R v Subasic (No 5)
[2025] ACTSC 35
•13 February 2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Subasic (No 5) |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 35 |
Hearing Date: | 13 February 2025 |
Decision Date: | 13 February 2025 |
Before: | Christensen AJ |
Decision: | See [25] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –treatment order cancelled – resentenced – breach of suspended sentence good behaviour order – not engaging with supervision – further offending – committal of breach to Supreme Court prior to finalisation of Magistrates Court sentence – suspended sentence imposed – parole with rehabilitation program recommendation |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7 |
Cases Cited: | DPP v XK (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 215 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Jeremy Subasic ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel C Daly ( DPP) S Brown ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 261, 262 of 2020 SCC 186, 193, 195, 196, 299, 300 of 2021 |
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
Introduction
1․Jeremy Subasic comes before the Court having breached a good behaviour order attached to a suspended sentence. He has breached the order by way of disengagement with supervision, and with further offending. Mr Subasic admits the breach and concedes that in the circumstances imposition is the only appropriate course available to the Court. The primary issue for consideration is at what point Mr Subasic becomes eligible for parole.
Background
2․The suspended sentence the subject of this proceeding was imposed on 4 April 2024: R v Subasic (No 4) [2024] ACTSC 89 (R v Subasic (No 4)). Mr Subasic was sentenced following a resentence on 4 September 2023 that occurred after cancellation of a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order): R v Subasic (No 3) (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge AJ, 4 September 2023) (R v Subasic (No 3)). That unpublished decision is incorporated as a schedule to these reasons.
3․The treatment order was imposed on 2 March 2022, Mr Subasic having been sentenced for offences involving drug offending, driving offending, and dishonesty offences. Those offences were committed between September 2019 and July 2021 and involved an “unrestrained bout of criminality”: R v Subasic [2022] ACTSC 380 at [1]. A total sentence of 3 years and 11 months imprisonment was imposed. Thirteen of the offences in that sentencing exercise were the subject of the treatment order that followed, and that was subsequently cancelled.
4․The resentence on 4 September 2023 (R v Subasic (No 3)) that followed the treatment order cancellation led to Mr Subasic being placed on a suspended sentence with a good behaviour order. His Honour Refshauge AJ observed at that time that Mr Subasic had made “significant progress in rehabilitation since the cancellation of the treatment order”: R v Subasic (No 3) at 7. There had not been further offending at that stage . There had also not been further offending at the time of the first breach proceeding on 4 April 2024: R v Subasic (No 4).
Breach
5․At this stage, there is further offending. Mr Subasic has been charged with eight offences committed between March 2024 and October 2024.
6․On 10 February 2025, the Magistrates Court made a finding of guilt in respect of two offences:
(a)Unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 2024/10638) contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, 50 penalty units, or both; and
(b)Disqualified driver (repeat offender) (CAN 2024/10635) contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act1999 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment, 100 penalty units, or both.
7․The Magistrates Court committed Mr Subasic to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 107(2) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentence Administration Act) to be dealt with under pt 6.5 of that Act for the breach. Section 107(2) of the Sentence Administration Act provides:
If the Magistrates Court finds an offender guilty of an offence committed during the term of the offender’s good behaviour order, and the order was made or changed by the Supreme Court, the Magistrates Court must, in addition to dealing with the offender for the offence, commit the offender to the Supreme Court to be dealt with under this part for breach of the offender’s good behaviour obligations.
8․I note that the parties informed the Court that the committal pursuant to s 107(2) of the Sentence Administration Act occurred over opposition of both parties. The prosecution informed this Court that the prosecution position in the Magistrates Court was that the wording of s 107(2) specifically envisages the Magistrates Court finalising its sentencing exercise prior to committal to the Supreme Court.
9․While not the subject of submissions before me, it appears to me that s 107(2) does not import a temporal requirement as to when the Magistrates Court is to “deal with” the offender for an offence committed during the term of the offender’s good behaviour order.
10․The Magistrates Court, must (and here, will, at the sentence listed in the Magistrates Court on 27 March 2025) ultimately finalise the proceeding in that Court following the finding of guilt. But there is no legislated impediment to the Magistrates Court committing the offender to be dealt with under pt 6.5 of the Sentence Administration Act before that finalisation. Indeed, there are any number of circumstances that may arise where that is the preferable course. Equally though, there are any number of circumstances that may arise where the preferable course is for the Magistrates Court to finalise the proceeding in that Court before the committal.
11․No doubt, when a circumstance that enlivens s 107(2) of the Sentence Administration Act arises, the parties will assist the Magistrates Court with the reasons why a particular course ought to be taken in a particular matter. But, in the absence of contrary legislative terms (and noting that this issue has not been ventilated before me), it does appear to me that a committal of an offender to the Supreme Court to be dealt with for a breach can occur prior to finalisation in the Magistrates Court.
12․Such a view is not inconsistent with another decision of this Court, although noting that the issue as it arises here was not in contemplation in that matter: DPP v XK (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 215.
13․I otherwise note, for clarity, that the court file reflects that on 21 November 2024, Mr Subasic pleaded guilty to three offences:
(a)use uninsured motor vehicle, contrary to s 289(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units (CAN 2024/10643);
(b)use unregistered registerable vehicle, contrary to s 18(1) of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units (CAN 2024/10642); and
(c)drive disqualified (repeat offender), contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment, 100 penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/10641).
14․There is yet to be a finding of guilt by the Magistrates Court in respect to these charges. The charge which is potentially a breach of the suspended term (CAN 2024/10641) was not the subject of committal to the Supreme Court on 10 February 2025. I do not consider the Supreme Court currently has any jurisdiction in relation to this charge such that it can be regarded as forming part of this breach proceeding.
15․As to the breach proceeding, as submitted by the prosecution and conceded by Mr Subasic, imposition of the suspended terms is the only appropriate course. In addition to the committal for the further offending, Mr Subasic was otherwise already before the Supreme Court for a contended breach of the good behaviour order. This had commenced on 20 June 2024 with information from ACT Corrective Services detailing a repeated failure by Mr Subasic to engage with supervision. Mr Subasic admits the breach contended by Corrective Services.
16․Mr Subasic also failed to engage with the Court in respect of the contended breach and a warrant was issued for his arrest on 3 October 2024. He was arrested on 23 October 2024 and has been remanded in custody since that date.
17․The offending of unlawful possession of stolen property on 23 October 2024 involved possession of a membership card and a debit card belonging to other people. The offending on 12 September 2024 involved driving while disqualified as a repeat offender. I am not sentencing Mr Subasic in relation to those offences, but they are relevant in observing that Mr Subasic plainly has not rehabilitated to the extent that was previously thought. His further offending is of a not dissimilar nature to that of the original offending.
18․Mr Subasic has squandered the opportunities for community based rehabilitation that have been afforded to him. It would bring the regime of community based sentence orders into disrepute if there was not a stern response by the Court for his ongoing failure to comply with such orders.
19․The period to be imposed is, in total, one of 3 years and 11 months imprisonment. In respect to that term, Mr Subasic previously spent 253 days in custody (R v Subasic (No 4) at [16]) and this will be taken into account in determining the commencement date of the imposition of sentence.
20․I note that Mr Subasic has otherwise been remanded in custody since 23 October 2024 for the further offences, and following the arrest on the warrant issued by the Supreme Court. For clarity, I have not had regard to this time in custody in determining the appropriate orders for this breach proceeding.
Nonparole period
21․The issue then becomes one of whether and when Mr Subasic ought to be eligible for parole. His prospects of rehabilitation are a relevant consideration, as are all of the sentencing purposes in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT): Robertson v DPP [2024] ACTCA 26 at [58].
22․It is apparent that Mr Subasic has had numerous opportunities to rehabilitate through community based orders, but he has not fully embraced those opportunities. While he had, when previously sentenced, not seemingly reoffended, and had maintained a stated intention to rehabilitate, his most recent breach involves both reoffending, and an apparent inability to commit to rehabilitation. This does not bode well for his prospects of rehabilitation at this time.
23․On Mr Subasic’s behalf, it was submitted that the Court ought to still give some weight to the promotion of rehabilitation in determining an appropriate parole period. It was submitted that Mr Subasic has demonstrated an ability to not offend, being the period from July 2021 to 2024, and that Mr Subasic’s history of offending is inextricably linked to experiences of trauma and substance dependency. Addressing these matters is ultimately the best mechanism of achieving community protection.
24․I accept this. I also accept that the Court must be cautious to not impose a crushing sentence and that a parole period that enables longer supervision in the community does fulfill sentencing purposes. This is particularly so if Mr Subasic engages with a further rehabilitation program upon release. I consider it appropriate to make a recommendation to the Sentence Administration Board to that effect, and accordingly to moderate the nonparole period to enable such engagement to occur.
ORDERS
25․For those reasons the following orders are made:
(1)The breach of good behaviour order is proved.
(2)The suspended sentence and good behaviour order made 4 April 2024 is cancelled and Jeremy Subasic is re-sentenced.
(3)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of obtaining property by deception (CAN 524/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 2 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 June 2024 and end on 4 August 2024.
(4)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent (CAN 10128/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 6 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 July 2024 and end on 4 January 2025.
(5)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent (CAN 9858/2021) is confirmed and the sentence of 6 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 January 2025 and end on 4 July 2025.
(6)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent (CAN 7308/2021) is confirmed and the sentence of 12 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 July 2025 and end on 4 July 2026.
(7)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of minor theft (CAN 523/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 1 month imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 July 2026 and end on 4 August 2026.
(8)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of possessing a declared substance (CAN 522/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 4 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 July 2026 and end on 4 November 2026.
(9)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 519/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 3 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 October 2026 and end on 4 January 2027.
(10)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 520/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 4 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 November 2026 and end on 4 March 2027.
(11)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 521/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 4 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 January 2027 and end on 4 May 2027.
(12)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of possessing a prohibited drug for supply (CAN 13842/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 6 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 March 2027 and end on 4 September 2027.
(13)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of driving while disqualified (CAN 10130/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 3 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 August 2027 and end on 4 November 2027. It is noted that this offence carries an automatic 12-month disqualification, which commenced on 2 March 2022 and has been served.
(14)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of failing to stop for police as a repeat offender (CAN 9561/2021) is confirmed and the sentence of 6 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 September 2027 and end on 4 March 2028. It is noted that this offence carries an automatic 12-month disqualification which was directed to be served concurrently with the disqualification in order 13 and has been served.
(15)The conviction of Jeremy Subasic of possessing a drug of dependence (CAN 13437/2020) is confirmed and the sentence of 3 months imprisonment is imposed to commence on 5 February 2028 and end on 4 May 2028.
(16)The total period of imprisonment of 3 years and 11 months will commence on 5 June 2024 and end on 4 May 2028.
(17)A nonparole period is imposed to commence on 5 June 2024 and end on 4 August 2026.
(18)It is recommended to the Sentence Administration Board pursuant to s 120(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) that:
When released on parole, Jeremy Subasic be required as a condition of the parole to undertake a substantial period of supervised or mandated drug rehabilitation, preferably in a residential drug rehabilitation facility, if a program is available to him.
| I certify that the preceding twenty-five [25] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: 20 February 2025 |
Schedule: Transcript of reasons of R v Subasic (No 3) (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge AJ, 4 September 2023)
HIS HONOUR: As noted in Cotter v Corvesi, sentencing has become more complicated. It was explained in R v Smith that a more effective means of achieving the protection of the community than merely punishment by itself, though that must usually play some part in the sentence, is through the more flexible and, arguably, more creative responses to crime now available to courts sentencing offenders.
The work of courts in dealing with sentences has also become more than must the imposition of a sentence. Thus a Griffiths bond, see Griffiths v R, a deferred sentence order, under section 27 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 of the ACT, Sentencing Act, and a Drug and
Alcohol Treatment order, treatment order, under section 12A of the Sentencing Act, all require a greater or lesser degree of direct supervision of the sentencing process and, to some extent, the sentence itself. Not to mention the management of breaches of good behaviour orders. If this has the result that the offender who has to be sentenced, is rehabilitated so that he or she no longer commits crime, and ceases to prey on the community, then this is achieved what has been described as the ultimate purpose of punishment, in decisions such as Davey, that is , the protection of the community.
It has to be acknowledged, however, that there is still an important place for the imposition of punishment. This reinforces the unacceptability of criminal activity and so denounces the conduct. Insofar as it can deter others from committing such crimes, it will also protect the community, though the effectiveness of deterrence is, in criminological circles, a matter of debate. See, for example, Lloyd v R.
This is the context for the current proceedings involving Jeremey William Subasic who appears before the court for a decision about how his current proceedings are to be addressed and determined.
Background.
Between 6 September 2019 and 15 July 2021 Mr Subasic committed 24 offences. Of these 10 were dealt with to finality in the ACT Magistrates Court and consisting of 10 months' imprisonment and a number of fines. The period of imprisonment ended on 20 January 2022 and Mr Subasic then appeared in this court for sentencing on the 14 other offences, being eight offences of dishonesty, two of drug possession and four driving offences. The details are set out in R v Subasic.
Mr Subasic had started using illegal drugs at age 14 becoming dependent on methamphetamine and using it, and other drugs, to the extent of dependence, R v Subasic. He was under the influence of that drug when he committed the offences, R v Subasic.
Accordingly, he sought that any sentence of imprisonment to be imposed be served by a treatment order and that the total sentence of three years and 11 months' imprisonment was, accordingly, ordered to be served by a treatment order. The treatment and supervision part of that order was for two years.
In R v Subasic No 2 his progress, under the treatment order, was summarised as follows:
Mr Subasic, however, struggled with his obligations under the treatment order. Unsurprisingly he found it difficult to remain abstinent and returned a positive result for drugs on urinalysis on four occasions, though he said that the first occasion was of drug use whilst in custody, before the treatment was made. He also tried to avoid some of his obligations by claiming that he'd been required to isolate, as he'd been infected by the COVID-19 virus. Indeed, he created a full certificate to that effect. He also failed to attend for urinalysis on some occasions. Such failure raises suspicion of drug use but no final conclusions can be drawn about that, without further evidence.
On an occasion he failed to appear in court for the regular review of his progress under the treatment order. A warrant was issued for his arrest. When he was arrested the suspension of the custodial part of the treatment order was provisionally cancelled and he was remanded in custody for 14 days. This then occurred again, resulting in a further period of 14 days in custody.
Finally, on 24 June 2022 the treatment order was cancelled and Mr Subasic was remanded in custody. At the end of the hearing Ms C Duffy, who appeared for Mr Subasic and was a very effective advocate for him, advised the court that she wished to explore options for other rehabilitation for Mr Subasic and instead of proceeding either to impose the sentence that had been suspended or to resentence Mr Subasic, sought an appointment to explore those rehabilitation options, especially at Karralika Programs Incorporated, a drug rehabilitation agency described in R v Sladic. The court adjourned the proceedings for this to be done.
Later on, 17 April 2022, the court was advised that Mr Subasic had been admitted to the Solaris Therapeutic Community. This is a residential drug rehabilitation facility, operated in the Alexander Maconochie Centre, by Karralika Programs Incorporated, under the principles of a therapeutic community. It is described in R v JM. It is a 20-week program.
The proceedings were, accordingly, adjourned for 22 weeks to permit completion of the program by Mr Subasic. On 16 December 2022 Mr Subasic completed the program. A letter, dated 6 January 2022, apparently incorrectly for 2023, confirm that he completed the program and described that he had 'remained as a pro social peer and role model among the community'. It continued:
Mr Subasic has demonstrated a commitment to develop his intrapersonal and interpersonal skills. Through case management and group work, Mr Subasic has displayed a high level of insight around patterns of thought and behaviours and has engaged in challenging these to further develop is skills. Since being in Solaris Mr Subasic has secured, enhanced through meeting the highest of expectations in his behaviour in AMC, new incentives and earned privileges policy.
Mr Subasic was granted bail on 27 January 2023, to permit him to attend the Matrix Program, the community program of Karralika Programs Incorporated, that is often the program the graduates of the Solaris Therapeutic Community join to continue to progress their rehabilitation in the community.
He engaged in weekly case management sessions, with Solaris Outreach, on his release on bail. He found some difficulty in reintegrating back into the community positively because of some restrictions that his bail conditions imposed. He had, however, expressed a strong desire for a change and a wish to improve his wellbeing and lifestyle through his recovery.
Mr Subasic thus entered the day drug rehabilitation program at the Canberra Recovery Hub, a program of the Salvation Army drug rehabilitation work. He entered the program on 6 March 2023. He completed stage 1 and 2 and, 40 finally, stage 3, on 21 July 2023. He completed the full program on 3 August 2023.
Bail had been an issue has is prior compliance, when released into the community, had not been satisfactory. Thus, as noted in R v Subasic No 2, he had breached his bail conditions, when granted bail, on both 9 March 2022 and 8 April 2021. Thus, that was some concern for the court and could be regarded as a measure of the progress he was making in his rehabilitation.
Mr Subasic was arrested for a breach of bail when it was asserted that, on 13 March 2023, he did not report to police, in accordance with his bail conditions. In fact, he had reported. Subsequently a check of the CCTV at the police station showed that he had reported, in fact, and, of course, no action was taken. Mr Subasic committed one bail breach, however, when he forgot to report to police, on 3 July 2023, as required under the conditions of his bail. He reported to the court the next day, however, and no action was taken on the breach.
Mr Subasic has not been charged with any further charges since the original offending. Although one of his bail conditions is not to consume alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs not prescribed for him, no breach of that condition has been reported. His compliance, on bail, can, in all the circumstances, be now regarded as satisfactory.
He currently lives with his father and works for him several days a week, and important factor in his reintegration into the community in a pro social way. All this confirms, not merely, that the progress identified in R v Subasic No 2, in the change he had made in his conduct since prior to the original
sentencing has continued as the progress of his rehabilitation and, importantly, his ability to continue that in the community. That's not always easy. The experience of this court has been the progress of rehabilitation while in custody, such as in the Solaris Therapeutic Community, sometimes cannot be sustained on release into the community.
Mr Subasic has shown that he has been able to transition into the community more successfully, and maintain his rehabilitation, than before. It is, of course, too early to be assured that he's been able to overcome his prior pattern of recidivism and make a pro social live for himself. It is important to be cautious and to provide some continuing support and supervision that can keep him progressing in his rehabilitation.
Consideration
It is clear that Mr Subasic has been able to manage successfully the transition from custody, with his prior pattern of reoffending, including as to drug use and dishonesty, when ordered to serve, by a treatment order, his sentence of imprisonment, for the relatively serious offences for which he was sentenced on 2 March 2022.
It is not clear whether or not the cancellation of the treatment order, his return to custody and a recognition that he had failed to make that transition played a part in him realising his situation and, instead, focusing on his rehabilitation in the community and committing to a strongly pro social future.
That situation was, unless he addressed the many risks to reoffending he faced, especially his drug dependence, he would experience the revolving prison door that was so – that can so easily be an offender's future, as described by Elkaim J, in R v Winters, when he said, of an offender:
Where he should consider changing his permanent address to the AMC because he is likely to be in and out of that institution for many years to come.
Mr Subasic has clearly decided to take a very different path. His family are a helpful support in place, which will encourage a more prosocial trajectory.
In this case there's been some quite significant delay since the original offending. Indeed, the most recent offending was committed over two years ago and the first offence nearly exactly four years ago.
Since the most recent offending Mr Subasic has not been charged with any further offences and, perhaps, apart from any offence from the self administration of illicit drugs or some dishonesty, while subject to the treatment order, the court has not been advised of any suspicion of further offending, certainly none since the treatment order was cancelled and especially since his release on bail.
He has engaged with significant rehabilitation. The reports are very positive, with the completion of programs and positive comments by those engaged in the delivery of the programs, about his compliance. Thus, as the Court of Appeal in Victoria said, in R v Cockerell:
Where there's been a relatively lengthy process of rehabilitation since the offending, being a process in which the community has a vested interest, the sentence should not jeopardise the continued development of this process but should be tailored to ensure, as much as possible, that the offender has the opportunity to complete the process of rehabilitation.
The question in this case, whether consequent upon the cancellation of the treatment order made for Mr Subasic, the court should, under section 80ZE(2) of the Sentencing Act, impose the sentence of imprisonment that was suspended, under the custodial part of the treatment order, or resentence the offender, Mr Subasic.
It may be accepted that while there is no statutory presumption in favour of imposing that sentence, ordinarily the sentence that was suspended will be imposed unless there is some justification for proceeding otherwise, that is, by way of resentence. This is because the granting of a treatment order is a privilege made because the offender has sought specific rehabilitation as an alternative to imprisonment and that the rehabilitation has not be successful as expected, thus making the original sentence appropriate to be imposed, as it had originally been. In this sense it has some differences to the position where a good behaviour order is to be considered, as described in Guy v Anderson.
Nevertheless, as noted above, and as explained in R v Guy, there are offenders who can, outside a treatment order, take significant steps towards rehabilitation. This may be because of the experience they have had, under the treatment order, which gives them some hope or motivation, despite their failure. This may be because of the shock of being returned to custody when they've experienced the treatment order option, as a preferrable lifestyle for them, despite being unable to succeed in that particular program. Indeed, some may be less able to thrive under the pressure of the treatment order program and, nevertheless, survive and, indeed, thrive in the community with appropriate other supports.
In those cases resentence would be appropriate if they have shown, since the cancellation of the treatment order, that rehabilitation is, nevertheless, achievable. See R v Hancock No 4.
This may require a change in the length of the sentence, given that rehabilitation may justify moderation of the sentence. Perhaps, more often 30 than not, it will result in a change in the nature of the sentence. Commonly, this will be affected by suspension and a good behaviour order. This will help a significant motivation, especially where the cancellation and consequent custody provides a reset or motivation to spur some presentence post cancellation rehabilitation which is then successful. It also provides the support and supervision, if a probation condition is to be made to the good behaviour order, which can assist in the difficult and long task of rehabilitation and help strengthen the resolve to continue the rehabilitation, as well as to provide support and, perhaps, resources where those are needed to address the inevitable struggles that those engaging in the difficult task of rehabilitation from drug dependency often experience.
Mr Subasic has, despite the difficult start of this journey, made significant progress in rehabilitation since the cancellation of the treatment order. He's entitled to be proud of his achievement to date. While it will be a long journey and he cannot be satisfied that he's finally succeeded in his rehabilitation, he can be satisfied that he has made an excellent start and that this is a great opportunity for him to live a drug and crime free life in the future and to develop the potential he has to live a satisfying and fulfilling life.
Mr Subasic has also been subject to some significant custody during this process. Prior to the imposition of the original sentence he had been in custody for seven days, R v Subasic. Those days must be taken into account. Further, while under the treatment order he was remanded in custody for a today of 28 days. Those days are usually to be taken into account, under section 80ZE(3)(b) of the Sentencing Act, unless there has been no progress under the treatment order. This is not the position here. Finally, since the cancellation of the treatment order, Mr Subasic has been in custody from 24 June 2022 until bail was granted on 27 January 2023, a total of 218 days. Accordingly, there are 253 days of custody that, in this case, should be taken into account.
It is appropriate that this be done by backdating the start of the sentence of imprisonment, under section 63 of the Sentencing Act. The sentence should be suspended and Mr Subasic released on a good behaviour order with a probation condition and a condition that he not consume cannabis, illicit drugs, or prescription drugs not prescribed for him.
Mr Subasic please stand.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of obtaining property by deception (CAN 524/2020) be confirmed and he be sentence to 2 months imprisonment commencing 25 December 2022 and expiring on 24 February 2023.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent (CAN 10128/2020) be confirmed and he be sentenced to 6 months imprisonment commencing 25 January 2023 and expiring on 24 July 2023.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent (CAN 9858/2021) be confirmed and he be sentenced to 6 months imprisonment commencing 25 July 2023 and expiring on 24 January 2024.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent (CAN 7308/2021) be confirmed and he be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment commencing 25 January 2024 and expiring on 24 January 2025.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of minor theft (CAN 523/2020) be confirmed and he be sentenced to 1 month imprisonment commencing 25 January 2025 and expiring on 24 February 2025.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of possessing a declared substance (CAN 522/2020) be confirmed and he be sentenced to 4 months imprisonment commencing 25 January 2025 and expiring on 24 May 2025.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 519/2020) be confirmed and he be sentenced to 3 months imprisonment commencing 25 April 2025 and expiring on 24 July 2025.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 520/2020) be confirmed and he sentenced to 4 months imprisonment commencing 25 May 2025 and expiring on 24 September 2025.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 521/2020) be confirmed and he sentenced to 4 months imprisonment commencing 25 July 2025 and expiring on 24 November 2025.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of possessing a prohibited drug for supply (CAN 13842/2020) be confirmed and he be sentenced to 6 months imprisonment commencing 25 September 2025 and expiring on 24 March 2026.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of driving while disqualified (CAN 10130/2020) be confirmed and he be sentenced to 3 months imprisonment commencing 25 February 2026 and expiring on 24 May 2026. It be noted that this carries an automatic 12-month disqualification, and this commenced on 2 March 2022, to be concurrent with Jeremy William Subasic’s current driving disqualification.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of failing to stop for police as a repeat offender (CAN 9561/2021) be confirmed and he be sentenced to 6 months imprisonment commencing 25 March 2026 and expiring on 24 September 2026. It be noted that this carries an automatic 12-month disqualification which was directed to be served concurrently with the disqualification in order 11 and which is confirmed.
- The conviction of Jeremy William Subasic of possessing a drug of dependence (CAN 13437/2020) by confirmed and he be sentenced to 3 months imprisonment commencing 25 August 2026 and expiring on 24 November 2026.
- The sentence be suspended today, 4 September 2023, for the balance of the term of imprisonment, namely to 24 November 2026.
- Jeremy William Subasic be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 3 years, 2 months, 21 days from today, 4 September 2023, until 24 November 2026, with the following conditions:
- A probation condition that he accept supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him for 3 years, 2 months, 21 days from today, 4 September 2023, to 24 November 2026, or for such lesser period as the person supervising him deems appropriate, and to obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him including as to alcohol and drug testing; and
- That he not consume cannabis, illicit drugs and prescription drugs not prescribed to him.
Mr Subasic, that's a lot of words, not as many words and when I sentenced you and not as many words as when I cancelled the treatment order. But, basically, what I've done is said the sentence, the original sentence, stands but it takes into accounts period of custody that you've already served and will end on 24 November 2026.
But if, as I'm confident, you will be able to keep out of any crime or drug activity, from here on in, you won't have to serve any further period of that sentence. You will be under supervision by ACT Corrective Services, but I recommend that you treat that positively. Yes, it is supervision, there is a kind of policing aspect to it, to check that things are going well and so on, but if things get difficult the, as you now know, it can be difficult when you're rehabilitating, especially from an intrenched drug habit, then they have opportunities for resources and advice that may assist you in addressing all that and coming through this process.
What I hope you will do now is focus on the future. The past is something that you cannot change and you have to live with but it cannot, necessarily, define your future for you. The future I hope that you will take is the future that you've been able to show, in the last few months, since the cancellation of the treatment order. Initially, in Solaris, but that was in a constrained, restrained facility, following that, out into the community to show that you can work, you can be crime free and you can live in the community. And that there are many options and opportunities for you in the community to live a life that you will find satisfying, that you will find worthwhile for yourself and that you will enjoy and be able, probably, to make a contribution to the community, through family, work, other things that you may wish to do.
I hope that it works for you. This is a recognition of the work you have done to date, notwithstanding the serious offences that you committed in the 30 community before that and hopefully, as I say, on may occasions, when graduating, and unfortunately I'm not graduating you, but I am recognising the work that you have done, that we don't see you again in this court or, indeed, in any court in the future.
You may be seated.
0
6