit cards were also located inside the purse.
The offender was asked about this item and stated that it was her wallet. She stated that the money was hers as she was going to buy a new fridge and had been saving. The offender further stated that she was not employed and received Centrelink benefits. She stated she gets paid $350-$400 a week in her bank from Centrelink, and then gets child support maintenance to the value of $800 a month.
Later that day, police located a Nike brand bum bag in the lounge room of the premises. The bag was found to contain two clip seal bags with a ‘Peace and Love’ motif on them containing 1.799 grams of methylamphetmaine.
Again surprisingly, the offender continued to sell drugs.
The agreed statement of facts records, by way of summary, that the offender accepts that between 31 January 2015 and 30 May 2015 she would engage in multiple drug transactions on a daily basis.
At the end of May 2015, the offender was involved in a different method of distribution.
Between 27 May 2015 and 29 May 2015, intercepted communications revealed an agreement between Mr Stott and the offender to smuggle methylamphetamine, heroin and cannabis into the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) for further sale.
At that time, Mr Stott was remanded in the AMC. He was utilising a mobile telephone that had been smuggled into the centre. Intercepted communications revealed further conversations in which Mr Stott asked for a ‘care package’.
On 28 May 2015, police intercepted a conversation between the offender and Mr Stott. During the call, Mr Stott asks the offender to organise an eight-ball of methylamphetamine to be made available so it could be smuggled into the AMC for Mr Stott’s benefit. There was discussion concerning pricing of the transaction.
Further intercepted communications revealed the proposed method of execution of the plan. It is unnecessary to detail those communications.
The offender subsequently arranged for an associate of hers, Mr Aaron Sanford, to attend Corrections ACT and pass the drugs to Mr Mark Lopamaua-Mamapo, a prisoner at the AMC who would be attending Directions ACT at around 3:00pm. The plan was that Mr Lopamaua-Mamapo would then hide the drugs on his person and take them into the AMC, at which point he would provide them to Mr Stott.
Mr Sanford did attend at 3:00pm with the drugs that the offender had supplied him, but he did not get an opportunity to pass them to Mr Lopamaua-Mamapo.
At the hearing on 13 June 2017, I drew to the attention of the parties the apparent contradiction referred to at [23] above. The terms of the actual count in the indictment are equivocal. After discussion, it became tolerably clear that I should treat the count as a rolled-up plea to encompass the course of conduct and offending referred to in the agreed facts. This is a common approach where the number of offences justifies the approach: see the observations of Bathurst CJ in Johnson v R [2017] NSWCCA 53 at [68]–[70].
Series 3 – Drug trafficking on 25 June 2016 at the AMC
At about 2:30pm on 25 June 2016 the offender attended the AMC in the company of Mr Cole Annabel. The offender filled out a form declaring that she had attended the AMC to see detainee Mr Warren Bright. Mr Annabel filled out a form in which he declared that he was there to see detainee Mr Benjamin Hunt.
Corrections officers were suspicious of the offender and Mr Annabel and monitored their movements on CCTV. They observed the offender and Mr Annabel to sit at different tables in the visitor’s room. Once detainee Mr Hunt entered the room, he sat with the offender. Detainee Mr Bright sat with Mr Annabel.
As at 25 June 2016, the offender was subject to bail conditions prohibiting her from having any contact with Mr Hunt as he was a witness in the drive-by shooting matter referred to above.
Corrections officers observed the offender and detainee Mr Hunt to kiss each other and touch each other intimately. They then observed the offender remove an item from between her legs and pass it to detainee Hunt, who secreted it in his sleeve.
Corrections officers immediately removed detainee Mr Hunt from the visitor’s area and searched him. They located a small black package weighing 10.4 grams containing methylamphetmaine.
Meanwhile, Corrections staff continued to observe the offender. They observed her pass a ‘twisties’ packet to detainee Mr Bright. Corrections staff seized the twisties packet and located a minute black mobile phone inside of it. Mobile telephones are a prohibited item for the purpose of the Corrections Management Act.
Corrections staff then escorted the offender to the carpark and searched her car. They located a ‘tic tac’ packet containing 2.1 grams of methamphetamine.
Objective assessment of the seriousness of the offending
Leaving aside for the moment matters personal to the particular offender, it is necessary to set out matters relevant to the offending.
At a general level, in offences of being an accessory after the fact, the objective assessment can be taken from R v A2 and Others [2016] NSWSC 737 where Johnson J observed at [102]-
It has been said (TT v R at [14]-[15]) that an assessment of the objective gravity of offences of being an accessory after the fact to an offence involves an assessment of each case on its facts, and consideration of a number of factors which include, but are not limited to:
(a) the circumstances of the primary offence itself;
(b) the extent of the knowledge in the accessory of those circumstances;
(c) the precise act or acts which constitute the offence of being an accessory after the fact;
(d) the length of time over which the offender assisted the principal offender in escaping justice;
(e) the extent to which the acts of the offender successfully delayed, or thwarted, the investigation and prosecution of the principal offender;
(f)the motivation of the offender in committing the crime.
In R v Stanford [2016] NSWSC 1174 at [5], Hulme J, after identifying its source, reproduced a near identical collection of factors but added relevantly-
(7) Related to the question of motivation is the question of whether the offender's conduct was motivated by a sense of misguided loyalty or emotional attachment to the principal offender. This is a circumstance of particular significance in cases where a family member assists the principal offender. [To this I would add the observation of R S Hulme J in R v Ward [2004] NSWSC 420 at [49] that offending in such circumstances "commonly represents a choice to place the interests of the principal offender ahead of those of the victim and/or the public generally".]
It is common ground that the offender, with knowledge of the offence, assisted the principal to escape arrest on the night and also destroyed potential CCTV evidence against the principal, giving a false account of the availability of the CCTV footage to police. It is also common ground that the offender acted out of self- interest, not wishing to be associated with the principal for fear of incriminating herself.
The foundation offence itself is a serious one. The discharging of a gun into an occupied house is always serious whether an occupant is hit or not. Here, five rounds were discharged with one round striking a person.
In respect to the count of trafficking in methylamphetamine a number of observations are appropriate. The buying and selling of the drugs in question was conducted out of a suburban house in which the offender and two daughters (now) aged 12 and 13 were resident. It is instructive to note that Ms Lane took up the role of seeking to assist these two young persons. To expose the daughters to this trade showed a blatant disregard of their safety and of the offender’s maternal duties. The drug trade is inherently dangerous. No buyer or seller, unhappy about the terms of their bargain, resorts to the courts for redress. Nor does the buyer and seller attend mediation to discuss sale of goods legislation or the applicability of the Australian Consumer Law to the transaction. The resolution of disputes involves violence and coercion. An example of the resolution of such disputes is given by the drive-by shooting in Series 1.
Endangering children whilst trafficking in drugs is not an element of the offence but it does serve to highlight another poor choice made by the offender.
That the offender did not cease selling drugs when she knew that she was under scrutiny from the police, is also most surprising. The other factor that must be noticed is that it is one thing to sell drugs to recreational users in a suburban setting, it is another to cause those drugs to be delivered inside a prison.
I conclude from the evidence that the offender was selling drugs at the lower end of the market, that most sales were in the vicinity of $50 in market value, that the offender was addicted to drugs herself and that she derived from her sales of the drugs the benefit of funding her own consumption and also a profit.
The three offences which make up the Series 3 offending are very disturbing. To traffic drugs in a gaol may have very serious consequences for the persons who consume them. It also has consequences for the persons necessarily confined with those who consume those drugs. A person addicted to ‘ice’ can be very dangerous. Also, there are people incarcerated who are trying their best to rid themselves of addiction. The gaol environment should be an assistance to them. They receive no help by this trafficking.
No doubt a mobile phone has special value in a gaol. However, it is well recognised by correctional authorities that a mobile phone in the hands of an inmate has many dangers and this is why it is prohibited.
I do take note that that the package containing the methylamphetamine weighed 10.4 grams. I have regard to the fact, as a legislative signpost, that a trafficable quantity is 6 grams.
I also take note that there was a degree of planning involved and deception of correctional authorities.
Subjective matters
The offender is now 33 years old. She has two daughters aged 12 and 13 from a previous long term relationship. They are currently living in Canberra with their father. The offender has the support of her family and her mother regularly brings the two daughters to the AMC for visits.
The offender left school mid-way through Year 9 and has a very limited employment history. Prior to her incarceration, she received Centrelink payments. She has a number of debts from unpaid utilities, fines and rent.
The offender commenced taking methylamphetamine in 2010. She told both ACT Corrective Services and the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS) that she had not used illicit drugs since the end of June 2016.
In 2014 the offender was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. So far, this condition has not had an impact on her daily activities. She does regret, however, neglecting her health when using drugs heavily.
Under the heading “Attitude to offences” the authors of the Pre-Sentence Report state-
Ms Miller agreed with the Statement of Facts. She admitted she made some extremely bad choices and she had hurt so many people as a result of this. She spoke of consecutive poor decisions that she made whilst struggling with a drug addiction, a chronic health condition, and the removal of her children by CYPS; and that she believes coming into the AMC has saved her life. Ms Miller did not try and minimise responsibility for the offences, however, and clearly stated that her future behaviour will be an indicator of her commitment to make amends for what she had done to people.
The authors’ opinion is-
Ms Miller is a 33-year-old woman who suffers from a chronic health condition and drug abuse issues. She has been unemployed for an extended period of time and does not appear to have pro-social community links or activities to fill her time. Ms Miller has two children who live with their father full-time as a result of CYPS intervention and she has maintained contact with them through the supportive pro-social influence of her parents. Ms Miller appears to understand the seriousness of her offences and has spoken at length about the impact of her behaviour on other people.
Ms Miller is assessed as a medium-high risk of general reoffending which may be reduced if she were to address areas of dynamic risk by: engaging in appropriate AOD treatment; addressing the issue of anti-social companions and lack of pro-social activities; engaging in study or employment opportunities and undergoing financial counselling to address her debts.
The offender gave evidence before me and was cross-examined. She told me that she was a drug user who, one day, bought an ‘extra day’ and then sold that ‘extra day’. That is how her drug selling started. In cross-examination the offender admitted that, after a while, the selling of drugs not only supported her addiction but brought in a profit. This, of course, was at the same time as the offender was in receipt of Centrelink benefits.
The offender also gave evidence of her diagnosis of multiple sclerosis having been made in March 2014. Although the knowledge of this diagnosis cannot have helped the offender, it had little part to play in the events which have brought her before the Court.
I was impressed by the evidence of the offender in so far as she acknowledged her wrongdoing, appeared to have an insight into the course in which life was headed should she continue with ‘drug friends’ and drugs and wished to make amends.
The offender’s mother also gave evidence. The evidence was of the family now doing everything to assist their daughter. Until the intervention of the police arresting the offender, the family had little knowledge of the reality of the offender’s life. Mrs Young also gave evidence of her daughter’s contrition and her desire to make amends to a lot of people, mainly her children.
I regard the support and assistance of the offender’s family and the offender’s desire to be reunited more fully with her children as being significant factors to be taken into account on the question of the prospects of rehabilitation.
I also have regard to the opinion of the authors of the CADAS report under the heading ‘Assessment Outcome’:
Ms Miller identifies sustaining abstinence as her goal. She acknowledges that her drug use has negatively affected her daughters and she believes that she has to be “better for them”. She reports that she has participated in counselling interventions with the Directions AOD Service in custody and would be willing to continue such counselling either in the community or the custodial environment. She reports that counselling and group education programs have been “beneficial” for her and she is willing to continue counselling. This would be an appropriate intervention for her.
Deterrence
I have had regard to the need for deterrence in relation to this offending which centres around the drug trade and the incidents which come appended to it. However, there are prospects for rehabilitation and small tentative steps have been taken towards it. The support of the offender’s family and the desire to be a mother to her children greatly assists this process. I have regard also that this is the first intervention by the criminal process in the offender’s life in respect of the drug trade activities and there is scope to suggest that this could be a turning point in her life.
The overall sentence and its suspension reflects the giving of an opportunity but not without the risk that the remaining portion of her sentence may be activated should she not pursue a path without drugs. That will be a choice for the offender.
Criminal history
The offender has driving offences recorded against her and two counts of driving whilst disqualified. This record entitles her to a degree of leniency for the offences for which the offender is to be sentenced.
Assistance to law enforcement – Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 36
When the offender was arraigned on 1 March 2017, her legal representative conveyed to the Crown that the offender would give evidence for the Crown against Mr Stott at his trial.
This information was communicated to Mr Stott’s legal representative. As a result, Mr Stott has indicated his intention to plead guilty to the offences charged against him.
The Crown accepts that the offender’s agreement to cooperate has been instrumental in encouraging Mr Stott to plead guilty and has utility.
I have taken account of the matters in s 36(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and in particular sub-ss 36(3)(b), (d) and(e). I allow an additional discount to the sentence otherwise to be imposed upon the Series 1 offence of approximately 10%.
Totality
I have taken account of the overall criminality involved in determining whether the sentences should be served partly concurrently or accumulated.
Order
For the offence of accessory after the fact to what is colloquially called a drive-by shooting, contrary to s 717 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment. I reduce this term to 14 months and 15 days for the combined discount referred to above.
That sentence will commence on 22 June 2016.
For the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment. I reduce this term to two years and five months for the discount referred to above.
That sentence will commence on 22 June 2017.
For the offence of participation in the supply of a drug of dependence, namely methamphetamine, contrary to s 164(2)(b) of the Drugs of Dependence Act, the offender is convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment. I reduce this term to one year and seven months for the discount referred to above.
That sentence will commence on 22 June 2018.
For the offence of take a prohibited item into a correctional facility, contrary to s 145(1) of the Correction Management Act, the offender is convicted and sentenced to eight months imprisonment. I reduce this term to six months for the discount referred to above.
That sentence will commence on 22 June 2018.
For the offence of give false or misleading information to a Territory Official, contrary to s 338 of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to eight months imprisonment. I reduce this term to six months for the discount referred to above.
That sentence will commence on 22 June 2018.
In respect of the total sentence I order that the offender be imprisoned for the period 22 June 2016 until 21 January 2020.
I order that the balance of the sentence be suspended from 21 March 2018 conditional upon the offender signing an undertaking to comply with obligations imposed under a good behaviour order. The order will expire on 21 January 2020.
In addition to the core conditions as provided by s 86 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT), I impose an additional condition that the offender report to ACT Corrective Services at Constitution House, Level 1, 247 London Circuit, Civic within 48 hours of her signing the order and a further condition that she accept the supervision and comply with all reasonable directions as deemed necessary by ACT Corrective Services during the period of the order.
| I certify that the preceding one-hundred and eight [108] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Acting Justice Robinson Associate: Date: 26 June 2017 |
0
3
6