R v Tapusoa

[2022] NSWDC 538

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Tapusoa [2022] NSWDC 538

Hearing dates:

5 July 2022

Date of orders:

7 July 2022

Decision date:

07 July 2022

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Buscombe DCJ

Decision:

Sentence of imprisonment of three years, consisting of a non-parole period of one year and eight months, and a balance of term of one year and four months.

Impose three community correction orders with conviction, for a period of two years. The standard conditions apply, and the Offender is to be supervised by Community Corrections upon his release.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 86(2)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A

Cases Cited:

BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159

Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Lewis Tapusoa (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Segal (Offender)

Solicitors:
Ms Ienna (Crown)

File Number(s):

2019/00135357
2021/00271960

SENTENCE

Introduction

1. The offender, Mr Tapusoa, stands to be sentenced, having pleaded guilty to an offence that on 8 May 2021 at Leumeah, he detained Adam Ershova without his consent with intent to obtain an advantage, namely to meet or arrange access to Jake Ershova and immediately before, at the time of, and after the detaining, actual bodily harm was occasioned to Adam Ershova.

2. That is an offence under s 86(2)(b) of the Crimes Act and has a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, and there is no applicable standard non‑parole period.  The offender also acknowledges his guilt in relation to an offence that, on the same date and at the same place as the principal offence, he intimidated Adam Ershova with the intention of causing him to fear physical or mental harm.  That offence is on a Form 1, and he asks that I take that offence into account when I sentence him on the principal charge.

3. The offender committed the offence while the subject of three conditional release orders without conviction, each for a period of two years, which commenced on 25 September 2019.  Those orders were imposed in relation to offences of behaving in an offensive manner, assault a police officer in the execution of duty, and intimidate a police officer in the execution of duty. 

4. The offender committed the offence while the subject of three conditional release orders without conviction, each for a period of two years, which commenced on 25 September 2019.  Those orders were imposed in relation to offences of behaving in an offensive manner, assault a police officer in the execution of duty, and intimidate a police officer in the execution of duty. 

5. Those orders have been called up before me as the offence I am to sentence the offender for is a breach of those orders.

The facts

6. The facts are agreed, and the following is taken from the agreed facts.  The victim, Adam Ershova, then 17 years of age, was friends with Shivan Prasad, Andrew Lam, and the co‑offender, Suleman Ali, and this offender.  About a year prior to the events, the offender, Mr Tapusoa, and the victim's brother, Jake Ershova, had a falling out over an incident that occurred.  The offender was assaulted by a number of people at a park and believed that Jake Ershova was involved in setting up the fight.

7. In April 2021, the co‑offender Suleman Ali commenced purchasing cheap AirPods from overseas and reselling them for a profit on the pretence that they were genuine Apple products.  There is no evidence that this offender was aware of that arrangement.  Suleman Ali and the victim put in $250 each to purchase 11 AirPods which they on‑sold.  Suleman Ali and the victim had agreed to use the profit of those sales to purchase further AirPods from overseas.  Suleman Ali informed the victim that he had purchased 60 AirPods.

8. The victim began getting suspicious of Mr Ali as he believed he kept changing the numbers when they discussed this venture.  The victim discussed his concerns about Mr Ali and the AirPod purchases with the offender and expressed his desire to embark on the venture on his own.  On 8 May 2021, the victim spoke to Shivan Prasad, who advised him that he was at Mr Lam's place.  The victim told Mr Prasad that he would meet them there.  At approximately 5.30pm, the victim arrived at 13 Appleton Avenue, Leumeah where Mr Lam lives.

9. The victim went to the granny flat.  In the granny flat was Mr Lam, Mr Prasad, and the offender, and the co‑offender, Suleman Ali.  At approximately 6pm, the offender arrived with alcohol.  The men remained in the granny flat watching the Ultimate Fighting Championship, listening to music, and smoking cannabis.  They were also drinking.  A few hours later the victim and the offender were sitting on a lounge when the offender started asking the victim about the whereabouts of his brother, Jake Ershova, as well as the victim wanting to buy and sell the AirPods on his own.

10. The offender then punched the victim to the left side of his face.  The offender then jumped off the lounge and began to repeatedly assault the victim with both fists which caused immediate pain.  The offender had the victim pinned down on the lounge and was on top of him.  The victim tried to protect himself, putting both his arms over his head.  The offender jumped off the victim and the victim sat up.  The offender then kicked the victim which hit him in the throat, causing immediate pain.  Mr Prasad said to the victim, "After Lewis" ‑ a reference to this offender ‑ "is done with you, you and me are one on one outside".

11. The offender kneed the victim in his ribs and then continued to punch and kick him as he tried to get up.  The victim felt blood coming down his face and mouth and his face and ribs were sore.  The offender then stopped assaulting the victim and said to him, "Ring Jake, tell him to come down, or we're gonna keep fucking you up".  The offender continued to repeat that.  The victim rang his brother, Jake, and said, "Jake, you've got to come down, I'm getting fucked up.  If you don't come down, I'm gonna keep getting fucked up".

12. The offender took the phone off the victim and said to his brother, "We've got your brother tied up.  If you don't come down, we're gonna shoot him dead".  The offender said to Jake, "Jake, fuck you, you want to set me up.  We have your brother tied up.  Do you want a good Mother's Day or a shit Mother's Day?"  Jake Ershova said to the offender, "I never fucking set you up.  I don't know why your mates are there telling you my side of the story.  No one is there to tell you my side of the story.  I didn't fucking set you up".  The offender said to Jake, "Let Adam tell you what's happening".

13. The victim spoke to his brother, Jake, and said, "Well, they've been kicking me in the face a couple of times.  They just want a one on one with you.  They just want you.  I know you probably can't come down right now, but you need to come down now".  Jake responded, "Where?  When?"  The offender continued to yell into the phone to Jake that, if he did not come, then the victim was going to be "fucked up".  The phone was given back to the victim.  The victim said to his brother, Jake, "I'm fucked up, I'm bleeding, you need to come down".

14. The offender then reached over and ended the call.  The offender then punched the victim to his face and, when the victim blocked those punches, he hit his body.  This was repeated a number of times.  The offender yelled at the victim that he had to get Jake to come down.  The victim sent messages to his brother, Jake, telling him to come to the address in Leumeah by himself.  Jake Ershova contacted his parents and advised them that the victim was being assaulted.  The victim's father rang the victim's mobile phone.  The offender told the victim not to answer it.  The victim told the offender that it was his father that was calling his mobile.  The offender said to the victim, "Pick up and say you are somewhere else".

15. With the offender standing next to him, the victim answered the call and placed the call on loudspeaker.  The victim informed his father that he was in Liverpool, drinking with someone called Alex.  The victim's father questioned him about his whereabouts, so the victim told him he was near Westfields.  The victim's father said, "I don't believe you, you are lying".  The victim's father said something about consequences and the offender replied, "What fucking consequences?", and then he ended the call. The victim's father, understandably, contacted the police. 

16. The victim placed his mobile on the coffee table and sat on the lounge.  The offender continued to punch the victim.  As this occurred, the victim's mobile phone continued to ring.  The co‑offender, Suleman Ali said to the offender, "Get him to open his phone.  Get his password off him".  The offender continued to punch the victim and said, "Give me your password, give me your password".  The victim, fearing that the assaults would continue, provided them with the password to his mobile phone.

17. The co‑offender, Suleman Ali, then opened the victim's phone and began searching through it and asked the victim for the password to his ANZ banking application.  The offender was standing next to the victim as he was wiping blood from his face.  The victim told them his banking password and then the co‑offender, Suleman Ali, told the victim to read what was being displayed on the phone in order to confirm his identity.  This apparently came up incorrectly and the offender then punched the victim in the face and yelled, "Just read what's on the screen or I'll fuck you up".

18. The victim read out four times, "This confirms my identity", which then gave access to his ANZ banking app.  The co‑offender, Suleman Ali, then said to the offender, "Okay, halves?", and the offender replied, "Send".  The victim understood this to mean that money was being transferred out of his bank account.  ANZ Bank records indicate that, at 10.26pm, a transfer of $1,000, and then $33 was made from the victim's account to the co‑offender's, Suleman Ali's, account.  At approximately 10.27pm, the offender called Jake Ershova's mobile phone and said, "Come down to Amalfi Street.  Come and get your brother".  The brother, Jake, agreed to come, and then the call was terminated.

19. The offender continued to yell about Jake while punching and kicking the victim.  The victim became angry and was saying, "Fuck you all".  The offender stopped punching the victim and obtained a pair of scissors which were approximately 15 centimetres long, and said to the victim, "I'm gonna take out your fucking eye" as he raised the scissors above his head.  The victim grabbed the offender's arm with both of his hands as he brought the scissors down.  The offender's arm stopped near the victim's eyebrow.

20. Shivan Prasad got off the lounge and grabbed the offender's arm.  The offender threw the scissors down and shoved Shivan away and said to him, "If you get up again, I'm fucking you up too".  The offender then punched the victim in the face again.  At this time, the offender and Suleman Ali were calling the victim names.  The victim considered leaving but believed that he would be grabbed by the accused and further assaulted.  At approximately 10.42pm, the offender called Jake Ershova, and the following exchange took place: Offender, "Are you coming to Amalfi Street?"  Jake, "Yeah, I ‑ I'm coming".  Offender, "You're a bitch.  You're a bitch.  Come Amalfi Street, let's have a one on one".  Jake, "For what?"  The offender, "You're a bitch lad, you set me up, you're a gronk".  Jake, "That's not true.  You want to fight me over nothing.  You're a fuckwit, you're tripping, you're tripping out".  They continued to swear at each other.  Shivan Prasad yelled out to Jake to stop.  The offender continued to assault the victim.  Jake said, "All right, bro, I'm going to come, I'm going to come".  The offender said to Jake, "Don't fuck around or I'll ring my mate and come down and bring the gat", meaning gun.  Jake agreed to come, and the call was then terminated.

21. Whilst this was occurring, the victim's father and police arrived at the premises.  The occupants at the granny flat could hear a helicopter outside and believed that it was for the victim, and Mr Lam said, "He's got to go, he can't be here, get him an Uber or something".  The victim was told to wash his face.  Mr Prasad walked the victim to the sink and, as he washed his face, said to the victim, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry".  At this time, the victim's father was calling his mobile phone.

22. The offender and Suleman Ali told the victim to answer the phone and placed it on loudspeaker, which the victim did.  They heard a male voice say, "It's Liverpool Police, where are you at the moment?"  The offender and Mr Ali told the victim to hang up the phone, which he did.  They all walked the victim to the front of the house, and Mr Prasad walked the victim up to an Uber.  Once the victim was inside the Uber, he called his father and informed him of where the Uber was.

23. The victim told the Uber driver to pull over and police located the Uber.  The victim was taken to Liverpool Hospital where he had scans and received treatment for his injuries.  His injuries were bruising around the right eye, swelling of the lips, with dried blood visible around his mouth, mild bruising to both forearms, and tenderness to the right, anterior chest wall.  He was discharged from hospital the next day.

24. On 13 May 2021, the offender was arrested, and he was interviewed by the police. He told the police he drinks to “get smashed” and, when he drinks, he blacks out; he gets rowdy when he drinks.  He “lost it” at the victim but does not recall, as he blacked out.  There were no weapons or kidnapping, they were drinking and smoking marijuana.  He drank the whole bottle of fireball and had 13 bottles of Corona, and he has been told he punched the victim, but does not recall doing that.

Objective seriousness

25. I will now consider the objective seriousness of the offence.  Later in these remarks, once I have reviewed the offender's subjective case, I will address the closely related issue of the offender's moral culpability, his moral blame worthiness for the offending.  The level of violence that the offender directed at the victim was significant.  Punches to the face, punches to the body, a kick to the throat, a knee to the ribs, multiple punches and kicks to the victim while he tried to get up off the ground.

26. The victim was taken to hospital where he was kept overnight.  Fortunately, his injuries were not at the high‑end of the spectrum of injuries that can amount to actual bodily harm, but they involved multiple bruising around the right eye, both forearms, as well as swelling of the lips with dried blood around the mouth.  I note the offender and the victim were known to each other, and there appears to have been no animosity between the offender and the victim, and no provocation on the part of the victim.

27. The detention and violence directed towards the victim appears to be all designed to have his brother attend those premises so that the offender could fight the victim's brother.  While it is not abundantly clear from the facts, it appears that the period of detention is in the vicinity of two to three hours.  The detention effectively only came to an end when the victim's father and police were close to the scene.  This was a serious example of this type of offence when I have regard to the factors I just mentioned.

28. It was a sustained detention involving multiple acts of violence and threats to the victim.  While, strictly speaking, unnecessary to classify the offence against a notational mid‑range offence, I consider that the offence is well above a low‑level offence and approaching the middle of the range.  The intimidation offence involved a threat to "take out" the victim's eye with a pair of scissors.  It, too, is a serious example of that type of offence, in my opinion, but given it occurred during the detention, it does not significantly impact upon the sentence I will impose on the principal offence.

The offender’s subjective case

29. Turning, then, to the offender's subjective case.  The offender is currently 21 years of age and was 20 years old at the time of the offence.  The offender is what the law calls a young adult offender, and the relevant principles concerning the sentencing of a young adult offender apply.  Those principles are that it is usually more appropriate to give greater weight to rehabilitation and treatment than general deterrence, denunciation, and retribution when sentencing a young adult offender.  See the summary of relevant principles in Bullock v R, referring to BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159.

30. The offender has a very limited criminal history and, technically speaking, he has no prior criminal convictions.  Although, as I noted earlier, he committed this offence while on three non‑conviction conditional release orders.  His lack of a significant criminal record entitles him to some leniency in this sentence.  As I mentioned, the current offence was committed while on conditional liberty, and that is an aggravating factor under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

31. I have before me a psychological report of Hugo Rodriguez, dated 26 May 2022, a sentencing assessment report dated 27 April 2022, and three character references from family members, namely his mother, Elesi Tapusoa, dated 29 June 2022, and his sisters, Vaitutu, dated 29 June 2022, and Lia, dated 1 July 2022.  The offender gave evidence, as did one of his sisters, Vaitutu.  There was nothing about the manner in which they gave their evidence that caused me to have any concerns about their truthfulness.

32. Turning, then, to the offender's family background.  He was born in Sydney and is one of four children to his natural parents.  The offender's mother reported that he was a passionate and dedicated student during his primary school years.  In her letter, his mother described the offender as excelling in all studies and that he was a "bright and intelligent kid".  This dedication culminated in his election as school captain.

33. The offender reported to the psychologist that he experienced a very difficult and emotionally traumatic childhood.  He recalled incidents of domestic violence and excessive drinking by his father throughout his upbringing.  I note this was corroborated by the oral evidence of both the offender and the offender's sister. In a letter provided by the offender's mother, the offender's father was described as using an "authoritarian parenting style".  The evidence establishes that, while the family remains living with the father, there was a history of the father administering violence to his wife and children.

34. The offender reported to the psychologist that he began associating with poor social influences around the age of 15.  He described these associates as drug users who also drank excessively and were often involved in criminal activities.  The offender noted to the psychologist that associating with those peers caused him to become involved with drugs and alcohol.  It is clear that the offender still maintains the support of his mother and sisters who were present during the sentence proceedings earlier this week and are present here today.  He is said to be a good uncle in relation to his nephews and nieces.  According to the Sentencing Assessment Report, his family are pro-social influences on him.

35. Turning, then, to his education and employment history.  I noted earlier that there is evidence he did well in primary school and became school captain.  While the offender completed year 12 and obtained his higher school certificate, his mother records that the offender struggled in high school, believing that his mental health suffered as a consequence of his father's conduct at home.  The offender gave evidence that, up until the age of 18, he was an active Rugby League player with South Sydney, and his mother confirmed that he had shown promise in that regard in her letter that is before me.

29. Following the completion of school, the offender worked in various semi‑skilled factory jobs in order to assist the family financially.  Prior to being arrested, he had been working in a Coles factory in Eastern Creek and, according to the psychologist and his evidence, he has completed several short courses during his incarceration.  I note the offender gave evidence of his aspirations as a barber when released and that he has taken positive steps towards this by taking a course while in custody, and he has taken a course concerning the electrical trade.

30. The offender reported to the psychologist that he first started consuming drugs and alcohol around the age of 15.  He described to the psychologist that his use of alcohol escalated and, by 19, he had developed the habit of drinking to excess, subsequently becoming an alcoholic, according to the psychologist.  It is clear the offender has a troubling relationship with alcohol, and one that will need to be addressed if he is to live a pro-social life. 

31. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test was administered by the offender's psychologist. In this assessment, a cut‑off score of eight apparently indicates a need to address problems related to alcohol.  I note the offender obtained a score of 26, demonstrating his problematic relationship with that substance.  The psychologist concluded that these results indicated the offender suffered from alcohol addiction up until his incarceration.  The psychologist was satisfied the offender fit the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder and suggested his offending was the result of alcohol intoxication causing impairment of judgment and erratic behaviour.

32. I note the offender discontinued the use of drugs and alcohol when incarcerated approximately 12 months ago, which he confirmed in his evidence.  He said in his evidence that he now feels fit and healthy due to abstinence from those substances and a training regime while in custody.  The offender indicated to the psychologist that he suffered from emotional trauma at an early age, and subsequently developed symptoms of undue anger which became exacerbated by his use of drugs and alcohol.

33. I noted, earlier, the offender and his sister's evidence about the violence that occurred within the family home when the offender was growing up.  The offender gave evidence that he thought getting angry and being violent was the normal way to behave when he was younger.  He accepted, in his evidence, that he had a problem with managing his anger.  The offender was assessed by the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale, and scored in the normal range for all categories.

34. In other aspects of his personality, the psychologist was of the opinion that the offender exhibited normal intellectual levels and did not exhibit features usually found in so‑called career criminals such as a personality disorder or an anti-social tendency.  As mentioned previously, the offender was diagnosed with an Alcohol Use Disorder.  I note the offender has been undertaking a variety of courses while in custody and has been the subject of one disciplinary infringement.  The Sentencing Assessment Report records that infringement as being the misuse of an intercom and threats to staff.  The offender gave evidence about this incident, and it appears to have involved a loss of control when something he perceived should have been attended to was not.

35. There is some conflicting evidence about the offender's remorse in the Sentencing Assessment Report and the report of the psychologist, although I do note the psychologist's report was prepared a month after the Sentencing Assessment Report.  The Sentencing Assessment Report records the offender having a tendency to minimise his offence and justify his actions by implying the victim had provoked him.  That report also records that the offender demonstrated no remorse in regard to the impact his behaviour had upon the victim.  He identified his family as being impacted by his incarceration because they are financially reliant upon him to assist with mortgage payments.

36. The psychologist reported that the offender believed incarceration had served as a powerful learning experience for him.  The psychologist further suggested that the offender showed strong remorse towards the offending behaviour and was of the opinion this was genuine.  It was noted that the offender "seems to be committed to continuing with the habits of abstaining from drinking alcohol or taking drugs developed whilst in gaol".  The offender appeared to have some remorse for this offending when giving evidence before me.  I note his unchallenged evidence that he handed himself into the police.

37. The offender reported to the psychologist that he is making plans for when he is released from custody to develop a career as a barber, an assertion that was supported by the offender's oral evidence on sentence.  He also gave evidence that he still hopes to have a Rugby League career, but that may not be realistic, given what has occurred in his life in recent years.  Similar comments in letters of the offender's mother and the eldest sister corroborate the offender's positive outlook towards the future.

38. The offender's mother said the offender wanted change for himself and is ready to take the necessary steps needed for him to seek help, and that this help will assist him in adapting back into the community.  His elder sister further commented that the offender "has made some mistakes in his life and I truly believe being away has taught him a lesson and given himself time to reflect and learn".  According to his eldest sister, this period of reflection has caused him to be "excited when he talks about what he wants to work towards and achieve and this is something Lewis never really talks about before".

39. The psychologist reported that the offender expressed an interest in attending behavioural counselling at the psychologist's rooms upon his release in order to monitor his newly developed habits and assist him in planning and achieving his personal goals.  He was assessed, however, in the Sentencing Assessment Report, as having a medium risk of reoffending. 

40. I have had regard to the fact that the offender is being sentenced during the COVID‑19 pandemic. It is well known that conditions in custody are more arduous for inmates during the pandemic, as inmates are spending longer periods of time in their cells, receiving few, if any, in‑person visits, and there has been a reduction of rehabilitative programs available to them.  The offender gave evidence that he caught COVID‑19 in gaol, and this resulted in him being locked in his cell for three weeks.  He estimates that, overall, he has spent approximately 60 days in isolation as a consequence of the impact of the pandemic.

41. The evidence of violence in the family home means that, to some degree, this case attracts the principles of Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 concerning the relevance of social disadvantage to sentencing. However, it appears he was well‑provided for in a material sense and given an education. I consider that, in these circumstances, there is only a limited reduction of his moral culpability as a consequence of his upbringing.

42. The fact the offence was committed under the influence of alcohol and drugs is not a mitigating factor. I do not consider that the evidence of his engagement in prohibited drugs and excessive alcohol is linked to the violence within the family home or to drug use within the family home. 

43. The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and is entitled to a 25% discount of his sentence under the provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.  Overall, I think there is some evidence of genuine remorse here, given the early plea, the content of the psychologist’s report, and the offender’s evidence. I do not consider, however, that he has a complete insight into how serious his offending was.

44. The offender has good prospects of rehabilitation despite having committed this offence while on conditional liberty.  He is young, has good family support, and a history of gainful employment.  He impressed me in his evidence, and I consider that he may consider this experience of gaol as something he wants to leave behind him and get on with a proper, law‑abiding life.  While I am satisfied that he has good prospects of rehabilitation, I am not satisfied that he is unlikely to reoffend.  Much will depend upon what happens when he is released from custody, and whether he can resist the temptation of alcohol, drugs, and non‑social friends.

45. I am satisfied, on the evidence, as I say, the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation and has commenced his rehabilitation, although it is not yet complete.  His prospects of rehabilitation will be assisted if he has a longer period on parole.  He is also young.  This will be his first time serving a sentence of custody.  He will need assistance with his anger management when next in the community and is being sentenced during the COVID‑19 pandemic.  The combination of those factors leads me to make a finding of special circumstances when fixing the non‑parole period.

Imposition of sentence

53. The sentence will commence on 13 May 2021, being the date of his arrest, to take account of all pre‑sentence custody. I have had regard to the objectives of sentencing referred to in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.  Offences involving the detaining of someone and the infliction of violence upon them leading to injury during their detention are very serious offences.  These types of offences are quite prevalent in our community and frequently, like in this case, committed by young men who are drug or alcohol‑affected.  The community looks to the Courts to impose sentences of sufficient severity to deter not just this offender, but others, from engaging in such serious criminal conduct.

54. The maximum penalty has been taken into account as a legislative guidepost.  On the call‑up of the three conditional release orders, those orders are revoked, and I record convictions and I impose three community correction orders for a period of two years from today.  The standard conditions apply to those orders.  That is, he must not commit any criminal offence and he must appear before this Court if called upon to do so during the term of the order.  There is also a condition that he be supervised by Community Corrections when he is released from custody.

55. In relation to the principal offence of detain for advantage and inflict actual bodily harm, a conviction is recorded, and I impose a sentence consisting of a non‑parole period of one year and eight months imprisonment, and a balance of term of one year and four months.  That is a total sentence of three years imprisonment.  It commences on 13 May 2021 and expires on 12 May 2024.  The non‑parole period expires on 12 January 2023.  The offender can expect to be released to parole on 12 January 2023, although, ultimately, that remains a matter for the State Parole Authority.

56. It is a sentence of three years consisting of a non‑parole period of one year and eight months, with a balance of term of one year and four months, commencing on 13 May 2021.  I have it expiring on 12 May 2024.  The non‑parole period expires on 12 January 2023, and he can expect to be released to parole on 12 January 2023.  On the call‑up of the three conditional release orders where there was no conviction, those orders are revoked.  I record convictions, three community correction orders for two years from today with the standing conditions plus supervision.

Orders

1. Sentence of imprisonment of three years, consisting of a non-parole period of one year and eight months, and a balance of term of one year and four months.

2. Impose three community correction orders with conviction, for a period of two years. The standard conditions apply, and the Offender is to be supervised by Community Corrections upon his release.

**********

Decision last updated: 23 November 2022