R v Smith

[2025] NSWDC 71

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Smith [2025] NSWDC 71

Hearing dates:

24 October 2024, 24 January 2025, 14 March 2025

Date of orders:

14 March 2025

Decision date:

14 March 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Fitzsimmons SC DCJ

Decision:

[85]

Catchwords:

CRIME — violent offences — robbery in company

SENTENCING — aggravating factors — vulnerable victim — mitigating factors — not part of a planned or organised criminal activity — plea of guilty — deprived upbringing – mental health — co-offenders — parity

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 57

DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82

DG v R (No 1) [2023] NSWCCA 320

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 205 Aust Crim R 1

Giles-Adam v Preka; Preca v R [2023] NSWCCA 122

Green v R; Quinn v R (2011) 244 CLR 462

Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Crown, Bryce Smith

Representation:

Crown: Ms C Diebe
Defence: Mr J Jeffrey

File Number(s):

2023/00337085

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. The offender pleaded guilty to the following offence:

1. Sequence 1 – Robbery in company.

2. The plea of guilty was adhered to on the sentence hearing.

3. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. The maximum penalty for the offence is an indication of its seriousness and acts as a sentencing guidepost or reference point.

4. Admitted on behalf of the Crown were the following:

1. Charge certificate

2. Agreed facts   

3. CCTV of incident (USB)

4. Criminal history

5. Custodial history

6. State Parole authority documents

7. Sentencing Assessment Report dated 6 January 2025

8. Sentencing Assessment Report dated 11 March 2025.

9. Updated Custodial History

5. Admitted on behalf of the offender was the following:

1. Psychological report of Vanessa Edwige dated 5 October 2024

2. Letter of the Glen Rehabilitation Centre

3. Letter of Claude Robinson of Rainbow Lodge dated 26 September 2024.

Agreed facts

6. Around 3:00 am on 15 October 2023, the victim (aged 15 at the time of the offending) and his female friend had caught the light rail from Town Hall to Central Station in the Sydney CBD. Having arrived at Central Station the offender and his co-offender approached the victim and his friend. The offender tapped the victim on the shoulder attempting to engage in conversation to which there was no response from the victim. The offender then asked to speak to the victim separately from his friend. He took his arm and walked him around the corner, out of sight.

7. The co-offender stood some distance away from the offender at this point and did not say anything. Once around the corner the co-offender stood some metres away whilst the offender and the victim had a conversation about where he lived, before asking the victim to take his jumper off. The CCTV footage captures the co-offender initially filming the interaction between the victim and the offender before he approached the two of them.

8. After that approach the offender, in the presence of the co-offender, grabbed the victim's collar, pushed him against the wall, and said words to the effect, “Hurry up before I stab you. Give me your phone as well."

9. The co-offender then approached the victim, grabbing hold of his glasses and shaking them. The co-offender then placed his hand inside the victim's left pocket. The victim thereafter took his phone from his pocket before handing it to the co-offender who walked away. He removed his jumper and handed it to the offender.

10. It was after this that the offender then said to the victim, “If you cry, I'll stab you in the eye". The offender then grabbed the victim's wrist and pulled him into the train station whilst the co-offender remained behind. The offender then walked the victim up the internal escalator before asking him for various passwords for the phone. These were provided by the victim.

11. The offender, in the absence of the co-offender, then said to the victim, “If you tell anyone about this, like anyone calls the cops, I'll find you and hurt you. I know where you live. I've got your face and I'll stab you".

12. The victim stated that the offender threatened three or four times to stab him, in response to which the victim assured the offender he would not tell anyone.

13. The two then left the victim. Shortly thereafter the victim approached the train staff, and a staff member stood with him until the offenders were out of sight.

14. After arriving home, the victim told his father about what had occurred, and they attended the police to report the matter.

15. Subsequent investigations, including CCTV footage from Sydney trains, exhibited and played on the sentence hearing, resulted in police linking the footage to the offender.

16. A search warrant was subsequently executed at the offender's mother's house in Macquarie Fields. The offender was present at the search warrant, was cautioned and placed under arrest. During the search warrant, the offender was forthcoming in pointing out the items police were looking for. He pointed out the Dior sneakers and Dior jumper he was wearing during the offence and the victim’s jumper. The offender did not have the victim's phone in his possession.

17. Whilst the offender declined to participate in the electronically recorded interview, he voluntarily participated in a forensic procedure by way of buccal swab and photographs for comparison to the CCTV.

Criminal history

18. The offender's criminal history commenced as a juvenile at the age of 14 with larceny and assault offences. Ther are further offences committed thereafter of a similar type. In 2019 offender was convicted of more serious offences including aggravated break and enter and robbery in company. In 2022, the offender was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months for various offences. The offender had only been released on parole for several months with respect to those offences when the subject offence was committed.

Breach of parole report

19. Prior to the present offending, the offender had demonstrated a satisfactory response to supervision. However, home visits scheduled in the weeks prior to his arrest were unsuccessful. The author noted his concern the defendant appeared to have committed the offence within a short period since his release on parole and was similar in nature to those for which he was currently being supervised. Due to his escalating antisocial behaviour there was concern for the welfare and safety of the community. It was recommended that the offender’s parole be revoked. Indeed, the offender’s parole was revoked on 8 November 2023.

Sentencing assessment reports

20. The offender continues to have the support of his family and a pro-social partner with whom he intended living upon his release. The offender had no recollection of committing the offence and was unable to provide any reasoning behind his actions other than being significantly influenced by drugs and alcohol. The offender provided similar history to the psychologist as to his personal background including his substance use from an early age. The offender reported experiencing significant unresolved grief from the losses he had experienced and been previously medicated for depression. He showed some level of insight into the impact on the victim and expressed some remorse. However, he continued to essentially place the blame for offending on his substance abuse.

21. It was noted that during the preparation of the report the offender refused on multiple occasions to attend interview, with the report based upon one interview alone. The offender was assessed at a medium to high risk of reoffending.

22. In an earlier presentence report it was noted that the offender experienced significant losses over the previous three years including the stillbirth of his daughter and subsequent relationship breakdown. Further the murder of his father in December 2022 and most recently the loss of his sister to suicide in February 2024.

23. Whilst offender had previously been employed in labouring positions, he was unemployed at the time of the offence. The offender fairly acknowledged that he had difficulties with emotional regulation particularly anger. However, whilst on remand he engaged in custodial based psychology services which had assisted. He had never previously been assessed in respect to his mental health. He presented with a superficial level of insight and the impact of his offending on the victim. It was noted the offender had previously demonstrated satisfactory response to supervision although this offence was committed whilst on parole.

Subjective evidence

Report of Vanessa Edwige

24. Vanessa Edwige assessed the offender by audiovisual link on 26 August 2024. The defendant was born in Wyong although was raised in the Campbelltown area. His parents were both users of heroin and crystal methamphetamine. There was domestic violence in the home perpetrated by his father against his mother and the offender. His father, during his upbringing, spent various periods in prison. His parents separated when he was relatively young, and it is apparent that the offender thereafter experienced significant financial hardship with his mother resorting to stealing food.

25. His mother re-partnered following which the offender continued to be exposed to some domestic violence and the ongoing use of drugs and alcohol.

26. It is unsurprising in those circumstances that the offender ran away at the age of 13 and by the age of 15 was committing offences and incarcerated in juvenile detention. According to the history provided to the Ms Edwige, the offender’s decline in his personal circumstances coincided with the use of illicit substances including cannabis and alcohol in his early teenage years. The offender thereafter progressed to using MDMA, cocaine and later crystal methamphetamine.

27. The offender was the victim of sexual abuse by a worker whilst in juvenile detention, leading to a further increase in alcohol usage and escalation in his offending. Predictably, given these circumstances, the offender ceased his mainstream education in Year 8 before completing Year 9 at an alternative college.

28. The offender reported depressive symptomatology in addition to suffering nervousness and anxiety.

29. Ms Edwige accepted that the offender had been exposed to substance misuse, domestic violence, significant parental incarceration and child maltreatment. He had also been exposed to multiple other adverse childhood experiences which had a significant effect on his mental and social well-being. The offender presented with recurrent and intrusive memories of trauma he has experienced in his life and was diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, stimulant use disorder and substance use disorder.

30. The psychologist concluded:

"Mr Smith presents as a young man that has been exposed multiple adverse childhood and adolescent experiences. He experienced significant disadvantage in the struggle to cope with these adverse experiences. It is my opinion that Mr Smith at the time of the above-mentioned offence was and is suffering from mental health impairments that were clinically significant"

31. Ms Edwige further concluded that the sexual abuse to which the offender was subjected whilst in juvenile detention had a profound impact on the offender’s well-being being, subjecting him to further psychological risk in the absence of its report by the offender. She further noted the absence of parental support rendered the impact of sexual abuse as more devastating, compounding the emotional, psychological, and social consequences that a child may face.

32. Ms Edwige finally concluded:

“It is my opinion, that these disorders had a significant impact on Mr Smith's ability to make considered and appropriate choices and impaired his ability to make reasoned judgements, think clearly, regulate his behaviour and fully appreciate the wrongfulness of the act. I consider this and Mr Smith's childhood background and development to be a contributing factor to the offences committed"

33. Various recommendations for treatment were made.

Brett Withers

34. Mr Withers has known the offender for the majority of his life as a close family friend.

35. He personally observed the offender’s decline in his teenage years, turning to drugs and crime. The offender was clearly affected by the murder of his father two years prior. However, in recent years Mr Withers has had various conversations with the offender and believes he has a clear understanding of his actions and is remorseful for the choices he has made and the impact these choices have had upon his family and the community. He has expressed his desire to desist from drug use. He had recently, whilst released on bail, worked with Mr Withers in his business. He believed that the offender had the best of intentions to put his past behind him.

Crown submissions

36. It is acknowledged that given the time of the offender’s plea he was entitled to 25% discount on the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.

37. The offender had been in custody since his arrest on 24 October 2023 until his release on s 11 bail on 28 October 2024, however the period October 2023 to 21 June 2024 was referable to his revoked parole whereas the period until his release in October 2024 (approximately four months) was solely referable to the present offending.

38. The Crown referred to the guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 identifying the typical relevant features referred to in the judgment. Whilst the Crown did not contend that an aggravating feature of the offence was that it was committed in the presence of a child (as originally submitted by the offender) the victim was in a vulnerable position given his age and the five-year difference between the victim and the offender. Whilst there was no serious violence inflicted, there was a persistent threat of such violence, particularly by the offender who played the primary role. The offending was somewhat sustained and involved repeated threat, which increased the overall objective seriousness of the offending. An aggravating factor was that the offender was on traditional liberty at the time of the offending. A mitigating factor was the offender’s guilty plea.

39. The Crown disputed that there would be any finding of mitigation by reason of lack of planning or that the injury emotional harm or loss damage caused by the offence was not substantial. The Crown referred to principles of parity in passing sentence.

40. With respect to the subjective case, it was conceded that the offender had experienced significant adverse childhood and adolescent experiences that impacted on his social and emotional well-being. There was some demonstration in the psychologist’s report of insight into the offending and a degree of remorse, although this was to be compared to the Sentencing Assessment Report. It was noted that the offender’s consumption of drugs and alcohol would be considered in the context of section 21A(5)(AA) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

41. The Crown conceded that there was some nexus between the offender’s mental illness and the offending which may reduce his moral culpability to an extent. In the circumstances, the Crown fairly conceded that the offender was an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence however there were still some need for the sentence to satisfy the purposes of protecting the community and deterring the offender. It was submitted that s 5 threshold had been crossed and that protection of the community, rehabilitation offender, denunciation and recognition of harm to the victim were important.

42. The Crown contended that the offender’s offending was too serious for the matter to fall within the range of sentences within which an Intensive Correction Order would be available. In the event it did fall within this range, ultimately it was the Crown's submission that community safety was best addressed by the offender serving his sentence by way of full-time imprisonment.

43. In supplementary submissions Crown contended that the offender’s recent release on s 11 bail reflected poorly on his prospects of rehabilitation. Not only did the offender squander the opportunity to engage in the formal rehabilitation, he failed to report his breach and was in breach of his bail conditions for a period of two months. However the Crown acknowledged that given the offender was working during this period this provided some promise, although he was still in breach of his bail.

44. As to parity the Crown noted that the court sentenced his co-offender to a period of two years imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order. The Crown contended that the offender’s offending was objectively more serious than that of his co-offender for the reasons identified in the submissions.

45. The offender’s offending was just below the mid-range of objective seriousness for offences of this type whereas the co-offender was found to be at the low end of objective seriousness. It was conceded that the offending was entirely spontaneous.

46. The Crown reiterated previous submissions that the offending was too serious to fall within the range for which an intensive correction order would be contemplated. In any event, it was contended that community safety was best served by the offender serving a term of imprisonment by way of full-time imprisonment.

Offender’s submissions

47. It was contended that the offence fell towards the lower range of objective seriousness for offences of this kind. It was conceded aggravating factors were that the offence was committed on a vulnerable person and also committed whilst on conditional liberty. However, it was contended that the mitigating factors were that the injury, emotional harm, loss or damage was not substantial, the offence was not part of a planned organised criminal activity, the offender’s guilty plea and his good prospects of rehabilitation.

48. Reference was made to the guideline judgment in R v Henry. It was contended, by reference to relevant authorities, that the guideline judgment was a guide or check but was not a particular rule or presumption. Submissions were made by reference to the relevant features identified in Henry. It was contended that common elements was that the offender was young with no or little criminal history, there was a limited if any degree of planning. Whilst there was limited if any actual violence there was a threat of such violence. It was conceded that the victim was vulnerable by virtue of his age. It was a relatively small amount taken. Whilst the presence of a weapon like a knife was not present, it was acknowledged that balancing factor was that the offence was committed in company.

49. The plea of guilty was acknowledgement of the willingness to accept responsibility for the offence, also consistent with his willingness to cooperate with police upon execution of the search warrant, identifying the relevant items of clothing.

50. Ultimately it was contended that the offending would attract a penalty less severe than that contemplated in the guideline judgment. Further the guideline judgment did not account for subjective matters which may otherwise have reduced the offender’s moral culpability.

51. The submissions then identified the relevant features of the psychologist report. It was contended that the offender’s dysfunction and disadvantage in his early life enlivened the principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 57 such that they would operate in mitigation of the assessment of the offender’s moral culpability. Some detailed references were also made to the mental health issues identified in the psychologist’s report on the principles outlined in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 205 Aust Crim R 1 would apply in that there is a nexus between the offender’s mental illness, substance issues and the offence which reduced his moral culpability and the need to denounce the conduct. He was an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence, and it was appropriate to moderate the level of specific deterrence.

47. The offender also referred to relevant principles in the context of youth when sentencing an offender. It was noted that the offender had just turned 20 at the time of the offence and this, in combination with his dysfunctional upbringing, would warrant the affordance of full weight of principles relevant to youth. Again it was considered the considerations of general deterrence would be given less weight in the sentencing exercise and an emphasis should be placed on the opportunity for rehabilitation.

48. The offender had spent a total of one year in custody referable to the offence until his release on bail on 24 October 2025. There was an additional 60 days since his return to custody on 13 January 2025.

49. It was conceded that no sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate however it was contended that an appropriate penalty of two years or less could be imposed. In this respect, the principles identified in DG v R (No 1) [2023] NSWCCA 320 would not be infringed if the court was take into account the time spent on remand as part of the court’s instinctive synthesis, particularly with regard to the offender's subjective case and risk of institutionalisation. It was contended that if a sentence of two years or less was imposed the court would consider the offender serving the term of imprisonment by way of an Intensive Correction Order.

Consideration

55. The offender is to be sentenced with respect to the single offence of robbery in company, the offence having been given committed with the co-offender Kynan Mizzi.

56. The victim was only 15 years of age and at the time was in the company of his female friend. The victim was clearly vulnerable by reason of his age. The offence was committed in a matter of minutes, although clearly would have been terrifying for the victim given the co-offender’s use of violence and subsequent threats.

57. I am satisfied that the offender took the primary role in the commission of the offence given the following:

1. The offender made the initial approach to the victim;

2. The offender asked to speak to the victim separately before taking his arm and removing him out of the sight of his friend;

3. The offender physically engaged with the victim before demanding property, accompanied by threats of violence;

4. The offender physically removed the victim to another area of the train station before demanding access to passwords;

5. The offender was the one who issued threats to discourage the victim reporting the matter to authorities.

58. The offending did not involve the use of a weapon, although there were threats of further violence.

59. I am satisfied that the offending was extremely unsophisticated, occurring in the vicinity of CCTV cameras where the offenders could be readily identified. I am satisfied that the offending was relatively spontaneous, there being no evidence of any particular planning.

60. The application of force was relatively minimal although it was accompanied by threats of further violence. The property stolen was of a relatively low value.

61. I am satisfied, given the features of the offending identified, that the offender's role in the offence falls between the low and mid-range of objective seriousness for offences contemplated by the provision.

62. I am satisfied that the offence was not part of a planned organised criminal activity (s 21A(3) of the CSPA).

63. In determining an appropriate sentence, I have considered the guideline judgement in Henry. Whilst there are some common features with those identified in Henry, there are more distinguishing factors.

64. Whilst it is accepted that the offender’s criminal sentencing is not significant, it does disclose offending over some years commencing as a juvenile. A weapon was not used. I am satisfied that there was no planning, and that the offending rather was spontaneous. I accept there was a threat of violence. The victim, whilst vulnerable, was not in the sort of position identified in Henry. The amount stolen was relatively small.

65. The threat of violence was relatively brief although still significant. Of course, the additional features relevant in the sentencing of the offender include the strong subjective circumstances outlined in these remarks.

66. I am satisfied, that in addition to the 25% reduction in the sentence that would otherwise be imposed by reason of the plea of guilty, the early plea reflects a willingness of the offender to facilitate the course of justice leading to a further mitigation in sentence that would otherwise be imposed: Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23; Giles-Adam v Preka; Preca v R [2023] NSWCCA 122.

67. In this context, the court also considered a mitigating factor the offender’s full cooperation with police including voluntarily providing items of clothing worn at the time of the commission of the offence and the jumper stolen from the victim.

68. Additionally, the offender’s cooperation with police and his early plea is a further demonstration of the victim's remorse, consistent with the further expressions remorse contained in the psychologist's report of Vanessa Edwige and in the pre-sentence reports. The offender's criminal history, whilst not a statutory aggravating factor, disentitles him to leniency.

69. I accept the history provided by the offender to Vanessa Edwige that the offender was exposed as a child to substance misuse, domestic violence and maltreatment as a child. I also accept her opinion that the offender’s sexual abuse in juvenile detention would have had a profound impact as traversed in the report. This all occurred during the offender’s most formative years. I accept the opinion of Vanessa Edwige that this has had a significant effect on the offender’s mental and social well-being. In the circumstances I accept that full weight is to be given to the offender’s deprived background and accordingly his moral culpability is reduced, reducing the weight to be afforded to punishment and deterrence: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

70. I further accept the opinion of Vanessa Edwige that at the time of the offending the offender was suffering from clinically significant mental health impairments which further contributed to his offending. I accept, in these circumstances, that the offender’s moral culpability is further reduced and again less weight is to be afforded to punishment and deterrence: Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82 at [74]-[76].

71. I accept the submission that the offender’s youth is further mitigating factor in determining the appropriate sentence. I have also taken into consideration the offender’s difficult personal circumstances leading to this offending including the death of his father in tragic circumstances, the recent suicide of his sister and the late term miscarriage of his child.

72. Whilst it is impermissible to take into account the offender’s self-induced intoxication at the time the offence was committed (s 21A(5AA) of the CSPA), the offender’s early and continuing drug addiction does have its genesis in his underlying disorders, his deprived upbringing and traumatic experiences during his most formative years: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; Leigh Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 335.

73. I do not accept the offender’s submission that the court would find the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation. The evidence establishes at time of the commission of this offence the offender was on parole, having only been released some months earlier. The Sentencing Assessment Report noted that the offender’s behaviour in custody has been less than satisfactory having incurred 10 institutional misconducts since December 2023 relating to fighting, drug use, destroy and damage property and disobey direction.

74. The offender was released by the court on bail in accordance with s 11 of the CSPA in October 2024 to immediately commence residential rehabilitation. However, the offender was asked to leave after two days due to a physical altercation and has now been blacklisted from that centre for a period of four years. The offender otherwise failed to comply with bail conditions and accordingly the offender’s bail was revoked in January 2025.

75. The most recent Sentencing Assessment Report further notes that the offender had refused on multiple occasions to attend interviews for the purposes of previously preparing a Sentencing Assessment Report. The only positive indicator is the offender’s recent employment whilst at liberty however this was in the context of the offender otherwise being in breach of his bail conditions.

76. I do not accept that the offender’s significant time spent in custody would mitigate the sentence such that it would reduce the sentence otherwise to be imposed to a term that would enable consideration to the sentence being served by way of an intensive correction order, in that this would infringe the principles discussed in DG v R (No 1) [2023] NSWCCA 320 at [25].

77. The majority of the High Court (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) stated in Green v R; Quinn v R (2011) 244 CLR 462 at [30]:

“The foundation of the parity principle in the norm of equality before the law requires that its application be governed by consideration of substance rather than form. Formal identity of charges against the offenders whose sentences are compared is not a necessary condition of its application. Nevertheless, as Campbell JA recognised in Jimmy v R, [48] there can be significant practical difficulties, particularly where disparity is said to arise out of a sentence imposed on a co-offender who has been charged with an offence that is less serious than that of the appellant. The existence of those difficulties may be accepted. So too may the inability of a court of criminal appeal to undertake, under the parity rubric, a de facto review of prosecutorial charging discretions. Those practical difficulties and limitation, however, do not exclude the operation of the parity principle. The effect given to it may vary according to the circumstances of the case, including differences between the offences with which co-offenders are charged."  

78. The court is satisfied that the offender’s involvement in the offending was more significant than that of his co-offender. The offender's criminal history is more expansive than that of his co-offender and whilst both were on conditional liberty at the time of the offending, the offender was on parole whereas his co-offender was the subject of a Community Correction Order. I have found that the co-offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are significantly more optimistic than that of the offender. I accept however that the offender has strong Bugmy factors present which were absent in the co-offender’s sentence although mental health conditions were both relevant and considered. In all the circumstances, I do not accept given the relevant considerations, and applying principles of parity, that this offender ought to receive a sentence similar to that of his co-offender of two years imprisonment.

79. I accept that a finding of special circumstances is justified so as to adjust the statutory ratio of the non-parole period given the factors identified in the report of Vanessa Edwige. It is readily apparent that the offender, despite difficulties with rehabilitation, should be provided with every opportunity to address the issues underlying his offending identified in the psychologist’s report. I accept that the offender should be given the earliest opportunity to commence his rehabilitation in the community as well as seek appropriate treatment necessary to address the factors identified in the report.

80. The offender was in custody from the date of his arrest on 24 October 2023 until his release on the s 11 bail on 28 October 2024. In the meantime, the period 24 October 2023 to 21 June 2024 was referable to the revoked parole which I am satisfied was revoked due to the commission of the offence for which is to be sentenced. Accordingly, the period from 21 June 2024 until 28 October 2024 was solely referable to this further offence.

81. The offender returned to custody, his bail having been revoked, on 14 January 2025 and has remained in custody until today, 14 March 2025.

82. Given the offender’s revocation of parole was due to the commission of the index offence it is appropriate that the court backdate the offender’s sentence to take into account a proportion of the time served during the revocation of parole. For the purpose of backdating the offender’s sentence, the court will take in your account a period of four months for time served for this offence being 24 October 2023 to 23 February 2024. The offender’s sentence will be further backdated taking account the additional four months eight days (21 June 2024 to 28 October 2024) and two months (14 January 2025 to 14 March 2025) in custody solely referable to this offence.

83. I am satisfied that the s. 5 threshold has been crossed and that no sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate. I consider that an appropriate sentence 2 years 6 months imprisonment.

84. In determining the non-parole period, I have taken into account the offender's total time in custody commencing 24 October 2023.

Orders

85. I make the following orders:

1. The offender is convicted of the offence.

2. The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and six months.

3. The sentence is backdated to 6 May 2024, to expire on 5 November 2026.

4. I impose a non-parole period of one year six months to expire on 5 November 2025. The earliest possible date of release will be 5 November 2025.

Decision last updated: 19 March 2025