R v Symss
[2014] ACTSC 212
•19 June 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Symss |
Citation: | [2014] ACTSC 212 |
Hearing Date: | 15 November 2013, 23 April 2014, 29 April 2014, 30 April 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 19 June 2014 |
Before: | Penfold J |
Decision: | See [46]–[53] |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – offender to be sentenced for seven burglaries and nine thefts – offender also to be dealt with for breach of good behaviour order made in Supreme Court in relation to offences of damage property and acts of indecency in the third degree – good behaviour order breached by Magistrates Court conviction for common assault – good behaviour order cancelled and suspended sentence imposed – offender sentenced for burglaries and thefts – total sentence of 53 months backdated to take account of time served – non-parole period set. |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Adan Symss (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel: Ms A Clarke (Crown) Mr J De Bruin (Offender) |
| Solicitors: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT(Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 305 of 2010; SCC 385 of 2010; SCC 145 of 2013; SCC 27 of 2014; SCC 53 of 2014. |
Adan Symss has pleaded guilty to seven burglaries and nine thefts. The maximum penalties for these offences include imprisonment for 14 and 10 years respectively (see ss 311 and 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)).
One of the burglaries was committed on 8 August 2013 at a pizza shop in Wanniassa, and the other six on 26 August 2013 in townhouses in Oxley and Bonython.
Six of the thefts were thefts from Mr Symss’ employer when he was working at a service station in Chisholm in May 2013, and the other three were committed in connection with the burglaries in the townhouses.
There are also two scheduled offences of minor theft to be taken into account in sentencing. Those thefts were committed in the course of two of the Bonython burglaries.
As well, Mr Symss has been sentenced in the Magistrates Court for a common assault committed on 3 September 2012 on his pregnant and estranged partner. This offence breached a good behaviour order made by Justice Gray, perhaps several good behaviour orders made by Justice Gray, when he sentenced Mr Symss in July 2011 for one offence of damaged property and two acts of indecency in the third degree. I am also to deal with Mr Symss for the breach of those good behaviour orders.
The first burglary involved a pizza shop at Wanniassa where Mr Symss had been working, initially as a casual employee and from late July 2013 as an assistant manager. Mr Symss did not attend work from 30 July 2013, and on 3 August his employment was terminated. Messages were left for him but he did not respond. On 8 August 2013, a burglary took place during the afternoon, between two periods of activity but while the pizza shop was secured and empty. CCTV footage enabled the owners of the shop to identify Mr Symss as the burglar. An amount of $130 seems to have been stolen in that burglary.
The townhouse burglaries had many similarities amongst themselves. They were all committed during the day, when occupiers were likely to be at work. In each, a heavy item such as a brick was found near the house and used to break a large hole in a window, allowing Mr Symss entry. In several of the houses, occupants found that a knife had been moved from its usual location to elsewhere in the house. Ransacking and scattering of personal items was a feature of most of the burglaries. The thefts charged in relation to the burglaries netted property valued at $450 in one, and a pair of black gloves in the other.
Six of the thefts were committed after Mr Symss began working as a console operator after starting a job at the BP service station in Chisholm about a month earlier. On six occasions from 7 May to 16 May 2013, Mr Symss took cash from the till and put it into his sleeve or his pocket. This was recorded on CCTV. The total removed was $1,880.
Mr Symss was arrested during the last of the townhouse burglaries on 26 August 2013. He was charged with two of the burglaries the next day, and has remained in custody ever since, entering guilty pleas on his next appearance in court.
He was charged with the other burglaries in February 2014 after further forensic testing and other investigations, and pleaded guilty immediately.
I shall accept all of these as early pleas, while noting that the Crown case on some of the charges was very strong.
The matters for which Mr Symss was sentenced by Justice Gray in 2011 consisted of one offence of damaging property worth over $1,000, and two of acts of indecency in the third degree which involve an assault, or a threat to inflict grievous or actual bodily harm, with intent to commit an act of indecency.
The acts of indecency were committed when Mr Symss followed three young women who were walking back to ANU at 11.00 pm one night in June 2009. He caught up with them in a dark stretch of the path through the campus and forced one of them to the ground, where he straddled her, attempted to put his tongue in her mouth, and made growling noises. The other two women forced Mr Symss to leave their friend, but he then attacked another of the young women in a similar way, and succeeded in getting his tongue into her mouth, although apparently without growling. When he was sentenced originally, Mr Symss claimed to have been unable to remember the relevant events.
The damage property offence was committed early on New Year’s Day 2010. Mr Symss used a brick to damage the back door of a Braddon cafe where he had worked until about 10 days previously, having apparently left the job of his own volition.
Mr Symss was sentenced by Justice Gray to concurrent periods of three months imprisonment for the damage property offence and 16 months imprisonment for each of the acts of indecency. He was ordered to serve seven months of the act of indecency sentences as periodic detention, with the remaining nine months suspended subject to a nine-month good behaviour order to take effect at the end of the periodic detention, and ending on 28 November 2012, while the three-month sentence was fully suspended subject to an 18-month good behaviour order ending on 21 January 2013.
The burglary of the pizza shop where Mr Symss had worked, and the associated theft, were aggravated by the abuse of his position of trust as a result of which he had gained knowledge of the internal arrangements of the shop, as well as, apparently, possession of a key to the premises. Although domestic burglaries are in many cases regarded as more serious than burglaries of commercial premises, I consider that the breach of trust involved in this offence makes it slightly more serious than the domestic burglaries in this case.
The thefts from the service station while Mr Symss was working there also represented a grave breach of trust.
The townhouse burglaries were slightly more serious than the usual run of daytime domestic burglaries, given that they involved damage to windows and ransacking of the houses, which aggravated the violation of the victims’ privacy and security. The movement of the knives is a curious feature of the burglaries. However, I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence for me to find beyond reasonable doubt that a knife had been carried by Mr Symss while in the house with the intention of using it as a weapon if he was disturbed, as submitted by the prosecutor. In declining to make that finding, I note especially the fact that in the burglary in which Mr Symss was disturbed by the occupant, a knife was found in a room other than the one in which he was disturbed, and instead of confronting the occupant Mr Symss left the house.
Three Victim Impact Statements were tendered from the victims of two of the burglaries including the victim who disturbed Mr Symss in her home, and from the owner of the pizza shop.
I start with that from the owner of the pizza shop:
... In his interview he came across as a young man, with a young child, down on his luck, in need of a second chance.
During the month and a half he was employed by us he proved he was reliable, a team player and keen for good, honest work. He demonstrated aptitude for the business so was quickly promoted to Assistant Manager, mentored by our Manager, respected by his co workers and trusted by the upper management.
It was therefore a shock to learn of his sudden betrayal of our team.
...
It was a new business and a loss like this early on went on to have significant financial ramifications that lasted several months. This ... however does not account for the loss of business we incurred when we were unable to operate effectively in the weeks ... following his termination. However, the financial costs are minor in comparison to the mental and physical manifestations that occurred with me, the other members of the management team, and the staff.
The staff grieved and exhibited symptoms of grief for several weeks after the incidents. They demonstrated trust issues with each other, and any new staff member. No one could tolerate being alone in the store.
One week after the ... incident I left the country on my previously booked honeymoon. The guilt I felt in leaving my team in this precarious situation was immense. Much of our planning and rosters had been arranged with [Mr Symss] as a valued member of our team and it left them very short physically, emotionally and underprepared for the challenges.
Even after my two weeks away from the store, I still experienced minor panic attacks when alone in the store. Ultimately this contributed to our decision to return the management of the store to our parent franchisor as the stress and grief tainted any happiness and joy we had with that business.
[Mr Symss] was a trusted and respected employee, now the memory of his employment with us fills us with grief, distrust and fear. His betrayal will have long term effect on both the ongoing business ... as well as the psyche of the employees who trusted and befriended him.
Then there is a Victim Impact Statement from one of the victims of the townhouse burglaries:
I am a seventy-eight year old widow and live alone in a small complex of villas in ... Bonython. I have lived here on my own for over 15 years since I retired from the Federal Public Service.
...
I have always had an active life, participating in social groups for mature citizens. ... I have some health issues which require me to leave home far too often for medical appointments, but I have enjoyed being home as much as I enjoyed going out.
On Monday 26 August 2013 my house was broken into, I am told it was [Mr] Symss who broke in. I was absolutely devastated. Not only by the damage he did, but because my sense of safety in my own home was obliterated. I had lived for 77 years with a relatively strong sense of independence and safety in my ability to live a peaceful life. I had always dismissed the odd comment from family and friends about moving to a nursing home because I was totally fine living on my own, supported by loved ones and a little help from the wonderful home-help ladies provided by ACT Government. I thought I was secure because I had locks fitted to my windows and was reasonably diligent in ensuring they were actually locked.
Since I have been broken into, I realised there is nothing I can do to stop them. They just smash the glass if they want to come in and take whatever they like. I am so nervous all the time, I don’t want to go out because they might break in while I’m gone, and then I don’t really want to stay home because I don’t want to be here if they do, in which case I might be assaulted or worse. ... My friendships are strained by my fear of leaving the house unattended. I have nothing of monetary value in the house, or anywhere for that matter, the only thing I have, or had, is my pride in maintaining my independence and now that is gone.
The financial damage was minimal. ... The curtain was torn badly by the broken window glass and I really should mend that but have been unable to face the reality of it because it makes me feel very scared just going near that window let alone taking the curtain down. The stolen gloves were returned to me which I think is a marvellous job by the AFP. It took me weeks to put my house back together as so many drawers and cupboards were ransacked and the contents strewn over the floor. With limited mobility just putting everything away again was a huge drain on my energy.
I feel very sad for this young person that his life is so miserable that he has to break into old lady’s homes and steal their cheap gloves. It might seem like very little and in fact no reward at all for his crime in breaking in since I got them back anyway. But the real damage is not the gloves, it is my life which has totally changed. The constant anxiety and feeling of danger is something I am not accustomed to and unfortunately not sustainable. I fear that I will have to move somewhere like a nursing home where I can feel safe. It might seem like nothing to him but if only he knew what he has really taken from me, my independence.
Finally, there was a Victim Impact Statement from the occupier of another of the townhouses who disturbed Mr Symss when she went into her home:
On August 26th 2013 I lost my courage and independence to live alone, and for a few months the ability to be alone at all.
I walked into my home as I would any other day and immediately knew something was wrong from the moment I went inside. I went upstairs when I heard a noise to find a male person jumping out of my back bedroom window. He turned and stared at me, I stared back to take in as much detail of him as I could. I was frozen, unable to move as he stared back at me through the broken window and blinds. I didn’t know what his next move was going to be or why he was still standing there looking at me when I had clearly seen him. I began to yell and scream and he ran.
I waited outside crying and shaking until I had company to return back into my home. It had been ransacked, I mean almost everything I owned was scattered all over the floor, my desk draws were pulled from the desk and the contents scattered everywhere, my kitchen cupboards and drawers were open, the wardrobes in my 2 spare bedrooms were open. Every drawer from my bedside tables and tallboy were pulled out and thrown scattering the contents, he had opened my wardrobe and tossed most of its contents about the room too. ... I leant on my tallboy and found a knife from my kitchen.....in my bedroom! I called the police and once they had arrived to collect the items I left my home with my sister. I had given the police a damp towel and knife as evidence and threw away any clothes that had come into contact with the damp towel as I was concerned what the substance was.
I could not sleep or eat that night. Every time I closed my eyes I saw “that male” staring at me. I went to my GP the next day ... he prescribed me Valium ... to assist me sleeping and also Sertraline ... to help my anxiety and hopeless feeling. I suffered from shaking, increased heart rate, sweating and shallow breathing, known as panic attacks. These occurred at the thought of going home alone and as I drove into my street alone when someone was meeting me at my home. I didn’t want anyone going there alone either, I was scared and nervous for them. I felt unsafe and anxious if I was alone, even at shopping centres. I stayed with my partner and family for a week and then made the decision to move from my home.
I did not pack up the contents of my home unless I had someone with me. A month later I still couldn’t bring myself to be there alone. ... [I] felt lost, like I had no home. My family and friends helped me pack and move. I was unable to complete a personally enrolled in, and paid for, Real Estate Licence course due for completion the following week, due to the fact my study notes were strewn around the room and I didn’t feel safe at home. I also felt too insecure to have a job where I was responsible for entering unoccupied homes. This caused me to lose a position I had been offered at a Real Estate agency. The thought of going into an empty house brought on a panic attack. I did not feel comfortable parking my car anywhere in the Tuggeranong area due to the fact that my spare car keys were taken. I am yet to have my car key replaced or car reprogrammed for a new key due to the cost.
My belongings are now in a storage shed. I am living with my sister and her partner and until recently was unnerved and uncomfortable being home alone, it has taken me over six months to start regaining my confidence back. I have lived on my own for 3 or 4 years without issue. I feel this incident cost me my right to live alone and was a gross invasion of my right to privacy and to feel safe in my own home. I do not feel like the strong independent woman I was before this incident.
That victim also noted various financial costs incurred as a result of the burglary and theft and their consequences for her.
The Pre-Sentence Report author reports that Mr Symss has accepted “some responsibility” for his offences and has acknowledged that he made the wrong decisions in seeking to solve his financial problems through crime. He describes his decision to commit some of the burglaries as “a bit self destructive”, and said:
I feel I’ve let myself down. I know I’ve done bad. I’m not going to deny the facts.”
In a letter he wrote to the court, Mr Symss said that he was embarrassed and ashamed about what he had done. He apologised to the people he had hurt by his actions saying he was truly sorry for the trouble and pain he had caused them.
Mr Symss is now 24. He has a long criminal history including a large number of prior dishonesty offences.
The most useful information about Mr Symss’ background is provided by the CADAS report:
Mr Symss reported that he was born and raised in Canberra and is the fifth eldest of 11 children. ... He reported that his parents live together raising his younger siblings.
Mr Symss described his family environment and his upbringing as “not the best” and “not very supportive”. He stated that this was because there were so many children in the family and his parents struggled to meet the needs of all of them. Mr Symss stated that he “didn’t agree” with his parents approach to parenting and he struggled to give examples of this when CADAS asked about it. He did report that he was not allowed to participate in activities like sport and this caused conflict between himself and his parents. He stated that he got into some “trouble” as a young person and this included trouble with the law.
Mr Symss stated that his father consumes alcohol daily and his mother consumes alcohol “regularly”. He reported that he did not necessarily view his parent’s use of alcohol as problematic. He stated that he would often consume alcohol with his parents when they would go to the club.
Mr Symss reported that he completed year 10 at Lanyon High School and then left the family home. He ... attempted college and commenced year 11 and found that “this wasn’t for me”. He ... commenced an apprenticeship as a Butcher and began working. He ... found this apprenticeship difficult to maintain while living independently and supporting himself as the “pay was below the minimum wage”. He ... gained his own accommodation through Housing ACT.
Mr Symss reported that he has been in an “on and off” relationship for the past 7 years and he has a one year old child with his partner. He has maintained a “good friendship” with the mother of his child and they visit him in custody at the AMC.
Mr Symss reported that before he entered custody at the AMC nearly three months ago, he was working in two different Pizza stores as an Assistant Manager ... . He said that he had maintained this employment for nearly six months although he said that he had some difficulties with his employers regarding, “... I was being over-worked and not paid properly.”
Mr Symss stated that while his reading and writing is “okay”, he experiences difficulties with grammar and this has caused difficulty for him in learning and in the work place.
Mr Symss had been living with his parents before being remanded in custody for these offences, but it seems that his parents are not willing to have him return home when he is next released from custody.
Mr Symss told the Pre-Sentence Report author that he had never had any trouble getting jobs, and this seems to be borne out by the fact that in the few months before his arrest he was working in two jobs. On the other hand, he claims to struggle with budgeting, and complains of financial difficulties despite saying that he had been earning around $1,000 per week when he was most recently in work.
Late last year, Mr Symss told the CADAS reporter that his offending related more to his difficulties in supporting himself financially than to a wish to fund drug use, but said that he had smoked some cannabis before some of the burglaries. More recently he has conceded that substance abuse was directly relevant to his offending.
Mr Symss reported regular and increasingly heavy use of cannabis since the age of 13. As well as regular use of alcohol and tobacco, he has used a range of other illicit drugs irregularly, but has never injected himself and has never used heroin. He has also been a regular gambler at certain points, and his mother sees the gambling as a serious problem, a view which is apparently not shared by Mr Symss. His gambling may also be relevant to his financial difficulties.
Mr Symss has no history of attempts to address his alcohol and drug issues, although since his remand he has been receiving psychological counselling as well as attending an Anger Management program. He now accepts the need to deal with his drug abuse, and has been assessed for residential rehabilitation, but has been found unsuitable for two programs because of what are described as “behavioural problems”.
A psychiatric report provided by Dr Anthony Barker in August 2013 diagnosed Mr Symss with Substance Use Disorder (cannabis), and recommended drug and alcohol counselling, but found no other evidence of mental impairment or disorder.
In November 2013 Dr Danny Sullivan provided a psychiatric assessment of Mr Symss, which he summarised as follows:
Mr Symss has not required formal past psychiatric contact although he reports a range of difficulties manifest interpersonally and possibly also in emotional regulation.
Previous assessments have not suggested any overt psychiatric diagnosis but have noted cannabis use disorder and low intellectual functioning. At assessment he exhibits qualitative problems with verbal and non-verbal communication and reports a strong inclination to isolate himself from others.
He does not appear to have any features of psychotic illness or significant depressive illness. His presentation is suggestive of a mild social anxiety disorder and this is compounded by difficulties in trusting others. I consider that his social awkwardness most accounts for the unusual emotional expression observed in court. Inappropriate smiling and other unusual behaviours most likely relate to social discomfort rather than bemusement, psychosis or other mental disorder.
The other concern relates to communication. Mr Symss would benefit from formal neuropsychological and/or speech and language assessment, prior to any educational courses. He impresses as having disproportionate expressive communication problems and this may reflect a specific language disorder which predominately affects expression rather than communication. The prevalence of expressive language problems is markedly increased in offender populations and language difficulties may be associated with frustration, anxiety or mood disorder. I would regard this as a provisional diagnosis pending formal expert testing.
Clinically and functionally he does not appear to have formal intellectual disability.
There is no indication that mental disorder impaired his judgment or prevented him from thinking clearly or making calm and rational choices. Nor is there evidence of causal association with any offending, disinhibition or obscuring of intent.
In the event of further incarceration, it is clear from his progress in custody thus far that Mr Symss is struggling to adapt easily to incarceration; and given recent placements, it is likely that social anxiety and poor interpersonal fit with others will render his incarceration more burdensome.
I would recommend a trial of SSRI medication to determine if this reduces his avoidance of others and impaired interpersonal functioning.
Mr Symss would also benefit from maintenance of a single psychology provider with a view to developing rapport over time.
He does not require intensive input for severe mental illness. Depending on the results of further assessment, he may benefit from specific and tailored educative input.
In oral evidence Dr Sullivan noted Mr Symss’ refusal to discuss claimed childhood trauma. He said that although Mr Symss would not normally be perceived as a man with an intellectual disability, he does struggle as a result of his learning difficulties, as well as because of his difficulties in interactions with other people.
Dr Sullivan declined to express a view about how much Mr Symss’ mental functioning had been affected by his substance abuse, but said that cannabis use, while reducing mental functioning, does not do so in the same way as an intellectual deficit. He noted that cannabis is often used in an attempt to reduce anxiety but has been shown to increase anxiety in fact.
Dr Sullivan accepted that Mr Symss’ offending had suggested a capacity for premeditation, particularly in relation to the burglary and theft from his employers. He noted that people with quite low IQs (say, between 60 and 80) can often pass as normal but may have significant deficits in adaptive functioning, having, for instance, a poor capacity for budgeting and life organisation in general. He agreed that this kind of deficit did not affect Mr Symss’ understanding of right and wrong or his capacity to exercise control, but emphasised that it did increase the risk of poor judgment.
Dr Sullivan did not wish to express an opinion about whether Mr Symss was remorseful, noting that expressions of remorse by those approaching sentencing are not necessarily genuine anyway.
Dr Sullivan noted that if Mr Symss were in protective custody as a result of his difficulties in interacting with other prisoners, that would limit his options for participating in programs, and to that extent his incarceration would be more burdensome than for other prisoners without those difficulties. He agreed that time in custody would not lead to any deterioration in Mr Symss’ mental functioning, while noting that being in custody does reduce the need to make decisions and accordingly does not necessarily help the development of good decision-making skills.
Dr Sullivan said that Mr Symss was likely to do better in a structured program with ongoing mentoring, and noted that he would need ongoing intensive support in the community, possibly including residential rehabilitation but not psychiatric treatment. He agreed that Mr Symss was at risk of reoffending.
A reference for Mr Symss was provided by Kim Holz, a Certified Wellness Coach who is also the mother of Mr Symss’ former partner and therefore the grandmother of his child. Ms Holz described him as a respectful person with good manners, who is intelligent but shy and reserved and lacking in confidence. She attributed this to what she described as “a somewhat loveless childhood”. She described Mr Symss as a loving father to his young son, and attributed his offending to his drug use. She expressed the view that prison would not be helpful to Mr Symss, but that counselling to help him heal damage from his childhood experiences would be beneficial.
In Mr Symss’ letter to the court, he described the difficulties in his life at the time of the relevant offending that had led him to engage in heavy drug use. He also referred to traumatic childhood experiences that have left him emotionally scarred and unable to deal properly with other people. He expressed a desire to be a better father, and someone his son can be proud of, and indicated that he hopes to come out of prison a better person who will be able to put his offending behind him.
The prosecutor made submissions to the effect that Mr Symss’ capacity to obtain and hold responsible positions in the workforce suggested that he was more intelligent than the various expert assessments had indicated and therefore, presumably, more culpable in relation to these offences.
However, Dr Sullivan’s description of Mr Symss as a person who can in many situations pass as normal but who often struggles, in particular with organisational skills and judgment, seems to make sense of the apparent inconsistencies in the evidence to which the prosecutor has drawn attention. While being aware of the risk of descending into pop psychology, I note also that a person who appears to be functioning normally but who struggles with the kind of difficulties described by Dr Sullivan might find it particularly stressful to be given work commensurate with his apparent rather than his real level of functioning.
I am satisfied that both general deterrence, and personal deterrence of Mr Symss, are important sentencing objectives here, and that no sentences other than imprisonment are appropriate for the offences I am dealing with.
Mr Symms, please stand. I record convictions on seven charges of burglary and nine of theft.
I also note two scheduled offences of minor theft, and I have taken them into account in sentencing for the burglary charged as CC2013/7494.
Noting the breaches of the earlier good behaviour orders made by Justice Gray, I cancel those good behaviour orders and impose the three sentences, which will run concurrently with each other. Those sentences will be backdated so as to give you credit for the seven months you have served as periodic detention in 2011 and of course, in this sentencing, I will also take account of the time that you have spent in custody since you were arrested 10 months ago on 26 August 2013.
For the new offences, I sentence you to imprisonment as follows:
(a)For the six thefts from the service station where you were employed – eight months imprisonment reduced from 12 months for your pleas of guilty, the second and subsequent terms to be accumulated on the preceding term so as to add two months to the total term.
(b)For the burglary and theft at the pizza shop where you had been employed – 20 months reduced from 26 months for the burglary, and nine months reduced from 12 months for the theft, to be served concurrently.
(c)For the burglary to which the two minor theft offences are scheduled – 20 months reduced from 26 months.
(d)For the five other townhouse burglaries – 18 months imprisonment reduced from 24 months each, the second and subsequent terms to be accumulated on the preceding term so as to add three months to the total term.
(e)For the two thefts associated with the townhouse burglaries – six months reduced from eight months, each to be served concurrently with the relevant burglary.
As noted, the re-imposed sentences will be backdated to 26 January 2013 to take account of time served as periodic detention and time in custody since 26 August 2013.
The sentence for the first service station theft will start on 26 December 2013, thus providing five months concurrency with the act of indecency sentences and extending the total sentence by three months. As noted, the later of those theft sentences will each add a further two months to the total sentence.
The pizza shop burglary will add six months to the total sentence, and the six townhouse burglaries will each add a further three months to the total sentence.
That gives a total sentence, including the re-imposed sentences, of 53 months backdated to January 2013.
The re-imposed sentences have already been finished and five of the theft sentences will also have been finished by the time you are eligible for parole.
In setting a non-parole period, I have had had regard on the one hand to your youth, your troubled background and your obvious need for an extended period of rehabilitation and other support in the community, but on the other hand to the possibility that you will find it difficult to undertake residential rehabilitation in the community.
Accordingly, I set a non-parole period of 26 months from 26 January 2013. That means that you will remain in custody until at least 25 March 2015, at which point you will be eligible for parole. That should give you time to undertake the Solaris Therapeutic Community program in the AMC if you are found suitable for that and if you choose to apply for it, and after you are released you will have up to another 27 months of parole supervision and, one would hope, support.
Mr Symss, there is no doubt that you need help with your drug abuse problem, and possibly in relation to gambling as well. However, I suspect that none of that help will be completely effective, it may not be effective at all, until you deal with the childhood traumas that you currently find it difficult to discuss. That in my view is the key to your chances of turning your life around more generally, so I urge you especially to make the most of whatever psychological help is available to you in the AMC and afterwards.
| I certify that the preceding fifty-seven [57] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Penfold. Associate: Date: |
0
0
1