R v Ngerengere (No 2)
[2016] ACTSC 155
•15 June 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Ngerengere (No 2) |
Citation: | [2016] ACTSC 155 |
Hearing Dates: | 23 March, 1 April and 10 June 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 15 June 2016 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. The convictions of Michael Ngerengere for aggravated burglary committed on 18 July 2014 and theft also committed on that day are confirmed. 2. The Director-General is directed to assess Michael Ngerengere for suitability to serve the sentence of imprisonment by an intensive corrections order. 3. The sentencing proceedings are adjourned to 9.30 am on 18 August 2016. 4. Mr Ngerengere is released on bail with the following conditions: a. that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to treatment and counselling for drug and alcohol abuse and mental impairment. b. that he be co-operative with the assessment of his suitability for service of his sentence of imprisonment by an intensive corrections order; c. that he reside at [redacted for legal reasons]; d. that he not absent himself from his place of residence between the hours of 8.00 pm and 7.00 am each day, except in the case of an emergency and for the purpose of attending AA meetings, when he must return directly to his residence at the end of the meeting; e. that he not consume alcohol or illicit drugs; f. that he submit to urinalysis or breath analysis when reasonably required to do so by the person supervising him; and g. that he report to the Officer-in-Charge of City police station each Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 8.00 am and 8.00 pm. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – intensive corrections order assessment – bail – assessed in community – aggravated burglary – theft – childhood disadvantage – mental illness – extensive criminal history – significant drug use – offender seeking rehabilitation |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act1992 (ACT), ss 9E, 22(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT), ss 7, 11, 11(3), 27, 33, 77, 78, 118, Pt 5.4 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 312 |
Cases Cited: | Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 |
Texts Cited: | Explanatory Statement, Crimes (Sentencing and Restorative Justice) Amendment Bill 2015 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Michael Ngerengere (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S McMurray (1 April and 10 June) (Crown) Mr M Reardon (23 March) (Crown) Mr R Davies (Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant) | |
File Number: | SCC 66 of 2015 |
REFSHAUGE J:
Brennan J, as a Federal Court judge hearing an appeal from a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, said in Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 at 437, that “all purposes [of the criminal law and punishment] may be reduced under the single heading of the protection of society, the protection of the community from crime”.
That single objective, however, may be achieved in a variety of ways, but the legitimate ways are set out in the purposes of punishment which are accepted by our community by being legislated in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT). These, importantly, include deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation. They often pull in different directions, making the instinctive synthesis that is required of a sentence somewhat difficult. All these purposes must be considered but sometimes one will dominate and override the others.
Nevertheless, the single objective is to be borne in mind. That can be a challenge when issues such as the seriousness of an offence are combined with matters that cause or contribute to offending such as mental impairment and drug abuse. That is, however, the challenge of imposing a sentence that is just and appropriate.
Now standing for sentence before me is Michael Ngerengere, who has been convicted of an offence of aggravated burglary and an offence of theft.
The offence of aggravated burglary is contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and attracts a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $280,000) and imprisonment for 20 years.
The offence of theft is prohibited by s 308 of the Criminal Code which provides for a maximum penalty of a 1000 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $140,000) and imprisonment for 10 years.
The courts have often said that the maximum penalty is an important indicator of the relative seriousness of an offence. See, for example, Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at 133; [31].
Mr Ngerengere entered a plea of guilty to both charges in this Court on 24 June 2015, some months after he appears to have been committed for trial to this Court.
On 7 August 2015, I made a deferred sentence order under s 27 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act with a condition that he admit himself to the Karralika Therapeutic Community Residential Drug Rehabilitation Program. See R v Ngerengere [2015] ACTSC 224. He entered the Program on 7 September 2015.
Unfortunately, Mr Ngerengere found the Program difficult. In particular, he was unable to comply with the rule that prohibited smoking tobacco in the Program and, after one month, left on 7 October 2015. He returned to Court, however, as required under his bail conditions and I granted him bail as he wished to enter the Canberra Recovery Services (CRS) Program, also a residential drug rehabilitation program.
As a bed was not immediately available, he remained in the community on bail until, on 13 October 2015, I varied his bail to provide that he undergo a detoxification program in The Canberra Hospital in preparation for entry into the CRS program.
He completed the detoxification program on 27 October 2015 and was admitted to the CRS program. He was, however, soon after charged with common assault and appeared in the Magistrates Court.
Unfortunately, on 29 October 2015, he threatened certain witnesses when appearing in the Magistrates Court and was remanded in custody. As a result, of course, he could not complete the CRS program.
He returned to this Court on 4 November 2015 and, although he could not be released into the community because of the custodial remand in the Magistrates Court, I continued his bail so that, if granted bail or, on completion of the Magistrates Court proceedings, he would be released and, if a place became available, return to the CRS program.
The charges against him in the Magistrates Court were ultimately dismissed and he continued on bail but, on 13 January 2016, he breached conditions of his bail by providing a urine sample with methylamphetamine found in it on urinalysis and, on 16 February 2016, I revoked his bail. He has remained in custody since then.
I indicated that I was prepared to grant him further bail should he be re-admitted to the CRS program. He made an application for admission, but there were no beds available. He was eighth on the waiting list in late 2015. By June 2016, he had progressed to fourth on the waiting list, but CRS has been unable to say when a bed would be available.
The matter has been mentioned from time to time, but, with no bed available, Mr Ngerengere languished in the Alexander Maconochie Centre awaiting a bed at CRS. Eventually, he had the matter re-listed and requested that I proceed with sentencing.
The facts
The facts of the offence are set out in R v Ngerengere at [8]-[14]. I do not need to repeat them, though it is appropriate to give a brief summary.
Mr Ngerengere, in the company of a co-offender, entered a tool shed at the Canberra Tradesman’s Club at Dickson as trespassers and stole various tools worth about $5,963, some of which belonged to an individual.
A further co-offender, who has not been identified, assisted to remove the stolen goods and drove the car which transported them away.
The offences
Burglary is a serious offence. Aggravated burglary is a more serious offence. That is clear not only from the maximum penalty referred to above, but by the impact it has on the community. These impacts have been summarised by Street CJ in R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 at 742. I further summarise the effects in R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 at [48]-[51] as follows:
[48]...People work hard for the property that they acquire and which sometimes has more than monetary value to them. Though it seems unlikely in this case, many stolen items have sentimental value which cannot be replaced just by purchasing similar or even identical items.
[49]Inevitably, the loss of property also causes inconvenience, even if only the need to make claims on insurance or to replace them.
[50]Often the items are insured against theft and the payment by insurance companies inevitably mean that the premiums may rise affecting the rest of the community.
[51]The intrusion into homes in a burglary is particularly disturbing as victims feel violated and unsafe. This may have been lesser of a problem in this case for the garage not the residence was entered. It is nevertheless a violation of the privacy and security of the occupants.
In this case, the premises the subject of the aggravated burglary were commercial premises. It appears, as outlined in Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13 at [54], that a burglary of commercial premises is regarded as less serious than the burglary of residential premises.
The circumstance of aggravation, making the offence an offence of aggravated burglary, was that Mr Ngerengere was in company. That does aggravate burglary in that it clearly means that more effort can be applied to the breaking and entering than one person would apply and a greater amount can be stolen than one person might be able to steal.
If there are persons present on the premises into which the burglars trespass, confrontation by two persons is more fearsome than by only one, but that is not the situation here.
The offence of theft is also serious as it deprives people of the property which may be important to them, either for sentimental reasons or because they are important for their work or other reasons. As pointed out in cases such as R v Hyunh [2005] NSWCCA 220 at [27], the value of property taken is a very relevant factor in determining the seriousness of an offence.
In this case, the property was estimated to be worth $5,963 and, of that, $2,213 worth of property was owned by an individual who seeks compensation.
There does not appear, from the Statement of Facts, to have been much pre-meditation in the offending.
Neither of the co-offenders have been dealt with by the courts.
Subjective circumstances
Mr Ngerengere’s personal circumstances are set out in R v Ngerengere at [20]-[53]. Again, I do not need to set them out, though again a brief summary is appropriate with details of what has transpired since then.
Mr Ngerengere was born in New Zealand and is now 43 years old. He and his two brothers and two sisters had a very disadvantaged childhood suffering much abuse, including physical abuse. This has led to some of his psychological problems.
He ran away from home when his family moved to Australia and he was 13. He was then placed in a boys home which he described as “one of the roughest in the country”. While he liked school, he had learning difficulties and left in Year 7.
He has had limited employment and, since 2008, has been in receipt of a Disability Support Pension.
He has had two significant relationships and has six children aged from eight to 24 and appears to have only limited contact with them.
He began drinking alcohol at the remarkably young age of 10, which then escalated, but has now been substantially moderated, though he will still need help properly to manage the continuation of his moderate drinking.
He also started using cannabis at that age and by the age of 30 he was using regularly. He has since reduced its use also but, again, will need help to maintain any abstinence or moderation.
He has used cocaine, LSD, inhalants and heroin but stopped all of these by 2001. He has used MDMA, or ecstasy, however, and continued to use until 2008.
He has also used methylamphetamine.
He has made some attempts at drug and alcohol rehabilitation, spending some time in Miracle Haven, Morrisett, New South Wales and the Weigelli Centre in Cowra and has completed some courses in custody.
As noted above, he did enter the Karralika Therapeutic Community but left to seek another rehabilitation agency that allowed him to use tobacco. He gained entry to CRS but events overtook him and he was arrested and remanded in custody for other offences. He has been trying to return to rehabilitation but no bed is available. This led to a relapse into the use of methylamphetamine which led to other difficulties and, ultimately, to his return to custody.
It is a matter of concern to the court that such facilities as drug rehabilitation facilities are unavailable or, if they are available, take many months, indeed sometimes up to a year, to access for those who need them.
The rehabilitation and reform that they offer is indeed the surest form of protection to the community from crime, as pointed out by French CJ in Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 at 537; [32]. The false economy of failing to fund such agencies so the persons will not prey on the community, which is disruptive and costly, and then have to be accommodated in gaols, which is also costly and provides limited opportunities for reform, is extremely short sighted and disappointing.
Mr Ngerengere does find some challenges in living in the community. He has not been particularly compliant with supervision requirements in the past. Indeed, his compliance is said to be considered to be poor.
He has also had residential placements in places such as Samaritan House and Mimosa House, but his residences there were terminated for inappropriate intimidating behaviour.
He has been diagnosed with a psychotic illness. His more current diagnosis, however, is of Schizophrenia or a Schizo-Affective Disorder, for which he is receiving fortnightly depo injections. I had little information to update his current mental health.
Mr Ngerengere has a long criminal history, including a number of serious offences. He has spent a number of periods in prison, however, his offending, in general, is in the mid to lower range of offences judged by the maximum penalties. Many of these are dishonesty offences which may, as were these offences, be related to his drug habit.
His offending has been reducing until he committed these offences. Indeed, his last offence, before these, was committed in 2010.
There have, as noted above, been some offences in the Magistrates Court although, of all the offences he has been charged with in the Magistrates Court, the only two that were found proved were damaging property and theft, for which he has been sentenced. Mr Ngerengere has, it appears, been participating in the Solaris program while in the Alexander Maconochie Centre. That is a program described in R v JM [2014] ACTSC 380 at [26]. I understand that he commenced the program in March this year and is likely to complete it by late July 2016.
Mr Ngerengere has provided me with a commentary on his early life and current aspirations in the form of a very articulate and moving poem which was admitted into evidence. I appreciate that effort and I hope that his poetic efforts will continue and that what he expressed in that poem was what he really feels and that is what he will be committed to achieving.
Consideration
I must have regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. In this case, punishment and general deterrence play a strong role. Given Mr Ngerengere’s history, specific deterrence also has a role but, insofar as it can be included, reform and rehabilitation must play a part.
The harm done to the victims through the crimes that he has committed must be recognised, especially as an individual was deprived of his tools of trade and, in the circumstances, while compensation has been sought, the realistic possibility of Mr Ngerengere making such compensation to the owner of those tools is remote.
I have taken into account the matters set out in s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. So far as I know them, they are set out in R v Ngerengere and in these reasons.
I take into account Mr Ngerengere’s plea of guilty. For the reasons set out in R v Ngerengere at [62]-[63], he is entitled to a discount resulting from the plea and it should be one of some significance.
I also take into account Mr Ngerengere’s mental impairment, as set out in the reports I had. In this regard, I will accept what was said by Ross J, with whom Burns J agreed, in R v Monfries (2014) 68 MVR 385 at 433; [180]. I set out the relevant passages in R v Ngerengere at [65]-[66].
Mr Ngerengere is to be given credit for the period he did spend in the Karralika Therapeutic Community where he left not because of any breach of that Community’s obligations for rehabilitation but his inability to refrain from smoking tobacco. He should also be given credit for his commitment to accessing the CRS program and his participation in the Solaris program.
I also take into account the fact that Mr Ngerengere had a very disadvantaged childhood which, as the High Court pointed out in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 at 594-5; [43]-[44], is to be taken fully into account as its effects do not diminish over time.
I also have regard to sentencing practice. I set out the relevant authorities in R v Ngerengere at [71].
Mr Ngerengere was assessed as not suitable for a community service work condition to a Good Behaviour Order. That was because of his “unaddressed drug dependency and his mental health issues”. I had hoped that the former would be resolved by his participation in a residential rehabilitation program. That has not happened as envisaged, though he has undertaken some significant time in the Karralika Therapeutic Community and the Solaris Program, though I did not have reports from either.
When making the deferred sentence order, when I anticipated successful participation in the Karralika Therapeutic Community Program, I said, as required under s 118 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, in R v Ngerengere at [86]:
I indicate that if you do not comply with this order and the bail conditions, I consider that you should be sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment for a period of approximately 18 months with a non-parole period. I indicate that if you comply with this order and the bail conditions, I consider that you should be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of approximately 18 months which would be wholly or partially suspended with a good behaviour order which may include a community service condition.
Given the non-completion of the 12 month Karralika Therapeutic Community Program, Mr Ngerengere’s relapse into drug use and the offending which has been dealt with in the Magistrates Court, that period of full-time custody is now warranted.
That period, however, should be moderated by the fact that he did undertake a residential rehabilitation program for a period and has participated further in the Solaris program.
As there are two offences, I must have regard to the length and sentence of each to ensure that, where there are overlapping common elements, Mr Ngerengere is not punished twice.
I need to consider whether the sentences should be partly or wholly concurrent because, for example, they are part of the same enterprise. Thus, as I have noted in R v McMahon [2014] ACTSC 280 at [94], often a sentence of burglary will be wholly concurrent with a sentence for the theft committed at the same time unless, for example, there was a very large amount of property taken or for other reasons.
After that, I must review the length of the period of imprisonment at which I have arrived to ensure that the principle of totality is respected and that the total sentence is not crushing and leaves open the realistic prospect of reform and the hope for the achievement of Mr Ngerengere’s goals when he returns to the community. Where necessary to achieve this, I must adapt the accumulation or concurrency of the individual sentences.
Before I impose sentence, however, I have been asked to consider whether Mr Ngerengere should be considered for an intensive corrections order.
Such orders were introduced in 2016 to replace periodic detention, which has now been phased out as a sentencing option. Thus, s 11 and Pt 5.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act establishes the regime for such orders.
Intensive corrections orders are described in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill which introduced them into the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, at pg 2, as follows:
The new sentence, to be called an ‘intensive correction order’ is formulated by the Bill’s provisions to be a stand-alone way of serving a sentence of imprisonment. As such, it will sit just below a sentence of full-time imprisonment in the sentencing framework. It is intended as a sentence of ‘last resort’ for offenders before full-time imprisonment. The sentence can fulfil more than one of the purposes of sentencing in circumstances where community safety and other sentencing considerations do not require the sentence to be served by way of fulltime imprisonment.
The intensive correction order is designed to be punitive while still allowing the courts to incorporate elements of rehabilitation. It will allow offenders to remain in employment and maintain their community ties which are important to reduce the risk of future offending. It is flexible enough to allow the courts to tailor the order to suit the circumstances of the offence and the offender but still sufficiently structured to ensure every order places appropriate demands on an offender.
The intensive correction order is supported by clear and robust consequences in the event an offender does not adhere to the requirements of the order. If a new offence is committed during the term of the order, a court is required to activate the remaining term of imprisonment either in full or in part unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. If one or more of the other conditions of the order are breached then the Sentence Administration Board is authorised to conduct a hearing of the matter. The Sentence Administration Board is provided with a power to act quickly and innovatively, by imposing a short period of fulltime imprisonment as well as other more traditional consequences, such as cancellation.
It is interesting to see that the Explanatory Statement suggests that the Sentence Administration Board has power to impose a period of full-time imprisonment but perhaps that is just a lack of careful and nuanced articulation in the Explanatory Statement.
The disposition is clearly a sentence of imprisonment to be served in the community as is a suspended sentence: Valentini and Garvey (1980) 2 A Crim R 170 at 174. This has been recognised in New South Wales where such dispositions are also made: R v West [2014] NSWCCA 250 at [4].
The procedure is somewhat odd, but manageable. In the first place, s 11(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act requires that a court may only make an intensive corrections order if it imposes a sentence of imprisonment that is not longer than for two years and it is appropriate to do so, having regard to the following matters:
(a)the level of harm to the victim and the community caused by the offence; and
(b) whether the offender poses a risk to one or more people in the community; and
(c) the offender’s culpability for the offence, having regard to all the circumstances.
So far as these pre-conditions are concerned, I find:
(1) that I propose to sentence Mr Ngerengere to a term of imprisonment for 18 months;
(2) the offence did not cause a level of harm to the victim and the community such as to justify not making an intensive corrections order;
(3) Mr Ngerengere does not pose a personal risk to people in the community and his risk to people’s property has been substantially reduced by the rehabilitation he is undertaking; and
(4) his culpability for the offence is high but not such as to justify not making an intensive corrections order.
Having so decided, the Crimes (Sentencing) Act requires me to have Mr Ngerengere assessed under s 77 for his eligibility, which includes an assessment as to his suitability under s 78 of the Act. I do not need to set out the matters to be considered there.
I am informed that such an assessment will take approximately eight weeks.
I have also been informed that ACT Corrective Services prefers such an assessment to take place while the offender is in the community. That would require Mr Ngerengere to be released on bail, despite him being in custody and to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. It is curious that he be released on bail when I have determined that he ought to be sentenced to imprisonment (see, for example, ss 9E and 22(2) of the Bail Act1992 (ACT)), something that might give some criminologists pause. However, that is the preferred approach and I can understand how an assessment would be likely to be more accurate if carried out in the community where the intensive corrections order will mean that the imprisonment is served in the community.
Nevertheless, I had earlier indicated that Mr Ngerengere could be released on bail, although that was to attend residential rehabilitation. Accordingly, I am not committed to refusing him bail in appropriate circumstances.
I am satisfied that I should release him on bail pending an assessment for his eligibility and suitability for an intensive corrections order. There will, of course, have to be appropriate conditions.
I am satisfied that I should consider whether to make an intensive corrections order in this case. As a consequence, I will require an assessment for an intensive corrections order.
Accordingly, I will proceed as follows:
1. I confirm the convictions of Michael Ngerengere for aggravated burglary committed on 18 July 2014 and theft also committed on that day.
2. I intend to impose a sentence of imprisonment for the offences for a period totalling 18 months.
3. I am considering making an intensive corrections order.
4. I direct the Director-General to assess Michael Ngerengere for suitability to serve the sentence of imprisonment by an intensive corrections order.
5. I adjourn the sentencing proceedings to 9.30 am on 18 August 2016 when I will sentence Mr Michael Ngerengere.
6. Mr Ngerengere is released on bail with the following conditions:
(a) that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to treatment and counselling for drug and alcohol abuse and mental impairment.
(b) that he be co-operative with the assessment of his suitability for service of his sentence of imprisonment by an intensive corrections order;
(c) that he reside at [redacted for legal reasons];
(d) that he not absent himself from his place of residence between the hours of 8.00 pm and 7.00 am each day, except in the case of an emergency and for the purpose of attending AA meetings when he must return directly to his residence at the end of the meeting;
(e) that he not consume alcohol or illicit drugs;
(f) that he submit to urinalysis or breath analysis when reasonably required to do so by the person supervising him; and
(g) that he report to the Officer-in-Charge of City police station each Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 8.00 am and 8.00 pm.
[His Honour then spoke directly to Mr Ngerengere]
Mr Ngerengere, I am giving you a chance. You are going to gaol but you can serve that gaol in the community under an intensive corrections order if you are found suitable. The intensive corrections order is a very heavily directed program, there are lots of things that you have to do in that program and it is intended to try to get you back on track and to put your criminality behind you. You will be assessed for that between now and August and I have to say to you that most people who have been assessed for that order are found unsuitable.
Much of that is because of their attitude, but also because of their inability to satisfy Corrective Services that they can do all the things that are required in an intensive corrections order. You have to be on your best behaviour, you have to give away drugs and alcohol altogether, full stop. You have to show that you are really committed to obeying what people from Corrective Services say. In the past, you have been pretty poor about that. You have missed appointments, you have not done what is said and you have not behaved yourself.
You have also used methylamphetamine and cannabis and you have got yourself into trouble with bashing people up and being aggressive. You have to really work on that. The intensive corrections order is intended to help you do that but you have to co-operate and you have to show Corrective Services that you can achieve that and you are suitable for that.
I will give you that chance because you have shown to me that you are committed to your rehabilitation and I think that is very important and I will reward you for that and give you this chance. In the meantime, Mr R Davies [who appeared for Mr Ngerengere] has indicated to you what the bail conditions are. First of all, supervision and you have to be good at that. You have to turn up when you are required and you have to do what you are told. That supervision can include directions about you dealing with your mental health issue, so that means keeping up your depo injections and attending at Forensic Mental Health if you are required to do so and also for your drug and alcohol abuse.
AA meetings are really good and if you can do that four times a week that is fantastic, but your probation officer may say that you should go to ACT Health or Directions or somewhere else and get into SMART Recovery or something like that as well. If so, you have to do that. If you do not do that, then the consequence is that you will be back in the AMC.
Secondly, you have to co-operate with the assessment for the intensive corrections order and that means you have to turn up. You will be telephoned from time to time and you will have to turn up and co‑operate. You have to reside in your flat at Braddon and you have to be there between 8.00 pm and 7.00 am every day, that is an overnight curfew, except that when you are going to AA meetings, when you can be out until the end of the meeting and then you have to go straight back home.
You are not to consume alcohol and drugs. Alcohol and drugs are off the agenda now. I hope your time in AMC, and particular in Solaris, has given you enough strength at the moment to say no more drugs, no more alcohol and to test that you have to give a sample of urine or a sample of breath when you are asked to. If that shows that you have been drinking or you have been using drugs, then the consequences will flow.
You also have to report to Civic Police Station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 8.00 am and 8.00 pm, so sometime during the day, just so that we know you are going okay and we know where you are. You should also report to ACT Corrective Services by 4.00 pm this afternoon.
That is the position, Mr Ngerengere. I have given you the chance. You take it. If you do not, then the only alternative is prison and I will send you back to prison, not for the whole 18 months. You have already done some time, so I will backdate it to take into account the time you have done and also your rehabilitation and I will make a non-parole period so that you can get out on parole if you can convince the Sentence Administration Board.
You will not spend another 18 months in gaol unless you breach parole or do not get parole but you have a chance to stay out now if you put some real effort into it. You are a big man, you have some smarts, you know how to live in the community, but you also know how to live badly. Now is your chance to live well. No drugs and alcohol, in particular, and no violence. Do not get aggro with people. If things are getting tough, walk away or go and sit in your house for a while or do something else.
Do not turn to alcohol, do not turn to drugs and do not turn to violence, you understand. If you come back, and if you are suitable, I will make an intensive corrections order but that is up to you.
| I certify that the preceding eighty-eight [88] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge. Associate: Date: 8 July 2016 |
4
11
3