R v White

[2019] NSWDC 298

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v White [2019] NSWDC 298
Hearing dates:	22 May 2019
Date of orders:	22 May 2019
Decision date:	22 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Property offences — Break, enter and commit serious indictable offence CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, No. 1 of 2002 at [2002] NSWCCA 518 Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 Bugmy [2013] HCA 37 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Michael Scott White (Offender)
Representation:	Dion Carnell (Crown) Lynda Davids (counsel) (Offender)   Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Legal Aid Commission (NSW) (Offender)
File Number(s):	2018/00139778, 2018/00139799, 2018/00163851 & 2018/00197038

EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT (REVISED)

1. Michael Scott White is now 48 years of age and today is presented for proceedings on sentence in respect of two offences with additional offences to be taken into account pursuant to s 32 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the particulars of which are included on two separate Forms 1, one each for the principal offences upon which sentence is to be determined.

DISCOUNT FOR PLEAS OF GUILTY

2. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court to the principal offences and was committed for sentence. Here he adhered to his plea of guilty in each case. He has thus provided utility which, in accordance with Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102, attracts a discount of 25% in accordance with the statements of principle from Howie J in that decision. The discount shall be applied to the sentence that I have settled upon in each case as appropriate upon the synthesis of objective and subjective facts, taking into account what I accept to be demonstrated contrition and remorse and insight into why he committed these offences, subject to what I find to be poor prospects for rehabilitation.

PRE SENTENCE CUSTODY

3. He was arrested on 3 May 2018 for these offences; he was at the time subject to parole for prior misconduct of like nature. In due course, the parole authorities revoked his parole and he was required to serve the balance of his sentence which continued from 3 May 2018 until 18 February 2019. Thus, although he has been in custody since the commencement of his present incarceration, not all of that time has been allotted to his misconduct upon which I am to impose punishment.

4. I am called upon frequently to review the decision of Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58, and in particular the judgement of Simpson J who wrote of the discretion a sentencing court has with regard to the commencement of a sentence, bringing into account the relevant provisions in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

5. At para 23, her Honour wrote:

“It would, in my opinion, in some cases be unfair not to backdate to some point (not necessarily the date of revocation of parole) before the expiration of the earlier parole period. It is always open to an offender to seek and be granted parole, even after a revocation; to sentence in such a way as to commence the subsequent sentence only on the date of expiration of the whole of the previously imposed head sentence is to assume that, absent the subsequent offences, the offender would not have been granted a second chance at parole.”

6. The Crown correctly points out that this offender is burdened by an extensive record of criminal antecedents and also engaged upon the present matters when subject to conditional liberty by way of parole. It is said he ought to suffer punishment additional to the custodial component to which he has been subject since revocation of parole.

7. There is merit in what the Crown had to say but there is also to be brought to account that he was on parole for a significant period of time before he committed these present offences. He was granted parole on 31 March 2017 and was arrested on 3 May 2018, after a year and two months, during which time it appears he was making some progress. But although in his own words he was living the dream in that period, he surrendered to his past practices and threw his more recent opportunities away.

8. I am satisfied that I should commence this aggregate sentence I intend to impose today on 3 May 2018, bringing into account the matters I am going to explore and the history of his past sentence, the period during which he was at large until his arrest on this occasion, and that he had spent some time progressing towards rehabilitation unfortunately to cast it away with his further misconduct.

FORM 1 OFFENCES

9. The Form 1 offences to be brought to account will impact upon the principal offences, increasing the sentence that would have otherwise been imposed in each case were those principal offences before me standing alone.

10. He has gained advantage, indeed I reflected on the fact that this case resonates with my experiences in the criminal justice system in the past decades where people such as the offender would commit crimes, be captured, acknowledge guilt, and clear the slate by bringing matters to account. He has avoided separate punishment for the individual offences to be brought to account and he has some advantage from that but by taking the course that he has, he provided utility and that must be also brought to his account to his credit.

11. He does not escape entirely, however. In accordance with the judgement of Spigelman CJ in Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, No.1 of 2002 at [2002] NSWCCA 518 the additional offences will impact upon the sentence for the principal offences in which they are to be taken into account. There will be an increase to the sentence that would have otherwise been applied to the principal offences standing alone, reflecting the need for greater weight to be given to the aspect of personal deterrence arising from the extent of the misconduct upon which the offender engaged and the community’s entitlement to retribution for his misconduct, recognising the harm he caused to the community and for the victims of these crimes.

ANTECEDENTS

12. I have referred to his antecedent record and the fact that he was on parole. These are aggravating factors but within a limited scope in accordance with the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242. The past record and the fact that he was on parole informs the extent to which he should be denied leniency on this occasion and the weight that should be given to personal deterrence in the assessment of sentence. The past misconduct does not aggravate the objective nature of the offending or the proportionate sentence that would be applied to the offending, subject of course to the synthesis of the subjective material to be brought to account in his favour.

THE FACTS

13. Turning to the facts - and this document is set out helpfully in chronological sequence - on 15 April 2018, the offender committed the first offence of break, enter and commit the serious indictable offence of larceny contrary to s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty specified for the offence is imprisonment for 14 years. There is no standard non‑parole period specified for the purposes of Part 4 Div 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

14. The victim’s premises was a business in Tollis Place, Seven Hills. The premises consist of a large warehouse in the centre of the property with a sales office located within. The boundary of the property was fenced and gated.

15. About 4pm on Sunday 15 April 2018, the business closed for the day and was left locked and secured. The boundary gates were shut, the warehouse was secured with the roller doors closed, the glass sliding door shut and fire escape doors closed.

16. About 8.30pm on that day, the offender entered the grounds. Whilst walking around the grounds of the business he opened the door of a Mitsubishi truck and looked inside. He did not enter the vehicle. He then entered the warehouse through a closed fire escape door and went to the sales office within. He there located the cash till which contained $7,000 in Australian currency. The till was forced open and the currency was stolen by the offender. The offender then stole a Telstra Wi-Fi card in the name of the proprietor of this business. He then stole a thin client hard drive and a circular saw blade valued at $200.

17. About 5.30am on the following day, Monday 16 April 2018, the manager attended the location, saw that the fire escape door had been damaged, and thus became aware of the break and enter. Police were notified. They attended. They viewed the closed-circuit television which revealed the offender in the grounds walking about as he first entered. His clothing was noted and he was also seen to display a tattoo on his arm which was recognised.

18. When I sentence him for that offence, which I find to be below mid-range of objective gravity, I am to take into account that on 22 April 2018 he attended the premises again and after initially breaking into the complex one week earlier by unknown means he forced the fire escape door, entered the warehouse and office. He returned to the till but found no currency as the victim had decided not to risk leaving money there after the first episode. The offender left the premises. That offence is contrary to s 113(1) Crimes Act. The maximum penalty specified for that offence is imprisonment for ten years.

19. The next offence on the statement of facts is an offence included on the Form 1 relevant to the break, enter and steal upon which sentence is imposed, the second such offence in the sequence before me.

20. In this instance the offence was breaking, entering, and stealing contrary to s 112(1) (a) Crimes Act; the victim, a woman, owned a beauty salon located in Seven Hills. About 12.30pm on Friday 27 April 2018, staff left those premises locked and secured. About 10am on Sunday 29 April 2018, the offender drove his motor vehicle, a Mazda, to the location, parked in the street and approached the front gate. He forced that open and entered the grounds. He forced open a fire door and entered the location. He went through various offices and warehouse. He removed a number of items and made three separate trips to his vehicle carrying boxes of property from the location. He placed these in his vehicle and left about 15 minutes later.

21. Taken were five iPhone 7 Plus mobile phones valued at $1,050 each; an iPhone 8 Plus phone box containing headphones valued at approximately $50; two Samsung Galaxy tablets; an unknown amount of nail polish; and an unknown amount of assorted makeup in silver boxes. He was partially captured on CCTV footage.

22. The next offence is the break, enter and steal contrary to s 112(1) (a) Crimes Act upon which I am also to impose sentence.

23. On Monday 30 April at 2 am the offender drove his vehicle into the driveway of a premises in Girraween. This comprised two townhouse structures with two units in each. Units 1 and 2 were at the front and units 3 and 4 at the rear.

24. The front doors of rear units 3 and 4 were accessible via the driveway down the side next to the fence. As in the earlier circumstances the offender’s vehicle bore the registration plates issued in respect of it.

25. He stopped in the driveway and left the car with a black metal bar about 50 centimetres in length. He approached the door of unit 3. He opened the closed but unlocked metal screen door and then used the bar to jemmy the lock on the locked timber door, leaving damage to it. He entered the unit. The premises were occupied by two people named in the facts. He removed two drawers from the bedside table. These contained a blue fabric bag with golden thread which contained a 22 carat gold wedding chain with a heart pendant; a 22 carat gold necklace with a flower pattern; a 22 carat yellow gold chain with a heart pendant; a 22 carat yellow gold chain with a pendant of letters; two 22 carat yellow gold bangles; another two 22 carat yellow gold bangles; another two 22 carat yellow gold bangles; a plain yellow gold wedding ring with inscription; a plain yellow gold wedding ring with another inscription; three to four golden pendants; a pair of yellow gold earrings; and another pair of yellow gold earrings. There was a pink coloured heart-shaped jewellery box which contained a lady’s gold watch and other artificial jewellery. There was a silver Citizen brand watch and a Swatch brand watch.

26. The total value of these items was $27,850. The value in monetary terms was significant, but although there is nothing said in these terms I would expect that the nature of these items is such that they carried an intrinsic, more personal value to the victims of this crime, which I have not overlooked.

27. After taking the jewellery, he also took a laptop computer and a computer monitor. Those two items are included in the total value of the property stolen.

28. The next two offences are on the Form 1 relevant to that principal offence. First of all, there is an offence contrary to s 114(1) (d) Crimes Act of entering land with intent to commit a serious indictable offence for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for ten years; the other offence contrary to s 114 Crimes Act is for an offence committed whilst having a previous conviction, for which carries the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years.

29. These offences were at Northmead. The premises consist of a townhouse front, behind which is an historic single storey dwelling with a further two storeys toward the rear. The front door faces the street. The property is surrounded by a wooden picket fence. The front door is about 10 metres from a latched gate. There are two people named as the victims here.

30. On Wednesday 2 May 2018, about 1.50pm, the offender drove in his motor vehicle to that address. Closed-circuit television footage provided by the victims showed him pass by the house, then suddenly stop and reverse until the vehicle was directly out the front. He alighted and walked up to the front latched gate, looked around and then leaned over the fence, opened it, and then closed the latch from the inside.

31. He walked directly to the front door, pressed the doorbell. While waiting for a response he peered through the glass panels on the front door before peering through the window to the right of the door. He placed his right hand near his right eye, cupping it as he peered through the window to be able to see. He pressed the doorbell before looking through the window on the side again and then placed his right hand up on the front door and tried to open the door by turning the handle. The door was locked however. He then looked through the side door once more.

32. The victim began to speak through the door and said, “If you’ve got a parcel just leave it at the front door.” The offender replied, “Sorry brother, wrong house, yeah, no, no, wrong house, sorry,” as he walked away from the door and back towards the gate towards his car. He then drove away.

33. At the time the female occupant was at home with her young daughter, who was asleep, and reported the matter to the police.

34. He had no permission to be on those premises and it is quite clear to be inferred from the circumstances that he was there to, if possible, break and enter into the establishment. By acknowledging his guilt in respect of the offences charged in respect of that event he has acknowledged all the elements of the charges to be brought to account.

35. On Thursday 3 May 2018, the police attended where the offender was living with his partner. She told the police that he was not home and would not be back until the afternoon. She opened the door; the police officers entered, and found the offender hiding beneath the bed. His response was, “All right, you got me, you got me.” I might say that resonates with past experiences of people such as this offender in such circumstances.

36. He was arrested and cautioned and taken to Granville. The premises were searched at first with the permission of the occupant and then under the authority of a warrant. Items that were previously stolen, the subject of these charges, were located.

37. He participated in an electronically recorded interview. He made comments about the break and enter at the location when it was put to him by the police in respect of one of the events. In respect of the other he made admissions; that is in respect of the offence in Girraween. He accepted responsibility. He said he could not remember what he did there or what he took. He made admissions about the other episodes of misconduct.

38. On 29 June 2018, when he was in custody, the police attended the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre. They interviewed him once more. He was shown closed-circuit television footage and photos of another one of the incidents. He identified himself. He gave an explanation that he went there the night before to drop a girl off; he thought it was her house. He made full admissions as to being at the location and entering without permission of the owner as well as identifying himself and the clothing he was wearing.

THE OFFENDER

39. His record of antecedents is extensive. The watermarked antecedent report begins with his first Children’s Court appearance in November 1986. The document extends over 33 pages.

40. He has been a persistent offender, engaged upon misconduct of the type that is before the Court. He has spent most of his adult life in gaol.

41. The custodial record shows;

• His first entry into the adult system on 21 April 1989 where he remained until 23 May that year.

• He returned to custody on 11 August 1989 until 29 September 1989.

• He returned to custody on 28 February 1990 until 4 April 1990.

• Then from 7 June 1990 to 13 October 1990.

• From 27 May 1992 to 24 April 1993.

• From 13 March 1996 until 27 May 1996.

• From 9 August 1996 until 24 August 1997.

• From 18 September 1998 until 18 September 2000.

• From 30 October 2000 to 23 November 2000.

• From 29 May 2001 to 31 December 2005.

• From 26 July 2006 to 6 November 2010.

• From 1 March 2011 to 14 May 2013.

• From 23 May 2013 to 31 March 2017.

42. He was then as I said earlier at large on parole, apparently making some progress, until he was arrested and taken back into custody which commenced in Corrective Services on 4 May 2018, the day after his arrest, and he has been there ever since.

43. The fact that he was making some progress is supported by the evidence given in his case by Mr Warren Richard Weir who is a director of Providential Homes, a registered charity that provides accommodation and assistance for homeless people and those unfortunately in the position of the offender. The offender has engaged with Mr Weir, I was told, for some 12 years from time to time. He has performed work for the organisation. When interacting in that context he is said to be cooperative. He clearly is someone for whom Mr Weir holds feelings of friendship, perhaps even affection. He is anxious to provide whatever assistance he and his colleagues can provide the offender when he is to be released on parole, hopefully to contribute to whatever can be done to achieve rehabilitation.

44. I found Mr Weir to be a credible and helpful witness in the proceedings.

45. I also note that the offender has no custodial offences after the most recent recorded in June of 2014. Up until that time there was an unfortunate history of misconduct in custody, perhaps consistent with someone of his age and attitude at that time. But it is clear that since then, a period of five years or thereabouts, he has not been a problem for those responsible for his supervision in gaol.

42. His classification history provides particulars of his arrangements in custody up until 5 May 2018. This includes reference to his diagnosis of mental health issues or conditions to which I shall come. He involved himself in some conduct understood to be an attempt to escape back in 2015 and that has had an impact upon the approach Correctives are now required to take with regard to him to ensure that he stays where he is supposed to be.

43. His sentence assessment report refers to the Restoration Centre which is an arm of the organisation of which Mr Weir spoke and this is where the offender intends to go once he is released. His daughter is attributed with frustration at his continued antisocial behaviour which one can well understand.

44. The offender gave evidence about his relationship with his daughters, that it is continuing and they are supportive of him. One of them has recently had a child, and he has lost the time he would no doubt enjoy if he was able to spend it with his grandchild. That is an important part of life, which he has cost himself with this misconduct. But I accept that he has the support of his daughters, frustrated though they might be with his continuing attitudes, at least up until his present incarceration.

45. There is reference to his lengthy history of substance abuse. He has fallen under the spell of the poison methylamphetamine known as ice and also liquid GBH. He admits to himself that he has been morally bankrupt as a consequence of his resort to drugs and the behaviour upon which he has engaged thereafter.

46. The report refers to his diagnosis of depression, bipolar disorder and post‑traumatic stress disorder with prescribed medication. He had been non‑compliant with that when at large but since in custody he has been taking his medication, both antidepressant and antipsychotic. This has been verified with Justice Health, and he has been abstinent from prohibited drugs.

47. He has demonstrated victim insight according to the report. He has acknowledged that his family and friends are offering limited support because of his continued antisocial behaviour. This may be putting the matter a little bit beyond the finding I make that he does have support available to him when he is released, notwithstanding the frustration he might have created in his persistent misconduct.

48. He is assessed as having a high risk of re-offending and that correctly raises the need to do what can be done to provide protection from the offender in the orders that I am about to make.

49. There is a report from Dr Richard Furst, psychiatrist, written on 18 August 2018 and tendered by consent. The doctor has not been required to face cross-examination and the Crown has not said anything to me in terms of why I should not accept the opinions given.

50. The history attributed to the offender includes the probability that he had ADHD from a young age, perhaps even a conduct disorder. He was physically and mentally abused by his stepfather from the ages of seven to ten. This included him being forced to sleep with dogs outside the home in the kennel and the use of a small BB gun to menace the offender such that Mr White believed he has going to be shot and perhaps killed.

51. He suffered sexual abuse by a neighbour between the ages of eight and ten and when placed in a boys’ home at 12 to 13 years of age he was suffering severe behavioural problems and a conduct disorder. He said he was there sexually abused between the ages and 12 and 14 and gave evidence in relation to that in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Childhood Sexual Abuse. Both his mother and brother were alcoholics. His mother has since died. His father survives but is elderly and blind.

52. He has his daughters born to him from two prior relationships which no longer continue. He has a partner that I understand from his evidence continues to support him but she has her own children. I infer that is the lady who sought to protect him from the police when they knocked on the door.

53. He has symptoms of post-traumatic stress re-experiencing the phenomena of childhood sexual abuse with intrusive memories, nightmares, and the memories coming back to him when certain events or circumstances are presented to him. He has demonstrated hypervigilance, an inability to relax and experiencing a sense of fear on a daily basis.

54. There is a history of deliberate self-harm including when he was incarcerated in his twenties. He escaped it is said in 1996. Dr Furst suggests he is institutionalised.

55. He has been dependent on prohibited drugs throughout his life and quickly relapses and re-offends when back on the street.

56. He has been assessed by psychiatrists within the custodial setting, diagnosed with ADHD, and prescribed Dexamphetamine. This provided the means of being calm and more focused. However, this was discontinued after he was returned to gaol in his late twenties.

57. He was again assessed by another psychiatrist in another centre thereafter. He was then diagnosed with bipolar disorder and PTSD. He was prescribed an antipsychotic and mood stabilising medication.

58. Dr Furst suggests that the available history is consistent with mood swings more likely to be a function of his apparent personality disorder and/or the long-term effects of the severe childhood trauma rather than bipolar affective disorder.

59. His drug and alcohol history is discussed including cannabis from the age of 12, ultimately Benzodiazepine and Serapax which he used dualistically and then resorted to the more serious prohibited drugs to which I have referred.

60. His offence-related issues are discussed and they are patent in this case.

61. With regard to recent progress, Dr Furst wrote:

“Mr White was unstable in his mood after his arrest, being managed in the mental health pod of MRRC. He described high levels of his anxiety, poor sleep, negative thoughts and ongoing nightmares about the past abuse. He described ongoing thoughts of self-harm on a daily basis, consistent with a highly unstable personality. He also has scarring on his arms, the product of self‑harm upon which he engaged in his earlier life. He has expressed the view that but for his two daughters he might well have ‘knocked myself’. He is diagnosed with post‑traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorder, opiate dependence, methylamphetamine abuse and personal disorder (borderline and antisocial traits).”

66. Dr Furst relies significantly upon the history of severe childhood abuse, physical, emotional and sexual.

CONSIDERATION

67. This is a case which, without question, attracts the statements of principle found in the High Court decision in Bugmy [2013] HCA 37 and perhaps Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58, the decision in the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales, Although those decisions were concerned with indigenous offenders, regrettably childhood abuse in its various forms are not confined to any one ethnic group and those principles apply to such as this offender in respect of whom they should be called into account at any time in the person’s life that they are before court to face the consequences of criminal misconduct. So much is now made clear by the High Court in statements of principle I would have thought ought to have been applied well before the date upon which the judgements were reached.

68. All of the purposes of a sentencing are engaged in this case. These are articulated in s 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. They are a legislative expression of what the common law has developed over the years as cases have come before the various courts. There must be punishment so that the offender might be reminded yet again that if he embarks upon such misconduct there are consequences which he must face. The sentence and the structure must do what it can to provide for general deterrence and also to provide for the offender’s deterrence from further misconduct. It is hoped that what I do today will contribute to that process.

69. I find that the prospects for rehabilitation are remote. He has a high risk of re-offending but I am not prepared to cast him onto the rubbish heap at this stage of his life. There are people who will support him if he is given the chance in the community.

70. I accept the sincerity with which Mr Weir spoke. I accept what the offender had to say about his family and I accept that he wants to change his way. He recognises what he has lost, I accept, remaining in gaol without access to his first grandchild.

71. I need to provide protection to the community. I could lock him up for the entirety of his sentence I am about to impose and that will do little more than keep him off the street for that limited time. He has to come back into the community at some point. Hopefully the structure of the sentence will provide the opportunity for rehabilitation which, if ignored, will see him back in gaol for the balance of his sentence.

72. What I am doing today I hope makes him accountable. I expect that it will provide denunciation for the misconduct upon which he engaged and I certainly hope that it is seen to be recognition of the harm that he has caused to the individual victims and the community generally.

73. It is the synthesis of all of those matters that the Court must embark upon to determine what should be done in this case.

74. It is also to be brought to account that his diagnoses, the most recent of which is expressed by Dr Furst, mean he is not the ideal vehicle for general deterrence but this is counterbalanced of course with the need to provide protection to the community.

75. The Crown submitted that though there were special circumstances that ought in normal circumstances reduce the custodial component, the need for protection of the community is such in this case that the Court would be circumspect in extending that consideration. There is merit in that view but on balance, bringing together all that I have before me, I believe that I should allow a significant period at large in the community, hopefully to facilitate his rehabilitation.

76. The Crown reminded me of his record and the fact that he was on parole and I have already addressed that. The Crown reminded me of the need for protection of the community and I believe I have already addressed that.

77. His failure to comply with conditional liberty in the past and opportunities for rehabilitation I have noted. I have noted his risk of re-offending and I have noted what the Crown said about the commencement of sentence on 3 May 2018, but I have come to the view that it is the appropriate time when I should commence the sentence.

78. I have applied 25% discount to indicative sentences that I would have otherwise imposed, reflecting utility. The result of that has been to reduce the sentence in each case to periods expressed in years and months and days. I have discounted the additional days.

THE SENTENCES

79. For the offence charged in the sequence H68313929/3, applying the discount and bringing into account the additional offence on the Form 1, I identify as appropriate in this case a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 11 months.

80. For the offence charged in sequence H57049670/1, applying the discount and bringing into account the additional offences on the Form 1, I indicate as appropriate a sentence of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months.

81. I shall impose no aggregate sentence.

82. The sentence is one of 6 years including the non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months commencing from 3 May 2018. He will become eligible for parole on 2 November 2021. The overall sentence will expire on 2 May 2024.

83. The custodial component remaining of the sentence exceeds 18 months and therefore upon the application made on his behalf I refer him to the Drug Court for consideration of his eligibility to participate in the drug program at Parklea.

84. The sentence being more than 3 years he will be eligible for his release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months. It will be a matter for him to demonstrate that he has the capacity to return to the community and participate as a worthwhile member without intruding into other people’s property and taking their belongings. It is entirely up to him to demonstrate that he is worthy of that trust and to maintain that trust once he is at large. Failure to do so of course will see him back in gaol until 2024 at which stage he will be well-past middle age and will have effectively wasted yet another portion of what remains of his life.

85. The exhibits will remain on file for 28 days or such longer period as the parties might require. l shall certify the Form 1 documents in each case.

**********

Decision last updated: 05 July 2019