R v Towney; R v Simon

[2015] NSWDC 218

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Towney; R v Simon [2015] NSWDC 218
Decision date:	11 June 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Offender Towney – sentenced to 5 years imprisonment to commence on 22 December 2014 and expire on 21 December 2019 and a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.  Offender Simon – sentenced to 5 years imprisonment to commence on 22 April 2015 and to expire on 21 April 2020 with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offence – armed robbery – sentencing guidelines – Henry factors – offence committed in company – one offender on conditional liberty at time of offence – one offender with extensive criminal record – limited actual violence with respect to one offender only – early pleas of guilty – significant effect on victims – victim impact statement read and considered – some remorse expressed – offence at high end of the Henry scale – special circumstances for adjusting ratio between head sentence and non-parole period – youth of offenders – indigenous backgrounds – need for rehabilitation – recommended for Yetta Dhinnakkal program
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Pierce Stanley Towney (Offender) Tyler Simon (Offender)
Representation:	Solicitors: A Baker, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown) J Crofts, Legal Aid NSW (Offender Towney) M Giles, Blue Water Legal Pty Ltd (Offender Simon)
File Number(s):	2014/375583; 2014/375596

Judgment

1. I am sentencing Pierce Towney and Tyler Simon for an armed robbery. Pierce Towney is still only 18 and Tyler Simon has just turned 19 a few months ago. They committed the armed robbery on 3 December last year. Armed robbery is a serious crime. We can tell that because parliament fixed a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment to the offence by s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

2. When a judge is sentencing a person, the judge has to give reasons for the sentence. That usually means that the judge has to refer to what happened in the crime and also refer to any factors personal to the offender. The judge can also refer to the victim impact statement. Obviously the judge also takes into account the evidence before the judge and the arguments presented.

3. First I should start with what happened. Pierce Towney and Tyler Simon were drinking on the night of 2 December 2014. They were also taking methamphetamine. In the early hours of the following morning they went for a drive with Kym McIntosh. They went to the township of Harrington where there is the Harrington Minimart. That is operated by a family, a man and his wife. Their daughter lives with them. They open up the store early deliberately for people who want to call in and do their business early in the morning.

4. When Pierce Towney and Tyler Simon were driving by they saw that there were people in the store. Pierce Towney said to Tyler Simon “That could be a quick little job.” They did not stop, but went on. They stopped for a while elsewhere and then agreed that they would go back and rob the store.

5. Meanwhile, back at the store, the husband had been downstairs since a quarter past four. His wife had joined at ten to five.

6. Pierce Towney and Tyler Simon arrived about 5 o’clock. Tyler Simon armed himself “with a metal tyre brace of about 25 centimetres in length”. Pierce Towney had a knife that he had taken from his home. They covered their faces with their shirts, put their hood over their heads and socks on their hands. They confronted the couple a bit after 5 o’clock. Pierce Towney pointed the knife at the man saying, “Give us the fucking money! Give us the money!” They were both at the counter, both waving their weapons. The wife started screaming for help and the man said, “I don’t have any money. Get out!”. Gamely, but perhaps unwisely, the man moved around towards them with a set of metal scales.

7. Both the offenders retreated. The man threw the scales at them, but after a short distance “Towney stopped running and turned back to the victim. He held the knife in front of him and said, ‘No, fuck you, I am going to stab you.’” Tyler Simon also stopped and turned back. Pierce Towney lunged at the victim with the knife. Fortunately, he missed. There was a fight. The victim was struggling to make sure he was not stabbed. The victim ended up on his back still holding Pierce Towney’s wrist “using all of his strength to keep the knife from him as Towney tried to force it towards his face whilst punching him to the head with his other hand”.

8. In the meantime Tyler Simon went back into the store. The wife was in there, obviously in a distressed state. In response to that, Tyler Simon “waved his weapon over her head and dropped it onto her shoulder. He then walked to the counter, grabbed the cash register and left the store”. The register itself was worth just under $1,000 and it contained $1,800. The couple’s daughter was woken up. She went out onto the balcony. She heard a man calling out, “I will stab you, you cunt!”

9. Both men got away and drove off. The man got up from the ground “and realised he had sustained a bloodied nose, numerous abrasions to his face, legs and hands, and swelling/bruising to his face/head”.

10. The offenders bought some alcohol and then split the money between them.

11. Police were called to the scene and established a couple of crime scenes. On 22 December they arrested both men. Both men admitted in interviews what they had done, but each of them did not name his co-offender.

12. As I said, one of the things which a judge takes into account is the impact of a crime on the victim. In this case the man involved provided a victim impact statement. It graphically illustrates the kind of impact which these crimes have on their victims. I propose to read it -

“The robbery and assault by the offenders at Harrington Mini Market has had a huge impact on the running of our business and a very different outlook on life. Before the robbery took place myself, my wife and our family had a relaxed look on life and felt comfortable in running our business and providing our customers an early morning opening at 4.30am in the morning to cater for early morning fishermen and workers.

This is no longer able to happen as we are trading later and our doors are fully closed to the public, only opening the doors upon identifying the customer. The doors now open at 6 o’clock as we no longer feel confident in opening any earlier while still dark. Opening early was something that we had been doing for 14 years and felt safe having our doors opened at that time every morning.

Before we start our morning, it’s now a routine that we spend time looking for anything that may be suspicious before coming downstairs to open the shop, which was not something we felt the need to do previously. It is very hard to walk downstairs to open our business as the robbery and assault is still fresh in our minds and plays a big part of our everyday living, trying to forget and get through the day without thinking back to that morning.

We have had new locks installed upstairs on the living premises as the whole family feel unsafe, which we had never worried about or felt unsafe in our own home before now.

We tend to overreact to noises, being suspicious of customer’s appearances and motives. My wife will not do the early morning opening as she is so scared of being downstairs alone. It’s a hard thing to do every morning to face opening, but we have to open the doors to make a living. Previously working the shop was something the whole family used to enjoy doing but now it is a hard task to make that effort to do so and hope you get through the day.

The robbery has had an effect on our family as we are unable to feel safe anywhere at home or at work. We have become very resilient of others around us and find it very hard to trust just anyone.

It has had an emotional impact on our financial situation as the new trading hours have had an effect on our small business. We have been trading for 14 years with our turnover declining and feel that we will have difficult times ahead in these hard economic times.”

I repeat, that illustrates the long-term impact which crimes such as these committed over a few minutes can have on the lives of other human beings.

13. I turn now to say something about each of the offenders. Mr Towney was arrested on 22 December 2014 and has been in custody since then. His sentence will date from then. As I said, he is now 18 and will turn 19 next month. He has a criminal record. He already has a record for an armed robbery committed in April last year. He got a bond from the Children’s Court in July last year. Earlier on he had committed an aggravated break, enter and steal. In February of 2009 he had received a bond for that as well. I should add that when he committed this crime, Pierce Towney was on conditional liberty. He had been on parole since 23 August 2014.

14. There is a pre-sentence report prepared by Corrective Services (Community Corrections) which said that when he was being supervised by Juvenile Justice his response to supervision was unsatisfactory. He noted a dysfunctional upbringing and that his parents’ relationship “was marred by alcohol and cannabis abuse”. In recent years domestic violence also became an issue between his parents, who separated about three years ago. Pierce Towney moved to Moree where his father lived. He came back to Taree in 2014 but started getting involved in binge drinking and heavy drug use and mixing with people who were also committing crimes. He stopped school midway through year 10 but has been studying whilst he has been in detention. He started alcohol and cannabis when he was 13, then went onto heroin and methamphetamines more recently.

15. Mr Towney has had some psychological assistance whilst he was in juvenile detention. He understood that his crime was related to getting money for his drug habit. He expressed remorse to the authors of the report “and verbalised some insight into his offence, acknowledging the correlation between his drug dependence and his current circumstances.” Mr Towney said that he was prepared to get some help. The author of the report thought that his time in adult gaol “appears to have been the catalyst for some insight into” his criminal behaviour.

16. Helpfully Ms J Crofts, who appears for Mr Towney, obtained a psychological report from a clinical psychologist, Miriam Wyzenbeek. She recorded some of the same information as the pre-sentence report did, but she also added that Pierce Towney had been helping around the home since his mid-teenage years because his mother had had a stroke. That was one of the reasons he moved back in 2014. Ms Wyzenbeek noted Pierce Towney’s account that he had “grown up surrounded by alcohol, drug use and crime”. He said that “both parents consumed alcohol on a regular to daily basis and both parents smoked cannabis daily.” Both parents have spent time in custody.

17. As to Mr Towney’s drug habit, he had an addiction to methamphetamine which cost about $350 a day when he committed this crime. He said that he would not take drugs when he was released, but was ambivalent about whether or not he would take alcohol. The psychologist noted that he “did not demonstrate remorse towards his prior criminal activities and he tended to minimise the seriousness of these crimes by explaining them as primarily being property related and thus to his mind, victim-free”. That is one of the reasons that I have read out in full the victim impact statement. Ms Wyzenbeek noted that Mr Towney “expressed ambivalence and reluctance to participate in an intervention program directed at addressing his offending”. She thought that he would need “motivational interviewing”.    

18. It is obvious, as the psychologist observes, that the drug problem is directly related to his crimes. She thought it was very important for him to participate in some form of assistance when he was released. There are a number of factors Ms Wyzenbeek pointed out which suggests that he is at high risk of re-offending. She recommended some programmes in custody which might assist, such as the Gurnang life challenge programme and Getting SMART.

19. Ms Crofts called her client to give evidence. He confirmed the reason for going back to Taree in 2014 was to help with his mother. He remains in touch with his father by phone, except recently when there has been some miscommunication and loss of contact probably because of a changed number or a malfunctioning phone. He acknowledged feeling bad about what he had done and the effect on the victim. Mr Towney said that he is not taking drugs in custody and that he is probably the youngest at the Mid North Coast Correctional Centre, or one of the youngest, where he is currently in custody. He wants to stay away from Taree and the influences on him there.

20. Cross-examined by Mr A Baker, who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions, he acknowledged his history of drug use and said that whilst he was in Moree with his father he did not commit crimes apart from continuing to take drugs. He said that prison is full of violence but he was ambivalent in cross-examination about whether or not he would stop taking alcohol when he is released.

21. Turning to Tyler Simon, he has a far more extensive criminal record. He turned nineteen a few months ago. His criminal record includes an aggravated break, enter and steal, car theft, again more aggravated break, enter and steal, larceny, stealing from a dwelling house, assault and property damage. He received control orders from the Children's Court regarding a lot of these offences and has spent time in juvenile custody. He was also engaged in a police pursuit in 2014.

22. Mr M Giles, who appeared for Tyler Simon, also pointed to the pre-sentence report that had been prepared for his client. He had been raised by his grandparents since he was about a year old. Much of his life he has not had contact with his parents. He moved out of his grandparents’ home in about October last year and went back to the Taree area. He was expelled from year 6 and did not undertake secondary education at all, which has obviously impacted on his literacy and numeracy skills. He had one job for a few months but, to his credit, has been employed whilst in prison in the furniture industry sector and was described as a good worker. He wants to keep working when he is released.

23. Mr Simon too has a history of drug and alcohol use. He started cannabis when he was as young as eight and was drinking daily from the age of twelve. He explained that “he was supplied those substances by criminal family members and older peers”. He added that “his family would ‘use’ him to commit crime during his formative years, the proceeds of which subsequently funded their addictions”. He remained abstinent from drugs whilst he was in juvenile detention but on his return to Taree he was introduced to methamphetamine “again by family members”. By the time he committed this crime he was using that drug about three times a week. He attempted residential treatment in 2011 but discharged himself. He also had a gambling problem.

24. Mr Simon was diagnosed with oppositional defiance disorder when he was nine and conduct disorder, not to mention the symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He had support from his grandmother and “was case managed by an extensive psychiatric and paediatric team to address his deteriorating and concerning violent and antisocial behaviour,” but he said that “as soon as he ceased school and commenced using substances, he failed to adhere to his medication regime or attend follow up appointments”.

25. He said that “most of his friends and family are now in custody”. He wants to spend time with his partner when he is released. She is regarded as a positive influence. The author of the report thought that Mr Simon’s “attitude remains antisocial and he has advised of no desire, or indeed intention, to engage with community treatment providers”.

26. Mr Giles tendered a report from the respected forensic psychiatric Dr Richard Furst. Dr Furst obtained much of the same history but noted “a wish to enter a rehabilitation centre in the future, if possible”. He acknowledged feeling sorry for what he had done. Dr Furst thought that Tyler Simon appeared “to be somewhat institutionalised and conduct disordered”. Dr Furst diagnosed Tyler Simon with a substance use disorder, being alcohol and amphetamines, a conduct disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, an acquired brain injury and perhaps borderline intellectual function. He noted the “dysfunctional family” and thought that he was subject to childhood abuse and neglect. He recommended that drug and alcohol counselling be provided in custody and he thought that he was “a good candidate for a custody-based drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs/anger management programs”. Dr Furst suggested EQUIPS. He thought that Mr Simon was at a high risk of re-offending and will require additional community support including structured drug and alcohol counselling when he is released. He has the support of his partner and his grandparents and Dr Furst noted that Tyler Simon “wants to work in the future and was open to engaging in further rehabilitation”. Dr Furst observed that the “risk of re-offending could be reduced to some degree if he adheres to the treatment recommendations outlined”. It would include remaining abstinent from alcohol and drugs over the long term.

27. Mr Giles called his client to give evidence as well. He emphasised his early plea of guilty. Tyler Simon acknowledged that he did not read or write well and that the taking of illegal drugs will cause him more trouble with the police. He said that he is prepared to go to rehabilitation on parole and referred specifically to Balund-a and Yetta Dhinnakkal at Brewarrina. It seems to me, from enquiries I asked my associate to make, that the programme at Balund-a would not be appropriate because it is for offenders on parole, but the programme at Yetta Dhinnakkal at Brewarrina may well be an option. He expressed a desire to undergo that programme and then he wanted to return to his grandparents’ to live. He too expressed sorrow for what he had done and to the victims. He acknowledged that he needs to stay away from illegal drugs and that he is being supported by his partner.

28. When cross-examined by Mr Baker he acknowledged his gambling problem. The debts he incurred were mainly related to his drugs. He left the earlier residential rehabilitation programme because an uncle had died and was not able to get back in. He acknowledged that he is not taking any medication for the conditions that he was diagnosed as suffering from and would be prepared to take them now. Mr Giles obtained evidence from him to the effect that he had probably been misunderstood about not wanting to do rehabilitation.

HIS HONOUR: Gentlemen, just whilst I think of it, the psychiatric report for Mr Simon and the psychological report for Mr Towney - sorry, Ms Crofts and Mr Scott, Corrective Services make it very clear that material like that is very helpful for them in the classification of inmates. I usually direct that they be sent to a fax number or e-mail address that my associate knows so that the classification process can be assisted by the authorities having those. Sometimes they are sent with them into prison. But I don't do it without you getting instructions. So when I have finished the remarks on sentence, you may wish to, because they should be listening to what I am saying, get some instructions. Some people don't want that material around but I would strongly recommend it because the Corrective Services have made it very clear that they don't have access to that sort of material. They get my remarks on sentence eventually and they get the presentence report but not the sort of material that I’m referring to which contains history, diagnoses, professional opinions about them which are of a great help.

29. I was assisted by Ms Crofts, Mr Giles and Mr Baker in their submissions about how I sentence these young men. All acknowledged two things. One is that they had to spend more time in fulltime custody. I agree with that. There is no choice about that, given the seriousness of their crime. The second common theme was that the guideline judgment given by the Court of Criminal Appeal for armed robbery in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 was relevant. The guideline in that case delivered by the Chief Justice at 380 ([165]) said that sentences for armed robbery offences of a particular type “should generally fall between four and five years for the full term”. His Honour had identified earlier (at [162]) common features of armed robbery offences which come before the courts.

30. Mr Baker commenced his submissions by helpfully addressing those factors, including some additional factors referred to by the Chief Justice at [170]. In respect of Mr Towney, Mr Baker emphasised that Mr Towney in regard to point (i) had two serious previous offences but fairly acknowledged that there is a valid question as to the meaning of the expression “little criminal history”. The other factors were fairly standard, with the exception of factor (iv) which referred to little, if any, actual violence but a real threat thereof.

31. In Mr Towney’s case, there was a lot more than limited actual violence. I am very aware here that I am not sentencing Mr Towney for a robbery with wounding, a more serious offence. Although the victim was injured, it was not regarded as a wounding and does not fall into that category. I am also aware that I am not sentencing him for an attempted wounding with intent which is also a more serious offence but what I am sentencing him for is the actual violence involved in threatening and physically assaulting the victim of the crime with a knife in his hand. The victim sustained some actual bodily harm, falling short of a wounding and falling short of grievous bodily harm. These are factors which make it more serious than the standard case or the common case referred to in the guideline judgment. Additionally, Mr Towney was not alone: there were two offenders, and the effect on the victims was significant. I take that into account, appreciating that the victim impact statement was not verified but it, as I said, is not at all unusual for that to be a consequence of an armed robbery.

32. So far as Mr Simon is concerned, Mr Baker pointed to his very lengthy criminal record which certainly did not classify as “no or little criminal history”.

33. I return to Mr Towney. In his case, but not in Mr Simon’s case, Mr Towney was on conditional liberty for a very similar offence. Mr Baker suggested that the sentences should be at the high end of the Henry range, bearing in mind the features of Mr Towney’s offending involving the assaulting behaviour with the knife, the company and the conditional liberty. In Mr Simon’s case, he had an extensive criminal record and was in company. They shared the funds between them. Arguably, said Mr Baker, they should receive the same sentence. Mr Baker argued that their remorse was limited by a strong prosecution case. He also argued that Mr Towney’s prospects of rehabilitation could not be described as “good” and therefore attract that as a mitigating factor. He reminded me of what Simpson J had said in the Henry guideline judgment about demonstrated rehabilitation. He thought that the special circumstances for adjusting the normal ratio between a non-parole period and a full sentence were limited.

34. In respect of Mr Simon, Mr Baker fairly acknowledged that, despite serving other sentences and an available starting date of this sentence as later this year, it would be fair to commence his sentence from 22 April 2015, and in due course I will do that.

35. For her client, Ms Crofts emphasised his early plea and acknowledged the aggravating feature of being in company and the extent of the actual violence involved. She drew my attention to the statistics produced by the Judicial Commission and she emphasised the insight which her client has into the relationship between taking drugs and offending behaviour. She pointed out that her client is prepared to undertake rehabilitation and that this is his first time in adult custody. Dealing with Mr Baker’s submission about whether her client’s prospects could be described as “good”, she addressed that very comprehensively, arguing that her client had demonstrated some remorse and insight, and that he had had the mixed benefit of having six months in adult custody to appreciate what it was like. Her client was using the time to work in custody, which was a good sign, and had positive plans for his release including more education. She submitted that the progress was demonstrated. Whilst any of those alone may not be regarded as demonstrating good prospects, together she argued that they are. I think there is some force in her submission, and on balance I would find in her favour.

36. Mr Giles again emphasised his client’s early plea and the remorse expressed. He drew my attention to evidence about his client’s intellectual functioning and acknowledged the use of the tyre lever was serious but pointed out that his client wants to undergo rehabilitation.

37. Both offenders, I should add, are from indigenous backgrounds and I need to take that into account in the way that the authorities have said that it can. Both of them are obviously from backgrounds which have affected them as boys and young men and brought them to where they are now. In particular, in Mr Simon’s case it seems that he was introduced to illegal activity as a youngster.

38. Both Ms Crofts and Mr Giles argue that there were special circumstances for adjusting the normal ratio between a non-parole period and a full sentence. Normally that is for three-quarters. That is, an offender must spend 75 per cent of his or her sentence in fulltime custody and 25 per cent on parole. In Mr Towney’s case there were the good prospects of rehabilitation which I have reluctantly, but I think correctly on balance, found and the fact that he must be given an opportunity as a young person to rehabilitate himself. It is also his first time in adult custody, which I think is a factor relevant for me to take into account. Mr Giles emphasised his client’s age, background and his need for drug rehabilitation.

39. I come now to the sentences which I need to impose. I think, given what I have described, that both sentences should be the same. Mr Towney was more violent but Mr Simon was still armed with the tyre lever which he assaulted, even though not seriously, one of the victims with. Both men were in each other’s company. Mr Towney was on conditional liberty but Mr Simon had a lengthy and serious criminal record. Both men shared the proceeds. However, I also accept Mr Baker’s submission that the seriousness of these offences lies at the high end of the scale for the guideline judgment. I regard the appropriate sentence in each case as being one of five years imprisonment.

40. I do propose to accept the submissions that there are good reasons to adjust the non-parole period down from the normal 75 per cent. I propose to fix a non-parole period of two and a half years in each case. That means that each young man must spend two and a half years in fulltime gaol but then can spend two and a half years in the community continuing with the rehabilitation that they hopefully have commenced whilst in prison.

41. Pierce Towney, I convict you of the offence of armed robbery. I sentence you to five years in prison. That will commence on 22 December 2014 and expire on 21 December 2019. I fix a non-parole period of two and a half years to commence on 21 December 2014 and to expire on 21 May 2017. I recommend to the Commissioner of Corrective Services that consideration be given to your participating in the Yetta Dhinnakkal programme at Brewarrina.

42. Tyler Simon, I convict you of the offence of armed robbery and I sentence you to five years imprisonment. That will commence on 22 April 2015 and will expire on 21 April 2020. I fix a non-parole period of two and a half years to commence on 22 April 2015 and to expire on 21 October 2017. I also recommend to the Commissioner for Corrective Services that consideration be given to you participating in the Yetta Dhinnakkal programme at Brewarrina whilst you are in custody.

HIS HONOUR: A number of things. First, and take time all of you, (1) have I made all the formal orders that I need to make? (2) Please check the mathematics. Each of you, separately, check the mathematics and then by all means compare notes and tell me if there’s any errors. (3) Ms Crofts and Mr Scott, if you would get instructions on sending the documents. I do not fix parole, do I?

BAKER: It’s over three years.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Crofts, you're on your feet.

CROFTS: I am, your Honour, if I may, just in respect of the mathematics for my client. I believe your Honour may have misspoken. You started my client’s non-parole period on 21 December when it should have been 22 December.

HIS HONOUR: You are right.

43. The non-parole period for Mr Towney commenced 22 December 2014 and expires 21 May 2017.

CROFTS: That’s the second point, your Honour. It’s with regret to my client but your Honour did say a non-parole period of two and a half years, so I believe it should be 21 June, a month later.

HIS HONOUR: You are quite right.

44. Mr Towney’s non-parole period will expire on 21 June 2017.

CROFTS: I should point out I’m very happy to be wrong about that but that’s my maths.

HIS HONOUR: No, no, thank you. You are quite right and that is consistent with your duty to the Court. I make it clear to the offenders and the members of their family that you have a duty to the Court in that regard and I thank you for discharging that.

CROFTS: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: It would have been picked up anyway sooner or later.

CROFTS: Of course, your Honour, yes. Other than that, your Honour, I am content with those orders. In respect of the report, your Honour, I have sought instructions. My client would not like his report to be faxed. I realise I don't have to give a reason but I will just in the sense that he is a young man and in giving that report he said certain things on the expectation it would only be used in this forum.

HIS HONOUR: Sorry, it what?

CROFTS: He said certain things on the expectation he was told it would only be used for the purposes of sentencing.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

CROFTS: And the wider implications of letting Corrective Services know all the material that’s in there is not a decision he is prepared to make at this time.

HIS HONOUR: I understand. That’s why I offer the choice.

CROFTS: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Scott?

SCOTT: Your Honour, in relation to Mr Simon, I’ve conferred with Mr Crown and we’ve got no issue with the orders and the dates. We believe that is correct.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

SCOTT: In relation to the report of Mr Simon, he has no objection to that going to the Department of Corrective Services.

HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you. I will direct my associate to send the report. You are for Mr Simon, so in your case the report will be Dr Furst, a copy of exhibit 2, my associate will send to Corrective Services in respect of Mr Simon. My orders will contain the recommendation for Yetta Dhinnakkal as well.

CROFTS: Thank you, your Honour.

45. Pierce Towney and Tyler Simon, you have committed a very serious crime together, which is why you have got five years. I have given the reasons and explained it, which I have to do. You are familiar with that, judges and magistrates giving reasons. It is a big sentence for young men like you but you committed a very serious crime, and you heard what I read out, the impact that it had on the victims to your crime. But instead of fixing your non-parole period at three-quarters, I have fixed it at half that, two and a half years. So that, Pierce Towney, you are eligible for release on 21 June 2017 and, Tyler Simon, you are eligible for release on 21 October 2017. Do you understand? Okay. That is because your sentences started at different dates. Whether you get released is up to the Parole Authority, not me. Okay? Now, perhaps what the most significant thing I have done is recommend that, if possible, that they refer you to this Yetta Dhinnakkal in custody which may well help you in dealing with issues and may well get you onto the straight and narrow. It looks to me, looking around the Court, that you have got a lot of family support here behind you and that, plus these programmes in custody, I am hoping will get you back on the straight and narrow. But you have got to serve the time for what you did. That was very serious and it is up to you two now to sort that out. Do you understand?

HIS HONOUR: Is there anything else?

SCOTT: No, your Honour.

CROFTS: No, your Honour.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 September 2015