R v Peadon (No 1)

[2020] ACTSC 343

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Peadon (No 1)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 343
Hearing Date:	4 September 2020
Decision Date:	7 September 2020
Before:	Refshauge AJ

1.    Mr Peadon be convicted of damaging a chain link fence

Decision:

in Fyshwick.

2.    For that offence, Mr Peadon be sentenced to six months’

imprisonment, to commence on 7 March 2020.

3.    Mr Peadon be convicted of trespassing on the property of Pickles Auctions in Fyshwick.

4.    For that offence, Mr Peadon be fined $500, with 18 months to pay.

5.    Mr Peadon be convicted of the theft of nine motor vehicles from Pickles Auctions in Fyshwick.

6.    For that offence, Mr Peadon be sentenced to three years’

imprisonment to commence on 7 June 2020.

7.    Mr Peadon be convicted of the theft of a motorcycle, helmet and bag from Fyshwick.

8.    For that offence, Mr Peadon be sentenced to 15 months’

imprisonment to commence on 6 September 2022.

9.    Mr Peadon be convicted of dishonestly riding in a motor

vehicle without the owner’s consent.

10. For that offence, Mr Peadon be sentenced to six months’

imprisonment to commence on 7 September 2023.

11. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made in respect of Mr Peadon for a period of 12 months.

12. For the custodial part of that Order, Mr Peadon’s

sentence of four years for the theft offence, the primary
offence, and the associated offences be suspended for a
period of three years under s 80W of the Crimes
(Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).

13. For the treatment and supervision part of that Order, Mr Peadon be ordered to comply with the core conditions set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).

14. On the completion of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, Mr Peadon be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's good behaviour obligations for a period of three years from 6 September 2021.

15. Mr Peadon be directed to, upon his release, travel directly to Canberra Recovery Services, to arrive there before 3 pm today and admit himself to their treatment program.

16. Mr Peadon be directed to reside at that facility for the length of the program and not to leave without the leave of the Court and to comply with the rules of the program and the facility.

17. If he is discharged from or leaves the program, Mr Peadon be directed to present himself to ACT Corrective Services by 4 pm on the next business day after his departure.

18. Mr Peadon be directed to comply with any directions or orders of the Court about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means, and any other treatment or

supervision matters from time to time.

Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft of motor vehicles – recklessly causing damage – dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent – trespass – degree of pre- planning – prospects of rehabilitation – Drug and Alcohol
Treatment Order made
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12A, 46K, 80W, 80Y, 82T Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 318, 403 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 90B
Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971
(Cth) s 11 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) pt 8
Cases Cited:	Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9 R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256
R v Muell [2019] ACTSC 77
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) David James Peadon (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
H Roberts (Crown) S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 166 of 2020; SCC 167 of 2020
REFSHAUGE AJ:

1.       David James Peadon, the offender, was involved in a substantial enterprise of dishonesty in December 2018, for which he has now pleaded guilty, and to which he is now to be sentenced.

2.       Mr Peadon has pleaded guilty to the following counts: the theft of nine motor vehicles, recklessly causing damage to a chain fence, dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, and the theft of a motorcycle, bag and motorcycle helmet. In addition, he pleaded guilty to another offence of trespassing on premises in Fyshwick.

The Facts

3.       At about 4:30 pm on Saturday 15 December 2018, staff members at Pickles Auctions located in Gladstone Street, Fyshwick, ACT, secured the location and switched on the alarm. The location was secured by a chain link fence and electric fence which surrounded the entire facility.

4.       About 4 am on Sunday 16 December 2018, Mr Peadon and a co-offender, Ashley Figura, arrived at the site of Pickles Auctions in a red Holden Commodore utility. Mr Figura being the driver and Mr Peadon the passenger. The vehicle had been stolen on 2 December 2018 from a Canberra business, Snomacks. These were the facts supporting the offence of dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.

5.       The two men entered the Pickles vehicle yard by cutting the rear chain link fence at the location and using a wooden plank to push down the wire of the electric fence. This resulted in the wires touching and therefore shorting the system. For reasons unknown, the alarm system failed to respond. Between 4 am and 4:40 am, they removed seven vehicles from the yard, rammed the gate on Gladstone Street with the first vehicle, causing the gate to be forced open and causing substantial damage.

6.       The damage to the chain link fence and gate gave rise to the charge of damaging property. The entry into the premises without the consent of the owner constitutes the trespass.

7.       The following seven vehicles were stolen:

(a)	Red Holden HSV Club Sport valued at $13,000;
(b)	Grey Jeep Wrangler valued at $42,000;
(c)	White Subaru WRX valued at $22,000;
(d)	Silver Hyundai Santa Fe valued at $24,000;
(e)	Black Holden HSV of an unknown value;
(f)	Grey Subaru Liberty valued at $17,000; and
(g)	White BMW 135i valued at $22,000.

8.       This constituted the first part of the charge of theft of these vehicles. Mr Peadon was identified from CCTV footage from the shop adjacent to the Pickles Auction site, an excerpt of which shows Mr Figura and Mr Peadon leaving the site in motor vehicles before running back to the location and leaving in further motor vehicles.

9.       About 2 am on Monday 17 December 2018, Mr Figura cut the chain link fence at the same location. The damage was large enough to drive a vehicle through and the offenders built a makeshift ramp to get over a brick wall. A further two vehicles were stolen from the yard, leaving through this section of the fence and through an adjoining driveway. The vehicles were a white Land Rover Discovery Sport valued at $34,750 and a blue Toyota Land Cruiser valued at $35,000.

10.     The theft of these vehicles constituted the balance of the charge of theft of the motor vehicles, with a total value of at least $209,750 for the nine vehicles. It was alleged that the offences were all part of a joint enterprise between Mr Peadon and Mr Figura and the pleas have been entered into on that basis.

11.     On Monday 17 December 2018, the Canberra Motorcycle Centre Racing Team packed a B-double transport truck with motorbikes and equipment for departure from the ACT on 18 December 2018. Included were a blue Suzuki Australian racing motorcycle with an estimated value of $50,000 and a racing bag and helmet.

12.     Mr Peadon was identified from a DNA profile on a Gatorade bottle found by police in the B-double transport truck. Mr Figura was shown on CCTV footage driving the Suzuki motorbike without a helmet. This constitutes the joint commission of the theft of the motorcycle, bag and helmet.

The Proceedings

13.     The offences with which Mr Peadon has been charged occurred between 15 and 18 December 2018. I did not have a complete picture of the proceedings but that may not matter.

14.     The earliest date on the court documents that I have show that proceedings were commenced by the issue of summonses on 13 February 2019, returnable on 27 March 2019.

15.     It appears, however, that Mr Peadon was arrested on 21 December 2018 and remanded in custody when an Intensive Correction Order that he was serving, following re-sentencing for a breach of a Good Behaviour Order, was cancelled. When the imprisonment period ended, he was refused bail and remanded in custody on these current charges. The proceedings were adjourned from time to time.

16.     A brief of evidence was provided by the prosecution to Mr Peadon and later, the matter was listed for hearing on 21 October 2019. On the first day of the hearing, negotiations between the parties resulted in a reduction of charges, including only one rolled-up count of theft accounting for all the vehicles stolen on the two nights.

17. Mr Peadon was released on bail on these current charges, prior to his later remand in custody. It appears that the 22 charges originally laid became the 5 charges now before the Court. On the negotiated result being formalised, Mr Peadon pleaded guilty and, after a number of adjournments, was committed for sentence to this Court on the three indictable charges. The trespass charge was transferred under s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) to be dealt with under Part 8 of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT).

The Offences

18. Theft is an offence contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and renders Mr Peadon liable to a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both. Damaging property is an offence against s 403 of the Criminal Code attracting a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.

19. Dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without the owner's consent is an offence contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code and renders Mr Peadon liable to a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of $8,000 or both. Trespass is an offence against s 11(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) for which the maximum penalty is a fine of $2,100.

20.     The offence of theft is, in this case, a serious version of the offence as it involves the stealing of property of considerable value. It was a relatively sophisticated version of that offence as it involved what was clearly a degree of planning to achieve the movement of the seven vehicles on the first night, though only two on the second.

21.     The charge was a rolled-up count. I summarise the approach to be taken to rolled-up counts in R v John [2017] ACTSC 144, at [107], as follows:

… for sentencing purposes, the rolled-up count is one charge and the sentence may not

exceed the maximum penalty of the offence charged. Nevertheless, the criminality encompassed within the count is greater than were the count to be constituted by only one

offence…

22.     The sentence is not necessarily and, perhaps not unusually, the sum of the sentences that would have been imposed for the offences comprising the count. However, in an appropriate case, it may be, and the fact that the count is a rolled-up count may have a bearing on the application of the relevant principles as to accumulation or concurrency.

23.     The offence of damaging property was also serious as it was part of a plan to carry out the theft. The damage was that to the chain link fence and to the gate. The damage was

described as “substantial” which was clearly relevant to the seriousness of the offence.

24.     The offence of dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent is also

a serious offence. I have described it in R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256 and I do not need to repeat what I there said. In this case, there is no evidence that Mr Peadon had originally taken the vehicle from its owner nor that he had driven it. It was, however, part of the enterprise to steal cars and was used in that criminal activity.

25.     It can be assumed that the car had been driven some distance, at least from Mr Figura's address in New South Wales to the Fyshwick site. It is clear that while Mr Peadon was fully a participant in this enterprise, he was not the leader. That puts his culpability behind that of Mr Figura, though perhaps not much behind. It was a substantial criminal enterprise but not a sustained or particularly organised one.

26.     While Mr Peadon is jointly responsible for the theft of all vehicles, it is a fact that he did not actually return to Pickles Auction on 18 December 2018 to steal the additional and more expensive cars.

Subjective Circumstances

27.     Mr Peadon is a 37-year-old man. He describes his upbringing as positive, residing with his parents and three brothers in the ACT.

28.     There were no particular issues in his family life. Mr Peadon completed his Year 10 Certificate at school and then left seeking employment which he found in the construction industry. He has since then conducted his own rendering and plastering business in between periods of employment with other businesses in the industry.

29.     He ceased work when his drug use escalated earlier this year. He began drinking alcohol when he was 17 and his consumption increased to daily drinking by the time he was 19. This problematic use continued until he was about 23 when his first son was born. He then greatly reduced his alcohol consumption.

30.     He did, however, return to drinking daily when he was 31, that is, when his relationship broke down. While he was subject to the Intensive Correction Order, he managed to get his alcohol consumption under control but began consuming at a problematic level just before being returned to custody.

31.     Mr Peadon experimented with illicit drugs at about age 16, smoking cannabis socially on a monthly basis and then trying ecstasy. He gave up drugs when his first son was born and remained abstinent for about 5 years until he began using these drugs again.

32.     He also began using methamphetamines, at first irregularly but gradually increasing his use to weekly, consuming about $50 worth in each instance, and then shortly before being returned to custody, increasing his daily use to about $100 worth.

33.     He ceased using cannabis about 13 years ago. He then remained abstinent until 2018 when later in that year he became a frequent user. His work performance declined during the period of drug use. He says that he has remained drug free while in custody and is determined to remain drug free. He has experienced some symptoms of depression but only discovered that during his participation recently in the Solaris Therapeutic Community Program.

34.     Mr Peadon has two children with a previous partner, [redacted for legal reasons. The children have special needs. He has remained single but has come to amicable relations with his ex-partner and they have mutual custody arrangements. The relationship with his children is a major motivation for his wish to make a positive change and to live a positive lifestyle. Mr Peadon has a good relationship with his parents with whom he is able to reside with. They still live in the ACT.

35.     Mr Peadon has a criminal history. [Redacted for legal reasons].

36.     [Redacted for legal reasons], apart from an offence of failing to vote and of failing to appear after giving a bail undertaking, he has had only a few traffic offences until 2006. He then had no court appearances until 2011, though worryingly, he was convicted of an assault charge and of damaging property.

37.     In 2014 his offending became more serious with two burglary offences and further violence offences. [Redacted for legal reasons]. I am informed, without contradiction, that the burglary offences were for entries into the relevant premises for the purpose of violence, not theft. While, of course, serious as such, they mean that he has had no prior offences of dishonesty. These are the first such offences.

38.     In 2018 and 2019 he had some worrying offences of a further failure to appear and an escape from arrest, as well as driving with a prescribed drug and reckless driving, though not of an especially serious kind.

39.     These current offences for which I am sentencing him are, therefore, a significant escalation in the seriousness of his offences, though it is a prior record of criminality of moderate seriousness. I note too that Mr Peadon, when his Intensive Correction Order was breached and he was remanded in custody, was offered to have the Order reinstated but he withdrew his consent for that so he could continue to complete, in custody, some rehabilitation in the Solaris Therapeutic Community.

40.     He has failed to comply with some previous court orders, but I do not regard his record as showing substantial non-compliance. Mr Peadon wrote a letter which was admitted to evidence without objection. It was a letter to the Court. It is, of course, evidence on which

he cannot be cross-examined. He says that he is “deeply shamed [sic] of these charges” and describes it as “a crime out of character”. That appears to be correct. He says he will regret committing them “for the rest of his life”. That is also obviously correct.

41.     He describes how he has proceeded to address his drug addiction while in custody and

has gained “new tools and pathways” to change his behaviour. He says he will fully

commit himself to his recovery. A goal he sets himself is to gain both the love and respect
of his family and to play an important role in the life of his children.

42.     Also admitted into evidence was a certificate of graduation from the Solaris Therapeutic Community and a letter from the team leader of that program confirming his progress.

She commented that he “engaged in the program in a positive manner and has displayed significant personal growth”. Also admitted was a certificate from his participation in the

comprehensive relapse prevention program. Further admitted was a letter confirming that Mr Peadon has undertaken training for a Certificate II in Skills for Work and Vocational Pathways, and which lists the units he has completed and are completing. He

is said to have “demonstrated an excellent attitude in class and has participated well”.

Plea of Guilty

43.     Mr Peadon agreed to plead on the first day of what was to be the trial in the Magistrates Court. He did so, however, as a result of negotiations that very substantially reduced the number of charges, not merely by merging a number of offences into the rolled-up theft count, but also by the Crown abandoning some further charges, including some serious ones.

44.     While the plea was a relatively late plea, it had a greater utilitarian value than it may otherwise have had were a plea not entered.

Sentencing practice

45.     As with charges of the nature of the current charges, sentencing practice is hard to assess because they are regrettably common charges which cover a very wide range of circumstances.

46.     The Crown referred to two cases, R v Muell [2019] ACTSC 77 and Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9. Both related to thefts from residential premises so had some, but more limited, utility to the present situation. In each, the offences were burglaries which are, in substance, similar to the nature of these offences, but not so charged and with different maximum penalties which are, of course, an important yardstick by which I measure the seriousness of the offence.

47.     I have read the decisions carefully and will give them such weight and obtain such assistance as I can from them. I did not, however, find them to be of significant value.

48.     More significant is the sentencing of Mr Figura. Mr Figura was sentenced to a total of four years' imprisonment to be served by an Intensive Correction Order. He was also fined a total of $1,500.

49.     There are differences, of course, between the two cases. Mr Figura faced 11 charges while Mr Peadon faced 5. The rolled-up count of theft facing Mr Peadon obviously is represented by two charges against Mr Figura, one for each night. Mr Figura also drove the stolen vehicle in which Mr Peadon rode. Mr Figura was clearly the leader of the enterprise and used his home to secrete the cars.

50.     On the other hand, Mr Peadon was some 12 years older than Mr Figura who was, perhaps relatively, a young man still at 25 years of age. He entered his pleas of guilty at an early stage, indeed before he received the full prosecution brief. It was also, as with Mr Peadon, a negotiated outcome. Mr Figura had a somewhat less serious criminal history than Mr Peadon.

51.     He had, however, committed three burglary type offences. There were also some other serious offences including aggravated furious reckless driving on two occasions and driving a motor vehicle to menace another with intent. While it is less serious, it is perhaps worrying that he has committed 20 offences in the 12 years recorded.

52.     Mr Peadon, on the other hand has committed 28 offences, but in the 20 years of record. Balancing the two cases it is not clear to me that there is, in substance, a great deal of difference between the two cases.

Consideration

53. When imposing sentence on an offender, a sentencer must have regard to the purposes of sentence mandated in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). While all of them are important, some assume greater significance or relevance than others.

54.     In this case, general deterrence and punishment are significant because of the nature of the offences which are commonly appearing in this course. As is specific deterrence

because of the recent escalation of Mr Peadon’s offending, from which he needs to be

deterred from continuing.

55.     This is then an occasion for the deterrence of Mr Peadon from a further escalation of criminality but also an opportunity for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation becomes important when, as here, it appears that Mr Peadon is ready to address the causes of his offending and, indeed, has taken positive and effective steps to do so already.

56.     I have considered the plea of guilty and the comparable sentence of the co-offender.

57.     I have considered the seriousness of the offences. Because there are multiple offences, I have carefully considered the length of each sentence to ensure that Mr Peadon is not punished twice. This is not of great significance here because although the theft, damage to property and trespass offences are all part of the same enterprise, the overlap of the elements of the offence is not so great.

58.     I have also considered whether the sentences should be partly or wholly concurrent because of, for example, them being part of the same course of conduct. That is relevant to the offences of damaging property, theft and trespass because they are part of the same course of conduct. While they should generally have a level of concurrency, this has to be moderated to some extent because of their relationship.

59.     I have then reviewed the length of the term of imprisonment arrived at to ensure that the principle of totality is respected and that the total sentence is adequate to reflect the criminality of the offences committed, but not more than that. Further, I have reviewed the term of imprisonment to ensure that the total sentence is not excessive but will leave open the realistic prospect of reform and hope for Mr Peadon to achieve his goals when he is released back into the community.

60.     This may result in what is seen as leniency in the accumulation of the sentences but it is important to have regard not only to the total culpability of Mr Peadon's offending and his participation in the offences, but also to rehabilitation as still an important factor. It requires a sentence that will be proportionate to the criminality and the relevant subjective circumstances and to leave Mr Peadon with some hope for the reform which I am satisfied he does seek.

61. I also note that Mr Peadon has spent 185 days in pre-sentence custody. I propose to deal with that period by backdating the sentence of imprisonment that must inevitably be imposed. For the purpose of considering whether to make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (a Treatment Order) under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, I shall deal with that matter in accordance with my decision in R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245.

His Honour then spoke to the accused:

62.     Mr Peadon please stand. I make the following orders:

(a)	I convict you of damaging a chain link fence in Fyshwick.
(b)	I sentence you to six months' imprisonment to commence on 7 March 2020 to take account of a pre-sentence custody. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to seven months' imprisonment.
(c)	I convict you of trespassing on the property of Pickles Auctions in Fyshwick.
(d)	I fine you $500 and allow you 18 months to pay. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have fined you $600.
(e)	I convict you of the theft of nine motor vehicles from Pickles Auctions in Fyshwick.
(f)	I sentence you to three years' imprisonment to commence on 7 June 2020. That is to be concurrent as to three months on the sentence for damaging property. If you had not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to three years and five months' imprisonment.
(g)	I convict you of theft of a motorcycle, helmet and bag from Fyshwick.
(h)	I sentence you to 15 months' imprisonment to commence on 6 September 2022. That is to be cumulative as to six months on the other sentence for theft. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to 18 months' imprisonment.

(i)       I convict you of dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.

(j) I sentence you to six months' imprisonment to commence on 7 September 2023, that is to be cumulative to three months on the second sentence for theft.

63.     I note that this is a total sentence of imprisonment of four years on Mr Peadon's pleas of guilty. I also note that Mr Peadon is not subject to any other sentencing order.

64.     Accordingly, he is eligible for a Treatment Order.

65.     I have read and considered a Pre-Sentence Report dated 15 January 2020, a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment Report from ACT Corrective Services dated 31 August 2020 and a Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List Suitability Assessment Report from Canberra Health Services dated 25 August 2020.

66.     I have carefully considered those reports and the recommendations made in them, especially the recommendation that Mr Peadon is suitable for a Treatment Order. I am satisfied that Mr Peadon is dependent on illicit drugs and that this dependency substantially contributed to the commission of the theft of the nine motor vehicles.

67.     I am also satisfied that Mr Peadon will live in the ACT for the next 12 months. I have not identified any indictors of an unsuitability for a Treatment Order as set out in Table 46K of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

68.     Mr Peadon please stand again. I make the following additional orders:

(a)	In respect of the offence of theft of nine motor vehicles from Fyshwick, the primary offence, I make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 12 months.
(b)	For the custodial part of that Order, I suspend the sentence of four years that I have imposed for the theft offence and also for the associated offences for a period of three years under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
(c)	For the treatment and supervision part of that Order, I order that you comply with the core conditions set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 12 months from today and complete a treatment program as agreed with the treatment order team from time to time or as ordered by the Court.
(d)	On the completion of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, I require you to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's good behaviour obligations for a period of three years from 6 September 2021.
(e)	I direct that on your release, you travel directly to Canberra Recovery Services, to arrive there before 3 pm today and admit yourself to their treatment program.
(f)	I direct that you reside at that facility for the length of the program and not to leave without the leave of the Court and to comply with the rules of the program and the facility.
(g)	I direct that if you are discharged from or leave the program you present yourself to ACT Corrective Services by 4 pm on the next business day after your departure.
(h)	I direct that you comply with any directions or orders of the Court about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means, and any other treatment or supervision matters from time to time.

69.     Mr Peadon, I think this is an aberration but it is a major aberration and I have determined that it is worthy of you spending four years in jail. But because of your circumstances and your commitment to your rehabilitation, I have decided that you do not need to spend any further period, other than the 185 days that you have already spent in custody, on remand. However, you now must undertake a treatment order and that is not all roses. That is also tough and there will be back sliding from time to time and you will have to be committed to the Order.

70.     If, as you say, you are committed to that and if you put your kids front and centre as a motivation for that, then you will get through it.

71.     The Court will help you to do so and you will be surrounded by a significant number of very committed people in the treatment order team who will help you. But they are not here to put you in cotton wool. They are not here to pat you on the back, although they will do so when you succeed. But they are here to hold you to account and to make sure that the privilege you have of not serving those four years in custody are discharged by you putting your drug use and your criminality behind you and fitting yourself to live a useful life in the community which is good for you, for the community especially, but also for your kids.

72.     You will have to come back and see me. We will get well acquainted over the next 12 months or so. I hope all positively. But if you fall short then there will be occasions where you might have to go back into jail and if it really falls short, I may have to cancel the Order and send you to serve the balance of your imprisonment in jail.

73.     So, there is a big stick there but there is also the carrot. I hope you manage to take advantage of this privilege that has been granted to you and as I say, the Court will support you as best it can, as long as you are committed.

I certify that the preceding seventy-three [73] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Acting Justice Refshauge.

Associate: Samuel Xiang

Date: 12 January 2021