Joseph Gonzales, your matter came before me on 25 August 2025 for a Sentence Indication Hearing in relation to one charge each of aggravated burglary, false imprisonment, reckless conduct endangering person, extortion, blackmail, theft and common assault. Your application for sentence indication was not opposed and was granted. At that time, I indicated upon a plea of guilty, I would impose a total effective sentence of 35 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 months. Through your counsel you accepted this indication.
On 3 September 2025 you were arraigned on Indictment P12680137.1 and pleaded guilty to the charges.
[2]
A summary of prosecution opening dated 22 August 2025 was tendered on your plea. A summary of your offending is as follows. In September 2023, the victim, Mr Crisotomo advertised two spare bedrooms for rent. He leased one of the rooms to your son. The other spare room was leased to two women until they vacated it on 26 November 2023. At a time prior to this date, you visited your son at the victim's property, and you spoke to the victim for about two hours.
On 29 November 2023, at approximately 2.00pm, you attended the victim's home. You knocked on the door. The victim saw it was you and recognised your voice when you spoke. There was a man with you that he did not recognise. You were carrying a fabric tool bag, and the other man was carrying a metal toolbox. The victim asked if you had come from work, neither of you answered. He said your son had not been at the house for a week. In response you told the victim you had arranged to meet your son there and asked to come inside and wait. He agreed and allowed you and your co-offender to enter. He told you he needed to go to the bank in an hour and asked you to take a seat in the lounge room. At the time of entry, you and your co-offender intended to assault the victim.
As the victim locked the front door, your co-offender grabbed the victim's right hand and twisted it behind his back. He then grabbed the victim's left hand and pushed him into the kitchen area. You unfurled your tool-belt on the kitchen table, revealing two large knives and a hammer with a thin steel handle. You held one of the knives in your right hand and pointed it at the victim's stomach and under his chin. You grabbed a chair and told the victim to sit down, which he did. Your co-offender held the victim's hands behind his back and tied his hands with white bandages and duct tape. The victim was unable to move. You accused him of bullying your son and a 19-year-old girl who was a former female tenant.
The victim denied any wrongdoing. You yelled at him and pointed the knife at his face. You threatened to chop his body into small pieces or stab him in the stomach. The victim cried and asked for forgiveness. You told your co-offender to lock the door and make sure no-one could hear you. The victim told you the only disagreement he had with your son was about the washing machine. You accused him of molesting the 19-year-old female tenant. He again denied this. You pointed the knife at his eyes and said, 'Do you know I'm Afghanistan ex-marine? I can do anything I want to do right now because no-one can hear you.'
The victim continued to deny your accusations. You yelled at him and then held your phone in front of his face. You demanded he say 'sorry' to your son and to the girl. The victim was still crying and said to the camera that he was sorry if he had done something wrong. You placed the knife down, picked up a pair of pliers and told the victim you would 'rip the nails off his foot with this.' The victim begged you not to do this and your co-offender wrote on documents while this occurred.
The victim's phone was removed from his pocket, and you asked for the password. The victim, under pressure, gave several incorrect passwords. In response you placed a thick white plastic bag over his head and tightened it around his face, restricting his ability to breathe. Each time the victim gave an incorrect password, you tightened the bag for approximately 10 seconds then loosened it to allow him to speak. His eyes and nose were still covered. This cycle of incorrect answers and suffocation was repeated approximately 10 times, and the victim said, 'how can I give the password in the situation?', you replied, 'if you don't cooperate with me, I will kill you just like what I'm telling you.'
The victim eventually provided the correct password, and your co-offender unlocked his phone. You took possession and found his banking applications. With the PIN he provided you accessed his Commonwealth Bank application. You said, 'I will borrow the $500 and give it back after 20 days.' Records show that at 3.04pm on 29 November 2023, $900 was transferred from the victim's account to an account in the name of 'Joseph.' There was a reference 'payback lend.' $68 remained in the account following the transfer.
You asked where the victim's vehicle registration documents were and told him if he did not cooperate the bag would be placed back on his head. The co-offender was writing on documents in the kitchen. The victim directed you to his bedroom where the registration documents were located in a suitcase. You were holding a large kitchen knife. You again filmed the victim and instructed him to say he agreed to sell his car. He complied out of fear. You placed a vehicle transfer document in front of him and directed him to sign. Your co-offender asked for the garage key. You repeated the question.
The victim's vehicle, a 2016 yellow Toyota FJ Cruiser with a white roof was parked in the garage. The vehicle had a distinctive yellow number plate. The victim had purchased the vehicle for approximately $72,000 and it was registered in his name.
You and your co-offender asked for the victim's driver's licence which he told you was stored in his mobile phone cover. Your co-offender cut some of the tape and bandages from the victim's wrists. You pressed the knife into his back and instructed him to walk into the bedroom and search for the original registration documents himself. You told him not to resist you, or you would stab him in the back. The registration paperwork could not be located. The co-offender presented another form to the victim which he signed out of fear. You compared the victim's signature on the form to that on his driver's licence.
The remaining bandages and tape were cut from the victim's wrist using a pair of scissors. You then produced two large syringes containing a clear liquid. You held one syringe in each hand and said, 'which one do you want - the one-day one or the 20-days one?' The victim asked what the one-day syringe was. You did not respond and removed the cap from one of the syringes, exposing the needle.
You ordered the victim into the bedroom, directed him to lie on the bed, not open his eyes and remain still. You were holding both the syringe and a knife. You rolled up the victim's sleeve and injected him in the upper right arm. The victim immediately felt pain and a burning sensation in his head and neck. You told him to keep his eyes closed for 10 minutes. He remained there for approximately 20 minutes. He heard the screen door open and then close, followed by the sound of his car engine starting. He remained on the bed for another 10 minutes out of fear. He got up, confirmed you had both left and saw his vehicle was no longer in the garage. It was driven away from his property and past a CCTV camera in Station Road at approximately 3.51pm.
The victim called his sister and brother on Messenger and explained what had happened. He locked the front door and went to sleep. He did not immediately call police out of fear. The next day the victim called Triple 0 and reported what had occurred. Police and Ambulance Victoria attended. The victim's home was photographed by police. Two disposable gloves and one silver knife were located. DNA swabs were taken. The victim was taken to Sunshine Hospital but did not have any apparent injuries.
On 2 December 2023 the victim received threatening text messages from a phone number registered to you. The messages referred to the incident. The victim's vehicle was recovered from the underground car park of the Northcote Shopping Plaza on 11 December 2023. A clear plastic pocket containing VicRoads documents belonging to the vehicle were located in the car and seized.
Your bank records show you received $900 from the victim on 29 November 2023, with the matching description 'pay back lend'. CCTV footage from the Coles Express showed you arriving at the service station in your grey Subaru Impreza, in convoy with the victim's distinctive yellow FJ Cruiser, and speaking with the driver of the victim's vehicle. You then entered and paid for the fuel for both cars.
On 20 December 2023 you were arrested, and a search warrant was executed at your home address. A clear syringe was located in a toolbox. A grey Subaru Impreza was parked at the property, the same as that seen on the Coles Express CCTV footage. You were considered not fit to be interviewed and you were remanded in custody.
Your phone was later analysed and found to contain two videos. The first video depicts the victim seated in a dining room chair with his hands tied behind his back, while you interrogate him about his behaviour in respect of the 19-year-old tenant. You are not visible on the camera, but your voice is clearly audible. You tell the victim that he will get his car and life back 'if the girls say they forgive you', and that he is not to speak to the police or you will send somebody else. At one point in the video the tool bag with tools, two knives and a syringe are visible on the kitchen table. The unknown co-offender can be heard in the background asking the victim 'why are we here?' The second video runs for two seconds and shows the victim's driver's licence.
[3]
A victim impact statement from Mr Crisotomo was tendered at your plea hearing. Mr Crisotomo described that because of this incident he cannot eat or sleep well. He remembers what happened often, particularly when he is reminded by the TV or a movie. Every time Mr Crisotomo hears a car parking in front of his home he looks outside, and he feels nervous when he hears a noise. He has tried to work part time but has found this impossible because he keeps thinking about what happened, he has struggled to sleep and so wakes up late.
Mr Crisotomo is worried that there is still a duplicate key to his house and car in the hands of your son or someone else. Mr Crisotomo remains hypervigilant, as evidenced by an incident he described involving two men that occurred around the time he made his victim impact statement. He is now spending more time inside his house, and he feels he cannot go outside like before. He therefore cannot play basketball or chat with his other friends. He is worried to work again and to meet other people that he does not know. Mr Crisotomo has suffered financially not being able to work.
I have taken into account the impact of your offending upon Mr Crisotomo in sentencing you.
[4]
The offences to which you have pleaded guilty are inherently serious, and this is evidenced by the applicable maximum penalties of 25 years' imprisonment for aggravated burglary, 15 years' imprisonment for both extortion and blackmail, 10 years' imprisonment for both false imprisonment and theft, and five years' imprisonment for both reckless conduct endangering serious injury and assault.
Ms Sargent for the prosecution submitted that these maximum penalties demonstrate the seriousness with which your offending conduct is to be viewed. Ms Sargent submitted in your case there was a level of premeditation to your offending as you attended the victim's home with vehicle transfer forms, multiple weapons, including syringes concealed in a tool bag, and you acted in a co-ordinated way with your co-offender. Ms Sargent further submitted that your offending occurred over a reasonable period of time and inside the victim's own home where he was entitled to feel safe and secure. Further, you were on bail at the time of the offending for a matter which shared some factual similarities.
In relation to the aggravated burglary, Ms Sargent conceded that you did not force entry into the victim's home, however, she submitted that you used your previous interaction with the victim and the relationship involving your son to deceive the victim into allowing entry. You acted in company with another, and you were in possession of concealed weapons.
Ms Sargent submitted the court has a rare insight into what occurred inside the victim's home in the form of the video located on your phone. She submitted it was evident that your offending would have been terrifying for the victim and has had a lasting impact upon him.
Your counsel, Mr Barreiro, conceded that your offending was serious as reflected by the fact that the offences of aggravated burglary, false imprisonment, extortion and blackmail, each carry high maximum penalties. Further, he conceded in your case the act of physically restraining the victim, as well as the protracted assaults, were serious.
Mr Barreiro submitted that the aggravated burglary, which captures the entry to the house, was not a serious example of that offence as you ultimately entered with permission, albeit on a false pretence. Mr Barreiro placed some emphasis on the fact that you did not force your way into the house.
Mr Gonzales, there is no doubt that your offending is very serious. You did not force your way into the victim's home, rather you used deception to gain entry. You clearly knew the victim was at home, your intent was to assault him, and you had a co-offender with you and a variety of weapons and tools on your person that suggest your offending was well thought out and planned.
From the time of your entry, you and the co-offender restrained, intimidated, humiliated, threatened and assaulted Mr Crisotomo. The video footage found on your phone depicts the victim on a chair with his hands tied behind his back. On the table nearby and in front of him are your knives, syringes, a plastic bag and other items. He is clearly terrified. It is apparent that your offending has a flavour of vigilantism as you questioned him about allegations of molestation. You engaged in stand-over tactics and brandished weapons. You used a plastic bag to suffocate the victim in what can only be described as a callous and frightening form of endangerment. It was via this mechanism you obtained the password to his phone and were able to transfer $900 from his account to yours.
Blackmail was employed to have the victim sign the transfer papers for his vehicle. You and your co-offender drove away in his car after injecting him with a substance in what must have been a psychologically disturbing form of assault. Although your victim did not have any apparent physical injuries as a result of your offending, your offending has had a lasting and profound psychological impact.
Mr Gonzales, your offending conduct that occurred over the hour to two hours that you were at Mr Crisotomo's address amounts to a very serious episode of offending for which you deserve condign punishment.
[5]
You were born in the Philippines in May 1977. You are now 48 years of age. Your father worked as a chemical engineer. He died in 1984 of a heart attack. In 1986 you moved to Australia with your mother and initially lived in Sydney.
Your mother commenced a new relationship when you were six years old. Prior to that time, you had been cared for largely by your paternal grandparents. Your home environment was very religious. Your relationship with your stepfather was tolerable to begin with but became very difficult in approximately 1991 after you returned from visiting your grandfather in the Philippines. You were treated like a servant and subjected to physical abuse and the abuse extended to violence towards your mother. Your relationship with your stepfather broke down completely in 1992 when you were aged 15 and you moved out of the family home.
Your mother supported you financially and found you an apartment where you lived alone for approximately two years. It was during this time you began associating with a negative peer group. You briefly returned home but at the age of 18 you moved out again due to ongoing conflict with your stepfather.
You completed Year 12 at De La Salle Catholic school in Ashfield. You then pursued a Bachelor of Science Degree, majoring in physics, but completed only two years of that course due to a lack of money and a lack of family support.
From the ages of 18 to 24 you obtained and completed a chef's apprenticeship in France. Upon returning to Australia, you lived in Sydney, then Adelaide, and finally Melbourne. You have worked as a chef including four years at Rockpool from 2014 to 2017. You then worked in a variety of pubs in Melbourne. Your last employment in airline catering was maintained for a period of 12 months. You stopped work in around 2022 due to chronic pain and mental illness. Since that time, you survived financially through receipt of a disability support pension.
You have had three significant relationships since the age of 17. You have three children to your second partner who are now aged 22, 18 and 16. You have a good relationship with each of them. You also have a fourth child born in 2009. He lives in Adelaide with his mother. You have not had any contact with him since his birth, although you have paid child support.
You have been in a relationship with your current partner since you were aged 34. You describe your relationship in very positive terms, and you were living together up until your remand in 2023. Whilst in custody you have maintained constant contact and speak on average twice a day.
Your mother continues to live in Sydney with her second husband, your stepfather. She is employed as an accountant. You remain close to her, communicating mainly through Facebook whilst at liberty. Your stepfather works as an immigration lawyer, and you also have a younger brother who lives in Sydney and works as a disability care worker. You have enjoyed a good relationship, but it has become increasingly distant.
[6]
A report from Gina Cidoni, consultant psychologist, dated 27 October 2024, was tendered on your plea. It is apparent you have a long-standing history of complex physical, psychiatric and psychological difficulties. Justice Health records reviewed by Ms Cidoni confirm several diagnoses, including schizophrenia, delusional disorder, ADHD, anxiety, depression, PTSD and chronic pain. You have been the subject of consistent review and ongoing psychiatric care including medication whilst in custody.
The records also reveal that your time in custody has been marked by multiple assaults. The most serious occurred on 23 May 2024 when you were taken to St Vincent's Hospital after being repeatedly kicked and punched. You lost consciousness due to strangulation and CT scans revealed bilateral orbital fractures and extensive bruising and bleeding.
You have experienced three psychiatric hospitalisations: at The Alfred Hospital in 2017 for one month, at Tamworth Hospital in 2018 for one week, and again at The Alfred in 2019 for approximately two weeks.
In terms of substance use, you began using alcohol at age 13, drinking daily by your late teens. You stopped after discovering a liver laceration. You first used heroin at 17, stopped after two years, and relapsed briefly in November 2023, which you report as your last use. You began using cocaine in 2023 and last used it prior to your remand. You have intermittently used methylamphetamine between 2019 and 2021 and ceased several years ago. Relevantly, you started using cocaine in 2023 and relapsed into heroin use in November 2023. Ms Cidoni noted that in late 2023, at a time proximate to the offending before the court, you attempted suicide by injecting a mixture of ketamine, heroin, methylamphetamine and cocaine.
You link your past drug use to negative peer influences and poor mental health. You have made limited attempts at rehabilitation, attending a few Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and participating in court-ordered treatment programs in New South Wales. You also completed inpatient detoxification at The Alfred in 2017.
Ms Cidoni assessed you at Port Phillip Prison across two sessions in July and October 2024. You presented with mild psychomotor agitation, disorganised thinking and ongoing auditory hallucinations. Your mood was anxious, and you demonstrated poor insight and judgment, particularly in recognising the impact of substance use on your mental health.
Psychological testing revealed pronounced emotional reactivity and impulsivity, with patterns of self-centred and attention-seeking behaviour. You demonstrated paranoid ideation, mistrust and a heightened tendency to perceive threats. Anxiety, trauma-related stress and depressive symptoms were all present.
Ms Cidoni considered that your substance-use functions as a means of coping with emotional distress. On the Adult ADHD scale, results indicated difficulties with attention and impulse regulation. You scored in the moderate-severe range of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, consistent with schizophrenia, and achieved a score of 81 on the General Psychopathology Scale, reflecting significant anxiety, depression and cognitive disturbance.
You were rated as a moderate risk of further violent offending according to the two risk assessment tools employed by Ms Cidoni. Cognitive testing suggested weaknesses in verbal comprehension and working memory, contributing to disorganisation and impulsivity in your everyday functioning.
In reviewing your history and assessment results, Ms Cidoni found evidence of chronic psychiatric disturbance in the moderate to severe range, marked by auditory hallucinations, paranoia, mood lability and poor impulse control. Chronic pain and a history of substance dependence further compound your difficulties. Records since 2015 note substance-related behavioural disorders.
While you exhibit Cluster B personality features, particularly emotional instability and impulsivity, you do not meet the criteria for a full personality disorder. Your PTSD, stemming from past trauma, has had an enduring impact on your emotional regulation and your ADHD symptoms, evident since adolescence, continue to affect attention and executive functioning.
In relation to the offending that occurred in May 2022, Ms Cidoni concluded that your behaviour was directly related to untreated psychiatric illness, substance misuse and trauma. When unmanaged, these conditions impair your capacity for judgment, heightened paranoia and increased impulsivity, leading to reactive and sometimes aggressive behaviour. Substance use further diminishes your capacity to regulate stress, control impulses which results in erratic and sometimes aggressive responses, especially in high stress situations. This also undermines the effects of prescribed medication. At the time of that offending, you were under the influence of cocaine which likely intensified symptoms of schizophrenia, PTSD and ADHD, contributing to paranoia and disinhibited behaviour. Your conditions, when poorly managed, distort perception and judgment, underscoring the need for comprehensive psychiatric and psychological treatment to support ongoing stability and risk management.
Ms Sargent conceded that Verdins[1] has some application in the circumstances of your case. However, she also submitted that the Court would be better placed to make a determination as to weight and application if Ms Cidoni's report specifically addressed the index offending. I accept this submission, however, I also accept the submission of your counsel that the report of Ms Cidoni does document your mental state up until the time you were remanded for the offending currently before the court.
The effect of impairment on moral culpability is a matter of degree. To determine the extent of the impairment's contribution to the offending it is necessary for the court to consider, with the assistance of expert evidence, your conduct before, during and after the offending. The relevant question is whether the evidence establishes the impairment contributed in a way that made you 'less blameworthy as a result'. It is my view, based on the report of Ms Cidoni, I am able to make such an assessment.
Where mental impairment and substance abuse are independent, the Verdins principles will continue to have full force. Similarly, where the substance abuse is caused by impairment, moral culpability may be reduced and the need for general and specific deterrence may be moderated. It is not sufficient to establish the impairment led to the substance abuse. The defence must also establish that the impairment was connected to the offending. In assessing whether drug use was caused by an impairment, the court may consider the quantity of drugs consumed.
On my assessment of the evidence, including the nature of your offending, and more particularly the opinions of Ms Cidoni, I accept that Verdins is enlivened in your case. I accept that your impairment contributed to your offending in a way that made you less blameworthy. Your moral culpability ought to be reduced because the impairments from which you suffer reduced your capacity for reflective thinking and impulse control. Although the focus of Ms Cidoni's report was the May 2022 offending, it is clear to me given your profound and chronic mental health issues, your parlous mental state was persisting at the time of the current offending before the court. I note that you were seeking follow-up care from Epworth Mental Health in 2023. Further, I consider that your mental state would have been exacerbated by your relapse into drug use and your suicide attempt reported in November 2023.
I consider that your mental health difficulties exist independently to your substance abuse, as evidenced by the fact that they have persisted in custody when your drug use has ceased. Moreover, these factors appear to have led to your pronounced substance misuse and considerable risk-taking behaviour such that your decision-making skills were seriously compromised. It is my view that these factors have contributed to your offending.
In relation to Limb 5 of Verdins, I accept that your poor mental health, auditory hallucinations and self-harm have continued whilst you are in custody and intensify when your medication is delayed. Your experience in custody has also been difficult given you have been assaulted and moved between Correctional facilities. You have experienced significant distress and anxiety during your time in custody. I accept the opinion of Ms Cidoni that stressful prison conditions, coupled with past assaults, have intensified your symptoms particularly those that are PTSD related. Your symptoms of hypervigilance, anxiety, intrusive memories linked to PTSD have been aggravated by the constant tension and threats in prison making it difficult to manage your mental health effectively. I accept that your time in custody has been rendered significantly more difficult than someone who does not suffer these conditions.
[7]
You have admitted several relevant but dated prior convictions. Your record details that between 16 May 1997 and 24 February 1999 you appeared in court in New South Wales on 14 occasions. You have been sentenced for a number of different offences, including drug-related offences, weapons offences, robbery and robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. Your last conviction was recorded on 24 February 1999 for entering enclosed land without lawful excuse.
[8]
Your counsel, Mr Barreiro, submitted that you have reasonable prospects for rehabilitation based on your stable accommodation, your supports in the community and your insight into your mental health conditions. He conceded, however, that your prospects are contingent upon a treatment plan that addresses your underlying mental health conditions and your drug use.
You have now been in custody since your remand for the offending in December 2023. This is the longest period you have spent in custody by a significant margin. I accept that you have found custody difficult. In my view you are capable of reform as demonstrated by a very lengthy period where you conducted yourself in a law- abiding manner. I agree with your counsel that you require a treatment plan, and it is my view that that can be provided by way of a parole period.
[9]
Your plea of guilty was not entered at an early stage in the proceedings. It was entered shortly prior to trial and after a sentence indication. However, it has spared the need for Mr Crisotomo to relive the crime in detail by giving evidence and being cross-examined at trial. In addition, your plea has saved the court the time and expense of a trial and I find that your plea has utilitarian benefit and that you have facilitated the course of justice. As such, I propose to allow an appropriate discount.
[10]
The principle of totality ensures that overall punishment for multiple offences reflects the total criminality involved. It is closely linked to the principle of proportionality and requires that the total effective sentence be just and appropriate. The court may achieve totality by imposing concurrent sentences or by adjusting individual terms to avoid an excessive overall sentence. Artificially low individual sentences should be avoided simply to accommodate cumulation.
The preferred approach is to impose appropriate individual sentences that reflect the seriousness of each offence and then adjust concurrency to achieve a suitable total effective sentence.[2] This method ensures that each offence is properly recognised. While strongly preferred, this approach is not mandatory; courts retain flexibility as long as their method is consistent and lawful.
In cases where the preferred method is impracticable, such as when prior imprisonment would result in an unduly long sentence or when statutory provisions preclude concurrency, a secondary approach may be used. This involves reducing individual sentences and then cumulating portions to reach a fair total sentence. Though this may understate the gravity of individual offences, it is preferable to imposing an unjustly long sentence.
The totality principle applies broadly, including to overlapping offences, sentences imposed at different times or in different jurisdictions and even where the offender is already serving a custodial sentence. Courts must assess the overall criminality and, where possible, consider what sentence would have been appropriate had all offences been sentenced together.
In your case the offending occurred over a period of between one to two hours. Your actions towards the victim resulted in your plea of guilty to several very serious charges. Additionally, whilst on remand for the current offending, you were dealt with by this court on 11 December 2024 for offending that occurred in May 2022. You were sentenced to eight months' imprisonment and an 18-month community correction order. Your remand has prevented your release on the community correction order.
Your counsel submitted in these circumstances totality is an important sentencing consideration. I agree. I intend to impose what I consider to be appropriate sentences, adjusting concurrency to come to a just and appropriate total effective sentence. In imposing sentence today, I have also taken into account the circumstances of the December 2024 sentence.
I have had regard to the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act,[3] where relevant in your case. I have also had regard to the sentencing landscape for the offending before me, particularly the offences of aggravated burglary, extortion and blackmail. I have considered previous cases in this court and the Court of Appeal. I have had regard to relevant sentencing statistics whilst being mindful of the obvious limitations with the use of statistics. Ultimately, the sentencing exercise requires that I balance all relevant factors and make a judgment as to the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of your particular case.
[11]
The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In your case each of these sentencing principles are applicable. I have moderated general and specific deterrence considering my findings as to your decreased moral culpability pursuant to the principles in Verdins. Protection of the community in the circumstances of your mental health issues and past drug use remains a relevant consideration. I consider the community would be best protected by a sentence of imprisonment and a parole period which supports and provides interventions to assist in your transition to the community.
Mr Gonzales, you are convicted of each of the charges before the court and you are sentenced as follows:
Charge 1, aggravated burglary, you are sentenced to 26 months' imprisonment.
Charge 2, false imprisonment, you are sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment.
Charge 3, reckless conduct endangering a person, 16 months' imprisonment.
Charge 4, extortion, 18 months' imprisonment.
Charge 5 of blackmail, 18 months' imprisonment.
Charge 6, theft, which is a rolled-up charge 10 months' imprisonment.
Charge 7, common assault, 12 months' imprisonment.
The sentence on Charge 1 is the base sentence.
I order that one month of the sentence on Charge 2, two months on the sentence on Charge 3, two months on the sentence on Charge 4, two months of the sentence on Charge 5, one month on the sentence on Charge 6, and one month on the sentence on Charge 7 be served cumulatively.
The total effective sentence is 35 months imprisonment. I order that justice requires that you must serve a period of 21 months imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
I declare that you have served 428 days by way of pre-sentence detention, and this will be deducted from your sentence as time already served.
Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of four years and four months' imprisonment with a two-year and eight month non‑parole period.[4]
In relation to Charge 6 which involved the theft of motor vehicle, I must make an order in relation to your licence given that a conviction has been impose. I order that your licence is cancelled, and you are disqualified from obtaining another for a period of six months. This is effective from today's date.
Ancillary orders will be made once received by the Court.