Director of Public Prosecutions v Job

Ms Wallis informs me that the applicant was sentenced by his Honour Mossop J in respect of those two files on 15 November 2024. Mr Job entered a plea of not guilty in relation to a fresh charge in the ACT Magistrates Court. On 20 February 2024, Refshauge AJ sentenced Mr Job in relation to eight offences. In his opening remarks, Refshauge J said, While many decisions of the courts, including this court, have expressed that the ultimate purpose of the criminal law is the protection of the community … that can be achieved in a variety of ways, such as punishment, denunciation, and deterrence. It can, however, be achieved by rehabilitation, which has been said by high authority to be in the public interest.

His Honour went on to say, Now appearing for sentence is Darren David Job. He has pleaded guilty to eight offences. They are attempted theft, possess articles with intent to use them in connection with a theft, … trespass on premises, driving whilst disqualified, driving with a drug in his oral fluid, driving an unregistered motor vehicle, using an uninsured motor vehicle, driving a vehicle with registration plates not issued to it.

These offences were committed on 3 July 2022 and 9 February 2023. In respect of each offence, his Honour recorded convictions and in total sentenced Mr Job to 22 months and three weeks’ imprisonment, commencing on 22 June 2023 and ending on 10 May 2025. His Honour then made an order for suspension of that sentence for two years to 19 February 2026. He required Mr Job to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from 9 December 2024 until 19 February 2026.

Two further conditions were imposed. First, that Mr Job accept the supervision of the Commissioner of the ACT Corrective Services or delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him. Second, that he continue to engage with the Canberra Recovery Hub for as long as the person supervising him approves, or such other drug and alcohol treatment as is approved by that person supervising him, and he not return a positive result of drug and alcohol testing.

On 15 November 2024, Mr Job was brought back before the court. On that day, Mossop J dealt with Mr Job for a breach of the good behaviour obligations required of him as a result of the sentence imposed by Refshauge AJ on 20 February 2024. His Honour first described the offences and summarised the factual matters before Refshauge AJ. His Honour then considered the sentence imposed by Refshauge AJ and the breach of the good behaviour bonds post-sentence. Mr Job was alleged to be in breach of two conditions of his good behaviour bond order, namely the general supervision condition and the condition relating to not having a positive result for drug and alcohol testing.

The affidavit in support of the breach application describes his engagement with supervision from 20 February 2024 to June 2024 as borderline satisfactory. He attended supervision occasionally but failed to attend on three occasions without advising of his inability to attend appointments. He was assessed by the Canberra Recovery Hub and was deemed unsuitable for their programs. On 16 June 2024 he informed the supervisor that he was unemployed and using methamphetamine daily. He made the same response on 4 July 2024 and on 18 July 2024 he appeared for supervision but was under the influence of drugs.

The urinalysis conducted on 1 August 2024 disclosed the presence of both amphetamine and methamphetamine. The level of methamphetamine was recorded as significantly high. His Honour then discussed the merits of the matter and at [38] made orders for the resentencing of Mr Job. His Honour imposed the sentences fixed by Refshauge AJ and then made further orders that, until 19 February 2026, the following conditions apply: (i) That he be on probation subject to the supervision of the Director-General responsible for ACT Corrective Services and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him. (ii) That any sample provided after 29 November 2024, pursuant to direction of the person supervising him, must not test positive for a drug within the meaning of s 132 of the Corrections Managements Act 2007.

As a result, Mr Job was given a further opportunity under a good behaviour order to comply with the good behaviour obligations imposed by Mossop J. Mr Job failed to comply with his good behaviour obligations and, on 10 February 2024, Mossop J made a remand order, that Mr Job be remanded in custody and the matter is next before the court on 9 April 2026. In the application for bail today, I am mindful of the content of s 8A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT). I am also mindful of the content of s 22 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT).

The first piece of evidence I received in support of the application was a medical certificate from Dr Ikenna Alaebo, who was a treating medical practitioner for Mr Job's mother, Ms RS. It informs me of a diagnosis of Ms S and suggests that it would be beneficial for Ms S to stay close to her son as she continues to struggle with breathing and mental health problems. However, that document is dated 22 September 2025, a time when Mr Job was in the community and was subject to the good behaviour obligations that had been imposed on him by the court on a second occasion, following the decision of Refshauge AJ, and by Mossop J on 15 November 2024.

Viva voce evidence was then led from Ms S. She informs me that when in the domestic environment, Mr Job assists her with her medical conditions, does everything around the home, runs errands and is very devoted to his child. She addressed only briefly the summons in relation to a breach served upon her son. She suggested that there were difficult times going on and that a man across the road from her premises was causing trouble. Things became so serious that she had asked Mr Job and his partner, LM, to go and live in a motel at least for a week. The reason was that she was concerned that violence would erupt between this troublesome man and her son.

In relation to the birth of her grandchild, she said that she has identified a big change in Mr Job, that he has expressed that he has a wish for a better life and that she has no other supports. However, she agrees that Mr Job has now been in custody for a period of seven weeks and she has done nothing to obtain other social services to help. The mother of her grandchild, LM, lives with her and is suffering from a tachycardia. In answer to a question from me, she agreed that LM is under the care of a cardiologist or will be under the care of a cardiologist and an assessment will be made as to whether or not a pacemaker will be fitted to treat this tachycardia condition. There is no satisfactory evidence about whether LM can assist her in the house.

I then received submissions from Ms Wallis and from Mr Chatterton. Ms Wallis emphasised that Mr Job is being treated with a methadone dose daily, that there were periods of prior compliance with his good behaviour obligations and that, in the affidavit of Beth Hobbs of 25 August 2025, there is evidence of some compliance with supervision and some evidence of failing to comply with supervision. I understood that submission to be that all is not lost in relation to Mr Job.

In his submissions, Mr Chatterton emphasised one matter that had also been dealt with by Ms Wallis. There is a further charge with respect to Mr Job. The charge is currently before the ACT Magistrates Court and is before the court for a bail application, which I am informed will now be held on 30 March 2026. Ms Wallis will attend. The general description of the charges are in the second exhibit to the affidavit of Ms Wallis. It alleges that on 15 November 2024, Mr Job, in company with a female person, attended the Gungahlin Marketplace and CCTV cameras recorded his conduct of getting down on his stomach and sliding underneath a tarpaulin covering a kiosk. After the hours of the closing of the market, he was recorded coming out from under the tarpaulin, carrying what appeared to be several boxes, and then walking towards the automatic doors which he opened from inside and left.

These, of course, are all allegations that it is Mr Job who is involved in this conduct. These are matters which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is alleged that Mr Job exited the Gungahlin Marketplace at 12.25 am. At 12.44 am, he was spoken to by police at the Shell Service Station in Ginn Street, Gungahlin, about 1 km from the Gungahlin Marketplace. It is alleged that he was wearing the same clothes as seen on the CCTV footage. He was in the company of the same female who was wearing the same clothes as seen on the CCTV footage and the interaction with police was also recorded.

On 21 July 2025, police attended the place of residence of Mr Job, which was in an apartment complex in which his mother, Ms S, and his partner, LM, lived. Ms S and LM were present. They informed the police that they had not spoken to or seen Mr Job for several days. Police suspect that LM is the same female captured on CCTV footage, but those enquiries are ongoing. Between 28 July and 30 July, police attended the same residence of Mr Job on two occasions with the view to arrest him. On the second occasion, police were told by his mother that she had spoken to him and he would hand himself in to police during the week commencing 4 August 2025. A voicemail was left on his phone.

On 22 August 2025, police observed Mr Job walking into the same apartment complex and called out to him to stop. He ignored those instructions and was last seen entering the elevator at this location but police could not detect him in that location. He was not located after a search. On 8 September 2025, a warrant was issued for his arrest. In his submissions, Mr Chatterton also emphasised the content of the fourth exhibit of Ms Wallis's affidavit, being further alleged offending soon after the sentencing before Refshauge AJ.

On 24 October 2024, Mr Job committed four further offences: unlicensed driver, number plate registration not properly issued or issued for another vehicle, use unregistered suspended vehicle and use uninsured vehicle. Mr Chatterton emphasised that in relation at least to the Magistrates Court matters, there was a very strong prosecution case. The combination of this and a very long history of the failures of Mr Job to comply with good behaviour orders and his obligations to appear, meant the court could not be confident that he would appear and he would comply with his bail obligations. Mr Chatterton also emphasised that if Ms S is suffering hardship, then she might have already made alternative arrangements with the social services that were available to her.

I have reviewed the fourth exhibit of Ms Wallis's affidavit. It is not complementary of Mr Job. There is a long history of offences in a number of states of Australia. For example, as recently as 9 January 2020, he was dealt with in the Rockhampton Magistrates Court in Queensland for stealing, entering premises and committing an indictable offence, failing to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of syringe or needle, possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property suspected to have been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence. He was sentenced to imprisonment for those offences and the review of the material indicates that on a number of occasions he has been sentenced to imprisonment in relation to similar offences charged in the Magistrates Court matter here. These prior offences are not relevant to his guilt, but those matters are relevant only to the question of my consideration of his likelihood of complying with the bail agreement.

Under s 22(1)(a) of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), I am required to take into account the likelihood that Mr Job will appear in court in relation to the offence. I think that question is open. Under s 22(1)(b), I am required to take into account the likelihood that whilst released on bail he would commit an offence and I'm also required to take into account the interests of the person. I have done so. I have no confidence that, given his record, Mr Job could resist the temptation to commit another offence whilst on bail. His personal interests fall away to a large extent because on my initial review, the case against him and his accomplice in connection with the Gungahlin Marketplace robbery appears to be very strong.

In my view, having taken into account this history and all the material before me, and in light of the fact that the matter is next before Mossop J on 9 April 2026, at which time his Honour will review the matter and make his own decision in relation to the position of Mr Job concerning his offending, it is not appropriate that I exercise my discretion in favour of Mr Job for the application for bail today. I dismiss the application. Orders

The orders of the Court are: (1) The appeal is dismissed.