R v Williams-Savage
[2021] ACTSC 271
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Williams-Savage |
Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 271 |
Hearing Date: | 13 October 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 14 October 2021 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [53] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – attempted burglary – burglary – damaging property – theft – aggravated burglary – drive motor vehicle without consent – attempted take motor vehicle without consent – driving while disqualified – high number of offences committed over confined period – offending associated with illicit drug use – young offender – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – sentences of imprisonment imposed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 65, 79, 151 Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT), ss 35A, 63 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32 |
Parties: | The Queen ( Crown) Jacob Williams-Savage ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel T Hickey ( Crown) S McLaughlin ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 222 of 2020; SCC 223 of 2020 SCC 224 of 2020; SCC 225 of 2020 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
On 2 July 2021, after a six-day judge alone trial, I found the offender, Jacob Williams‑Savage, guilty of the following offences:
(a) Count 1: attempted burglary, contrary to s 311 by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both).
(b) Counts 2 and 7: damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both).
(c) Counts 3 and 10: burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both).
(d) Counts 4 and 8: theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both).
(e) Count 6: aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment, 2000 penalty units or both).
(f) Count 11: drive motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 5 years’ imprisonment, 500 penalty units or both).
On the first day of the trial, the offender entered a plea of guilty to a further count of drive motor vehicle without consent, which was count 14.
Prior to the offender being committed for the trial, he pleaded guilty to the following offences in the Magistrates Court:
(a)Five counts of burglary contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code.
(b)Five counts of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code.
(c)Five counts of damaging property contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code.
(d)One count of attempted burglary contrary to s 311 by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code.
(e)One count of attempted take motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318 by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment, 500 penalty units or both).
(f)One count of driving while disqualified (repeat offender) contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment, 100 penalty units or both; automatic disqualification of 24 months, or longer if the court orders).
At the sentencing hearing, he was found guilty of two additional charges of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender.
Each offence arises out of a series of incidents that took place on 5, 8, 11, 12 and 13 April 2020.
Facts
In 2015 the offender was disqualified by a magistrate from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of five years from 15 July 2016 until 14 July 2021. He was, therefore, disqualified from holding a licence during the following events.
On 4 April 2020 the offender purchased a white Toyota Camry for $500 from a person who lived nearby.
On 5 April 2020 at approximately 3:07am, the offender parked a white sedan at Quintessence Nail and Beauty, a beauty therapy salon in the Belconnen area. The offender got out of the vehicle carrying crowbar. The offender used the crowbar to attempt to pry open the front door of the premises (the attempted entry onto the premises gives rise to count 1 – attempted burglary). The offender then struck the glass front door with a crowbar, breaking the glass (this gives rise to count 2 – damaging property). The offender then ran back to his vehicle and drove away from the premises. The driving of the vehicle involved driving while disqualified as a repeat offender (CC2020/8400).
At approximately 4:40am on 5 April 2020, the offender entered a Domino’s Pizza store in Florey by forcing the bottom half of the front sliding doors of the premises open (the entry into the premises is count 3 – burglary). He was carrying a crowbar which he used to attempt to open the store’s safe. He then searched the cupboards and benchtops near the safe, searched the manager’s office a number of times and made further attempts to open the safe. After approximately nine and a half minutes, the offender exited the premises and drove away. The offender took the following items from the store: $60 in cash, a CCTV hard drive and keys to a white Ford Fiesta (the theft of this property gives rise to count 4 – theft).
On 8 April 2020 shortly after 1:58am, the offender and another man entered the Domino’s Pizza store in Florey through the front glass sliding doors (count 6 aggravated burglary– ). The offender used an angle grinder to open the safe inside the premises (count 7 damaging property –). He then opened containers within the safe. Stolen from the premises were $7560, a Domino’s Pizza hot bag and a number of keys including keys to a gold Toyota Echo (count 8 theft–).
Shortly after 5:30am on 12 April 2020, the offender broke into a Domino’s Pizza store in Fyshwick using the crowbar to force open the front glass door (count 10 burglary–). He had driven there in the gold Toyota Echo along with another man and a woman (count 11 drive motor vehicle without consent– ). That also gives rise to the offence of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender (CC2020/4798).
At about 3:48am on 13 April 2020, the offender drove the gold Toyota Echo to the Yarralumla shops. At 3:53am he parked outside the Yarralumla pharmacy, broke the bottom half of the front door and went inside (CC2020/4793 burglary; CC2020/4794: damaging property– ). He stole assorted medications, a cash register and children’s toys valued at $1468.47 (CC2020/4795 theft– ).
At about 5:18am, the offender reversed the gold Toyota Echo through the front doors of the Capital Chemist in Hughes causing substantial damage to the front glass entry doors (CC2020/4471 burglary; CC2020/4472 damaging property––). He stole prescription medication and other items valued at $154.44 before driving away (CC2020/4473 theft– ).
He then drove straight to Garran where he reversed the gold Toyota Echo through the front glass sliding doors of the Capital Chemist in another ram raid burglary (CC2020/4476 burglary– ). This caused substantial damage to the front glass entry doors (CC2020/4477 – damaging property). He stole 108 boxes of medicine valued at $2802.75 (CC2020/4473 theft–).
He then drove 10km to Fyshwick and between 5:35am and 5:55am reversed the gold Toyota Echo through the front glass doors of Uneke Furniture in Fyshwick (CC2020/4484 – burglary). This caused substantial damage to the front glass entry doors of the store (CC2020/4485 – damaging property). He stole a green vase with flower ornaments valued at $117 (CC2020/4796 – theft).
A short time later he drove 140m down the street to a shop called Quizzic Alley and reversed the car into the front doors of the store. The impact of the car caused substantial damage to the front doors (CC2020/4480 – damaging property). He did not manage to get into the store but had attempted to do so (CC2020/4479 – attempted burglary).
He then abandoned the car and went on foot to the Howard Revell steering service where he broke a glass window and climbed inside (CC2020/4481 – burglary). He searched inside the building and stole a cordless rattle gun and a snap on scanner valued in total at $3700 (CC2020/4482 – theft). He took a key to a white Ford Falcon Ute which was parked in the rear yard. Police approached as he was reversing the ute down the driveway towards the gate. He got out of the vehicle and ran away with a backpack in his hand. The driving of the vehicle is charge CC2020/4483 – attempt take motor vehicle without consent.
Driving the gold Toyota Echo on 13 April 2020 constituted driving while disqualified (as a repeat offender) (CC2020/8394) and driving a motor vehicle without consent (Count 14).
Summary of charges and pleas
Offence Maximum penalty Date of offence Date of plea of guilty (if applicable) Stage of proceedings when plea entered or finding of guilt made Count 1: Attempted burglary
(Quintessence Nail and Beauty)14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both 5 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at conclusion of trial Count 2: damaging property
(Quintessence Nail and Beauty)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 5 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at conclusion of trial CC2020/8400: drive while disqualified as a repeat offender
(Quintessence Nail and Beauty)1 year’s imprisonment, 100 penalty units or both 5 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at the sentence hearing Count 3: burglary
(Domino’s Pizza Florey)14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both 5 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at conclusion of trial Count 4: theft (Domino’s Pizza Florey) 10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 5 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at conclusion of trial Count 6: aggravated burglary
(Domino’s Pizza Florey)20 years’ imprisonment, 2000 penalty units or both 8 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at conclusion of trial Count 7: damaging property
(Domino’s Pizza Florey)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 8 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at conclusion of trial Count 8: theft
(Domino’s Pizza Florey)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 8 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at conclusion of trial Count 10: burglary
(Domino’s Pizza Fyshwick)14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both 12 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at conclusion of trial Count 11: Drive motor vehicle without consent
(Domino’s Pizza Fyshwick)5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units or both 12 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at conclusion of trial CC2020/4798: drive while disqualified as a repeat offender
(Gold Toyota Echo Domino’s Fyshwick)1 year’s imprisonment, 100 penalty units or both 12 April 2020 N/A Found guilty at the sentence hearing CC2020/4793: burglary (Yarralumla Pharmacy) 14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4794: damaging property
(Yarralumla Pharmacy)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4795: theft
(Yarralumla Pharmacy)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4471: burglary
(Capital Chemist Hughes)14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4472: damaging property
(Capital Chemist, Hughes)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4473: theft
(Capital Chemist, Hughes)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4476: burglary
(Capital Chemist Garran)14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4477: damaging property
(Capital Chemist Garran)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4478: theft
(Capital Chemist Garran)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4484: burglary
(Uneke Furniture)14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4485: damaging property
(Uneke Furniture)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4796: theft
(Uneke Furnture)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4479: attempted burglary
(Quizzic Alley)14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4480: damaging property
(Quizzic Alley)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4481: burglary
(Howard Revell)14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4482: theft
(Howard Revell)10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention CC2020/4483: attempted take motor vehicle without consent (Howard Revell) 5 years’ imprisonment, 500 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 29 June 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the sixth mention Count 14: drive motor vehicle without consent
(gold Toyota Echo ram raids)5 years’ imprisonment, 500 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 21 June 2021 Pleaded guilty on the first day of the trial CC2020/8394: drive while disqualified as a repeat offender
(gold Toyota Echo ram raids)1 year’s imprisonment, 100 penalty units or both 13 April 2020 2 October 2020 In the Magistrates Court at the third mention
Objective seriousness
All of the offending is aggravated by the fact that it was undertaken at a time when the offender was on conditional liberty because he was serving a sentence of imprisonment by intensive correction in the community.
The burglaries were all on commercial premises. They occurred at night or the very early morning. They involved varying degrees of preplanning. They included the carrying of a crowbar and other tools, coming in company so that there was a lookout, the use of angle grinders in order to open or attempt to open safes, the use of a hood to disguise the offender’s identity and the use of gloves. The burglaries of Domino’s on 8 and 12 April 2020 involved those stores being targeted and the offender being armed with angle grinders in order to open the safes. The ram raids involved a deliberate decision to use the vehicle as the means of entry. The burglaries are in the mid-range of objective seriousness.
The objective seriousness of the damage property charges is generally proportional to the nature of the damage caused. That was obviously very significant in relation to the ram raids, where the shopfront was substantially destroyed and other damage caused as a result of the entry of the vehicle through the side of the building. Each would have involved disruption of the business to a greater or lesser extent. The damage property charges range from the low range to the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness.
The thefts were all of commercial premises. The objective seriousness of the theft is largely determined by the value of the property stolen. The purpose of the theft did not reduce the seriousness of the theft, it arising directly or indirectly out of the offender’s misuse of drugs. Most of the property stolen from the chemists remained in the gold Toyota Echo after it was abandoned and is likely to have been returned, reducing the loss arising from the offending. The offending is from the low to mid-range of objective seriousness.
The driving and attempting to take motor vehicles charges involved the use of those vehicles for criminal offending. So too did the driving while disqualified charges. These are in the mid-range of objective seriousness.
Subjective circumstances
The offender’s subjective circumstances are set out in a pre-sentence report dated 6 October 2021 and a letter from his grandmother.
The offender is currently 31 years old. He was 29 at the time of the offending. He was born in Canberra. His parents separated before the offender was born and he was raised by his mother, who then remarried and had two further children. He had a positive relationship with his stepfather. However, his mother separated from his stepfather and entered a relationship with man who was an alcoholic and verbally abusive. As a teenager, the offender moved in with his grandmother to escape the hostile environment at home. The offender maintains positive relationships with his grandmother, parents, two sisters and extended family members.
He has two children aged eight and 10 years old from a previous marriage which ended when he was 25 years old. The offender has had little contact with the children since the marriage ended. He also has two children aged four and six years old from a subsequent relationship which has now ended. The offender maintained a week on, week off custody arrangement with his children before being remanded in custody.
Before entering custody, the offender was living with his grandmother and his children would stay with him at his grandmother’s home. In early 2020, due to the increased risk visitors posed to his elderly grandmother’s health, it was decided that the offender’s children not visit him there. In the two weeks prior to being remanded in custody for the current offences, he moved from his grandmother’s home to a hotel in an effort to continue his bi-weekly custody arrangement with the children.
The offender completed year nine at high school. He then completed an apprenticeship as a roofer. For a time after he got married, he worked on a dairy farm in the country. After his divorce, he returned to Canberra and resumed working as a roofer. He was unable to continue this work when he lost his driver’s licence but was able to find work as a traffic controller. The offender plans to resume working as a traffic controller when he is released from custody and has arranged work with another prospective employer.
He reported commencing using cannabis at 14 or 15 years old. Within six months, he began using methamphetamine. At 18 years old the offender stopped using methamphetamine and replaced it with “party drugs” such as cocaine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine on weekends. However, he eventually returned to methamphetamine. His methamphetamine use did stop for a four‑year period when he got married, although he has been using it on and off ever since his divorce.
The offender described the period during which he was subject to an intensive correction order (ICO) in 2019 and 2020 as positive because he received drug and alcohol counselling through Karralika Programs and was under supervision. Although, he had relapsed during this period and was subject to breach action related to illicit substance use on two occasions, he felt was “working on it” and felt encouraged to achieve abstinence.
While in custody the offender applied to attend a drug and alcohol counselling program within the Alexander Maconochie Centre provided by Directions Health. However, this program did not proceed due to the COVID-19 lockdown. He has also enquired about residential rehabilitation options, including the Canberra Recovery Service (CRS) but CRS did not accept referrals that had not completed the therapeutic community program within the prison, which the offender had not.
The offender describes his mental health as currently stable. He does not have a formal mental health diagnosis. The offender is physically healthy, although he was recently undergoing investigations related to his liver.
In relation to his attitude to the offending, the offender indicated that after he left his grandmother’s home and started living in a hotel in an effort to continue visitation with his children, he turned to drugs and felt “the world was against” him. He spent the money from the crimes on drugs and hotel rooms. He expressed embarrassment at his behaviour and indicated he has not previously engaged in this type of offending.
The author of the pre-sentence report noted that the offender has positive factors in his life, including family support, good employment prospects, physical health and an expressed desire to become a pro-social member of society. However, he also has a history of non-compliance with community-based orders and a history of problematic drug use. The pre-sentence report author expressed the view that meaningful engagement with services to address illicit substance use and participation in cognitive behaviour therapy may reduce his risk of reoffending.
The offender was assessed as not suitable for an ICO due to his untreated drug addiction and previous failure to comply with an ICO.
The letter from his grandmother emphasises that he is a devoted and good father to his two younger children and that he maintains the goal of being involved in their parenting and having a stable job. The offender also wrote letters of apology to the owners of the businesses which were the subject of ram raid burglaries on 13 April 2020 and to the owner of the Quintessence Nail and Beauty salon. Those letters articulated an understanding of the impact of his offending and were consistent with a motivation to rehabilitate himself.
Criminal history
The offender’s criminal history is largely driving related. Amongst other driving offences, he has six convictions for driving while disqualified and has received a number of custodial penalties for such offending. Because of his continued driving while disqualified he had reached the point where he was subject to a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment to be served by way of an ICO at the time of the current offending. While the criminal history does not include property offending of the type now charged, it significantly reduces the potential for leniency.
Pleas of guilty
In relation to those charges for which he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court, the offender will receive a discount of approximately 25 per cent on the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed. For the plea of guilty on the first day of the trial, he will receive a discount of 25 per cent, the Crown accepting that this should be treated as an early plea, having regard to what it understood the position of the offender to be. He is not entitled to any discount in relation to those charges proven after the hearing.
Time in custody, ICO and backdating
The offender went into custody on 18 April 2020 and has spent 544 days in custody in relation to the offences currently before the court prior to today
There was some debate at the sentencing hearing as to how to deal with the breach of the ICO that was imposed in June 2019 and which he was still serving at the time of the offending. The Crown submitted that notwithstanding that by the time the pleas of guilty were made or offences found proved, the ICO had expired, it was nevertheless appropriate to cancel the ICO and order that the remainder of the offender sentence be served by full-time detention. The Crown drew attention to s 79 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) which provides that a court may act under chapter 5 “in relation to anything arising during the term of an intensive correction order, even if the term of the order has ended”. Counsel for the offender submitted that the drafting of the legislation was not as clear as the Crown said it was in relation to breaches of parole: see s 151 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act. In this case, the period in question is relatively short. The first of the current series of offences was committed on 5 April 2020, the offender went into custody on 18 April 2020, the ICO expired on 30 April 2020. The issue as to the cancellation of ICOs after they have expired is one of some significance which, in other cases, may have consequences much greater than in this case. The matter was only the subject of limited submissions by the parties.
In this case, I will not cancel the now expired ICO from the date of the first offending or the date upon which the offender went into custody. Rather, I will take the existence of that ICO and the legislative intention behind s 65 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act into account when exercising my discretion in relation to backdating of the current sentences pursuant to s 63 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT). Because of the existence of the ICO and the liability of the offender to serve the balance of the sentence by full-time detention, I will not backdate the current sentences beyond the end of the period of the ICO. This means that the backdate date will become 1 May 2020, the day after the expiry of the sentence being served by intensive correction. For the purposes of s 65(2)(a) and (7) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act, I decline to cancel the ICO because having regard to the manner in which I am dealing with the backdating of the sentences that I am imposing, the magnitude of those sentences that I am imposing today and the modest period remaining on the ICO, I consider that cancellation is not in the interests of justice.
Consideration
The offending involved serious property related offending. It was an intense but confined period of offending. The offending was associated with the offender’s return to illicit drug use.
While the offender does have a significant criminal history, it is not a history involving this kind of serious property offending.
General deterrence must be a very significant sentencing consideration because of the vulnerability of commercial premises such as those involved in the current offending to property crime of this type, particularly by persons seeking to maintain illicit drug habits.
Specific deterrence must also be a significant consideration, particularly in light of the unresolved issues of illicit drug use by the offender and the failure of the offender to modify his conduct despite significant sentences that is reflected in his criminal history.
On the other hand, rehabilitation of the offender must also be a goal. This offending arose from the offender’s reversion to illicit drug use. He has obviously had a long-term but fluctuating problem with methamphetamine use. He is still relatively young and he appears motivated both for himself and for his children to get his life back on track. The current offending involved the offender going completely off the rails over a relatively short period. His past history and his family connections mean that there are reasonable prospects for his rehabilitation.
If he returns to significant methamphetamine use then that will increase the likelihood of further serious criminal offending such as is demonstrated here. His rehabilitation must involve getting himself in a position, where even in times of stress and difficulty, he does not relapse in that way. Whether that necessitates a period in residential rehabilitation after his release from prison is a matter that will be best assessed at the point where he applies for parole.
The sheer volume of offending and the gravity of that offending must lead to significant penalties being imposed but a degree of concurrency must be introduced because of the close temporal relationship between the offending and the need to achieve an overall sentence which is not crushing and gives appropriate recognition to the offender’s potential for rehabilitation.
Orders
The sentences that I will impose are set out in the table.
Offence Starting point and the discount Sentence Cumulation Start and end dates Count 1: Attempted burglary
(Quintessence Nail and Beauty)14 months
(nil)14 months - 1 May 2020-30 June 2021 Count 2: damaging property
(Quintessence Nail and Beauty)2 months
(nil)2 months 1 month 1 June 2021-31 July 2021 CC2020/8400: drive while disqualified as a repeat offender
(Quintessence Nail and Beauty)6 months
(nil)6 months 1 month 1 March 2021-31 August 2021 Count 3: burglary
(Domino’s Pizza Florey)16 months
(nil)16 months 6 months 1 November 2020-28 February 2022 Count 4: theft (Domino’s Pizza Florey) 3 months
(nil)3 months 1 month 1 January 2022-31 March 2022 Count 6: aggravated burglary
(Domino’s Pizza Florey)24 months
(nil)24 months 9 months 1 January 2021-31 December 2022 Count 7: damaging property
(Domino’s Pizza Florey)6 months
(nil)6 months 2 months 1 September 2022-28 February 2023 Count 8: theft
(Domino’s Pizza Florey)10 months
(nil)10 months 2 months 1 July 2022-30 April 2023 Count 10: burglary
(Domino’s Pizza Fyshwick)16 months
(nil)16 months 7 months 1 August 2022-30 November 2023 Count 11 Drive motor vehicle without consent
(Domino’s Pizza Fyshwick)9 months
(nil)9 months 1 month 1 April 2023-31 December 2023 CC2020/4798: drive while disqualified as a repeat offender
(gold Toyota Echo Domino’s Fyshwick)6 months
(nil)6 months 1 month 1 August 2023-31 January 2024 CC2020/4793: burglary (Yarralumla Pharmacy) 16 months
(25%)12 months 7 months 1 September 2023-31 August 2024 CC2020/4794: damaging property
(Yarralumla Pharmacy)4 months
(25%)3 months 1 months 1 July 2024-30 September 2024 CC2020/4795: theft
(Yarralumla Pharmacy)4 months
(25%)3 months 1 month 1 August 2024-31 October 2024 CC2020/4471: burglary
(Capital Chemist Hughes)16 months
(25%)12 months 6 months 1 May 2024-30 April 2025 CC2020/4472: damaging property
(Capital Chemist, Hughes)16 months
(25%)12 months 4 months 1 September 2024-31 August 2025 CC2020/4473: theft
(Capital Chemist, Hughes)1 month
(25%)23 days 0 months 9 August 2025-31 August 2025 CC2020/4476: burglary
(Capital Chemist, Garran)16 months
(25%)12 months 6 months 1 March 2025-28 February 2026 CC2020/4477: damaging property
(Capital Chemist, Garran)16 months
(25%)12 months 4 months 1 July 2025-30 June 2026 CC2020/4478: theft
(Capital Chemist, Garran)6 months
(25%)4 months 15 days 1 month 17 March 2026- 31 July 2026 CC2020/4484: burglary
(Uneke Furniture)16 months
(25%)12 months 6 months 1 February 2026-31 January 2027 CC2020/4485: damaging property
(Uneke Furniture)16 months
(25%)12 months 4 months 1 June 2026-31 May 2027 CC2020/4796: theft
(Uneke Furnture)1 months
(25%)23 days 0 months 9 May 2027-31 May 2027 CC2020/4479: Attempted burglary
(Quizzic Alley)14 months
(25%)10 months 15 days 4 months 16 November 2026-30 September 2027 CC2020/4480: damaging property
(Quizzic Alley)16 months
(25%)12 months 4 months 1 February 2027-31 January 2028 CC2020/4481: burglary
(Howard Revell)14 months
(25%)10 months 15 days 4 months 17 July 2027-31 May 2028 CC2020/4482: theft
(Howard Revell)8 months
(25%)6 months 2 months 1 February 2028-31 July 2028 CC2020/4483: attempted take motor vehicle without consent (Howard Revell) 8 months
(25%)6 months 1 month 1 March 2028-31 August 2028 Count 14: drive motor vehicle without consent
(gold Toyota Echo ram raids)9 months
(25%)6 months 22 days 1 month 9 March 2028-30 September 2028 CC2020/8394: drive while disqualified as a repeat offender
(gold Toyota Echo ram raids)6 months
(25%)4 months 15 days 1 month 17 June 2028-31 October 2028
The total period of imprisonment under the sentences is the 102 months or eight years and six months commencing on 1 May 2020 and ending on 31 October 2028.
The non-parole period will be set in a way that reflects the potential for the offender’s rehabilitation and which gives him a substantial period on parole in the community. The non-parole period will be reduced by three months pursuant to s 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, having regard to the assistance given to the administration of justice by the efficient and pragmatic manner in which counsel for the accused conducted the trial, focusing on those issues which were of significance and not requiring proof of matters which might have be insisted upon but were not of significance for the arguments ultimately sought to be advanced. The starting point for the non-parole period reflects 50 per cent of the head sentence and would be 51 months. When reduced by three months, the non-parole period is a period of 48 months starting on 1 May 2020 and ending on 31 April 2024.
The three offences of drive while disqualified as a repeat offender carry with them an automatic period of disqualification of 24 months or if the court orders a longer period, the longer period: see s 32(5)(b) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act. I will order that on each count the offender is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of 24 months and one day. I will also order that those periods be concurrent not cumulative. I make them concurrent because of the important link between holding a driver licence and the capacity of the offender to be employed upon release. To allow the periods of disqualification to interfere with that would be contrary to the community’s interests in his rehabilitation.
The orders that I make are:
1. On each charge the offender is convicted and a sentence of imprisonment is imposed starting and ending on the dates set out in the table.
2. The non-parole period starts on 1 May 2020 and ends on 31 April 2024.
3. On each of charges CC2020/8400, CC2020/4798, CC2020/8394 the offender is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of two years and one day with those periods to be concurrent not cumulative.
| I certify that the preceding fifty-three [53] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: 25 November 2021 |
8
0
0