DPP v Hiscox

1. Kyle Hiscox is to be sentenced in respect of two discrete occasions of offending.

2. The first offending occurred on 20 January 2024 and involves an unusual example of burglary contrary to s 311(1)(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CAN 2024/961). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, 1400 penalty units, or both.

3. The second occasion of offending occurred in August 2024 and involves the following: (a) Four offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment (CAN 2024/8235; CAN 2024/8236; CAN 2024/8237; CAN 2024/8238); (b) One offence of reckless threat to kill, contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (CAN 2024/8240); (c) One offence of common assault, contrary to s 26(1) of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment (CAN 2024/8239); and (d) One offence of contravening a s 3LA order, contrary to s 3LA(5) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (Crimes Act (Cth)), carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, 300 penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/8241).

4. Mr Hiscox seeks an opportunity to serve the inevitable terms of imprisonment by way of a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order): s 12A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). The prosecution does not oppose that course, but do raise whether the first incident of offending was “substantially contributed” to by substance dependency per s 12A(2)(a)(ii) of the Sentencing Act. The prosecution also cautions as to Mr Hiscox’s ability to comply with a treatment order, noting his previous issues of noncompliance with community based orders.

5. ACT Corrective Services find Mr Hiscox unsuitable for a treatment order having regard to this previous compliance, or lack thereof. However, Canberra Health Services find Mr Hiscox to be suitable for a treatment order, acknowledging his entrenched substance dependency and his motivation to address this.

6. For the reasons that follow, a treatment order will be imposed. 20 January 2024 offending

7. On Sunday 14 January 2024, Domestic Animal Services (DAS) seized a 9 month old female Pitbull Terrier named ‘Nova’ that belonged to Mr Hiscox. The facts provide that the reason for the seizure was ‘non-compliance’. Nova was transported to the DAS facility in Symonston and was placed in a kennel. Later that day, Mr Hiscox was served with a notice from DAS stating their actions and intentions.

8. From about 11:16pm on Saturday 20 January 2024, Mr Hiscox attended at the DAS facility. His clothing included an orange high visibility long sleeve top. He approached a rear construction fence and cut the chain securing the fence.

9. Mr Hiscox entered the facility and approached a locked green colour bond fence. He used an unknown implement to put a hole through the dead lock forcing the lock open. He entered the main courtyard where the majority of animals are located in an attempt to locate Nova.

10. A few seconds later, he attended at the kennel where Nova was placed. He used an unknown tool to cut the steel mesh fencing and released Nova. He left the facility with her at about 11:38pm.

11. The following morning, staff of DAS observed the damage and that Nova was missing. Police were contacted and Mr Hiscox’s conduct was observed on security footage.

12. At about 9:55am, police attended Mr Hiscox’s residence and he was arrested.

13. The burglary lacks features of sophistication such as use of a disguise, but it plainly did involve a level of planning and premeditation. Further, the entry was effected with the use of an implement and involved damage. The duration that Mr Hiscox was inside of the facility was relatively protracted.

14. Mr Hiscox’s moral culpability for the offending is low in terms of it being seemingly motivated by a concern for his dog rather than a nefarious intent. However, this motivation elevates the role of specific and general deterrence in the sentencing exercise. The responsibility of DAS in ensuring the welfare of animals in the Canberra community must be respected. Actions of the type taken by Mr Hiscox risked the safety and welfare of his own dog and the other animals at the facility. It also risked exposing officers of DAS to his conduct, although fortunately it occurred at time when no officers were present.

15. I am satisfied, having considered possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is warranted. Nonetheless, the term to be imposed is directed towards reflecting the sentencing purpose of deterrence rather than being reflective of this being a serious example of this offence. As the prosecution submitted, “it is a less serious example of an offence of burglary”.

16. Mr Hiscox has sought a treatment order in respect of all of the offences the subject of the sentencing exercise. For a treatment order to be imposed, in accordance with s 12A(2)(a)(ii) of the Sentencing Act, the Court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender’s dependency on alcohol or a controlled drug “substantially contributed to the commission of the offence”. It is not a requirement that the dependency is the sole contributor, but it is to be a substantial contributor.

17. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Hiscox that at the time of this offending he was experiencing entrenched substance dependency and that his behaviour was indicative of this. It was submitted that he lacked the capacity to make calm and rational choices and that it was in this sense that his offending was “substantially contributed” to by his dependency on a controlled drug. The prosecution cautioned against such a finding given the motivation for the offending.

18. To the assessment report writers, Mr Hiscox described that he found the DAS staff to be rude and dismissive when he contacted them to find out how to get the dog back. He said that his dog was seized in circumstances where it was out wandering. He said that all he did was “take [his] own dog back”. He explained that he has since been deemed unfit to have a dog and he felt that this was inappropriate as he “loved [his] dog so much [he] broke into the pound”.

19. While I accept that Mr Hiscox was dependent on a controlled drug in the period of the offending – and this inevitably caused a deleterious effect on his lifestyle and rationality – I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the dependency substantially contributed to the commission of the offence. The offending was motivated by, and was at its core, behaviour driven by misguided care for his dog irrespective of his substance use.

20. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that Mr Hiscox is eligible for a treatment order in respect of this offence. He has however spent a lengthy period in presentence custody. The prosecution submitted that the Court could consider a structure to the sentence that took this period into account and regarded the sentence for this offence to be already served. I agree this is an appropriate course.

6 August 2024 offending

21. In July 2024, Mr Hiscox moved temporarily into a residence in McKellar. The residence had several occupants, each with their own bedroom.

22. The victim of the offending was one of the occupants of the house. In his bedroom, he had outfitted a closed circuit television (CCTV) camera which was motion activated.

23. The agreed facts provide that during the time Mr Hiscox lived at the house, the victim reasonably believed that Mr Hiscox was in possession of items that the victim describes as a galvanised steel single shot pistol styled firearm and a bayonet style knife.

24. On Tuesday 6 August 2024 at about 8:39pm, the victim was in his bedroom watching television. Mr Hiscox entered the bedroom. He was carrying a wooden field hockey stick. Mr Hiscox used the hockey stick to strike the victim on the right foot using a force described as an eight out of ten and causing the victim to feel immediate pain.

25. Mr Hiscox then questioned the victim about the location of the firearm and bayonet knife. The victim informed Mr Hiscox that he did not know where the items were. Mr Hiscox then struck the victim in the stomach with a hockey stick using a force that was again an eight out of ten and caused immediate pain to the victim.

26. Mr Hiscox then requested the victim attend a second room inside the residence. He got the victim on his knees before continuing to question him in relation to the location of the items. This was done in the company of two other males, one who was known to the victim.

27. While in this room, Mr Hiscox struck the victim on the right arm and right leg with the hockey stick. The force used is described as a ten out of ten and resulted in immediate pain. Mr Hiscox eventually let the victim depart the second room and return to his own bedroom. A female who was present at the house attempted to assist the victim. There were three females inside the residence throughout the incident.

28. At about 10:44pm, Mr Hiscox re-entered the victim’s bedroom. He verbally abused the victim, including showing him a light source and stating, “you know what I am, don’t you?” and “you ever tell anybody about this and the last thing you’re gonna see is a bright light like this”. Mr Hiscox then struck the victim on the forehead using his head. He then left the bedroom.

29. The facts further provide that CCTV footage later viewed by the police shows Mr Hiscox shining the light in the victim’s face. Mr Hiscox says “you see the fucking light cunt? Well guess what I’m going to take you to the fucking light if you keep going cunt, do you hear me?”. Mr Hiscox then struck the victim in the head with the hockey stick. He continued to threaten the victim, in an aggressive state, before headbutting him in the face. Before leaving the room, Mr Hiscox said “shut up, sit on your bed and be a good boy”.

30. Following the incident, the victim experienced severe pain to all affected areas, and he struggled to walk on his right foot. On 11 August, the victim took photographs of bruising to his body, but these photographs were not provided at the sentence hearing.

31. The victim remained in the residence out of fear of retaliation. He initially felt unable to report the incident to police. However, on 12 August 2024, the victim attended at a police station and reported the incident.

32. The facts provide that police observed several injuries in the photographs, with the injuries described as including severe discolouration and bruising to the right foot, bruising to the right leg and right wrist, swelling and severe discolouration to the right upper arm that covered the whole bicep, and bruising to the centre of the chest.

33. In accordance with the facts, the series of assaults were entirely unprovoked. The victim was attacked in his own bedroom, with the assaults involving an implement. The victim was then moved to another room and further assaulted. Significant visible injuries and pain was caused to the victim.

34. The victim was also impacted with significant emotional distress and psychological effects. He describes in his victim impact statement that while he has physically recovered, mentally, he is still affected. He believed the threats to kill and was so concerned that he no longer lives in Canberra. He did not want to leave, but felt he had not choice if he was to have peace of mind. He has deep seated trepidation which affects his ability to sleep soundly or associate with other people. His ability to trust has been markedly eroded. The victim also experienced financial impacts as he was evicted from the property as a result of the assaults and he had financial costs from this, as well as it costing him considerable time and effort.

35. The offending has plainly, and unsurprisingly, had a significant impact on the victim’s life. The context in which each assault occurred would have been particularly frightening and aggravates the seriousness of the offending. The victim was in a vulnerable position in his own home, and was subject to repeated and persistent attacks. One of the assaults involved two strikes, with the others involving a single application of force. One of the later assaults occurred while the victim was in a particularly vulnerable position, and the circumstances of the assault with multiple people in the room will have been particularly frightening. The assaults that occurred after that were to a particularly vulnerable part of the body, being the head, and one of these assaults involved the use of an implement.

36. The threat to kill was done within the context of these physical assaults, likely exacerbating the fear caused. As the victim impact statement shows, the victim has experienced significant and long lasting fear and concern from the threat. I accept though that, as submitted on Mr Hiscox’s behalf, it was a conditional threat that was not one intended to be immediately effected. It was also a spontaneous threat, made without premeditation.

37. To the report writers, Mr Hiscox said that he was using GHB while living at the residence. He had used methamphetamine and GHB at the time and describes that he was “out of [his] mind”. He experienced frustration with the victim for actions he attributes to the victim. He claimed to have apologised to the victim for his actions prior to the report being made to the police. The report writers describe Mr Hiscox as appearing to justify his actions against the victim, with Mr Hiscox expressing wanting to stop the victim’s behaviour. He claimed he would not have gone through with the threat to kill the victim, noting that if we were going to kill the victim, he would have “hit him in the head not the arm”.

38. The difficulty with this is that Mr Hiscox’s offending behaviour did include hitting the victim to the head. He exhibited concerningly violent behaviour, irrespective of whatever motivation he held for it. I am satisfied that the offending was “substantially contributed” to by substance dependency. But it is offending that Mr Hiscox lacks remorse for, and offending that warrants stern deterrent sentences that reflect the harm caused to the victim. The need for deterrent sentences is also borne out by this offending occurring while Mr Hiscox was on conditional liberty, being on bail for the earlier offending. I am satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is warranted.

13 August 2024 offending

39. After the victim reported the matter to police, at about 8:30pm on 12 August, police obtained a search warrant for the residence, the person of Mr Hiscox, and a 3LA order. That is, an order pursuant to s 3LA of the Crimes Act (Cth) that Mr Hiscox was required to provide any information or assistance to allow the police to access, in the circumstances here, his phone: ss 3LA(1)-(2) Crimes Act (Cth).

40. At about 10:45pm police attended at the residence. On arrival, members of the Police Special Response Group negotiated with Mr Hiscox to leave the residence, and he complied. During the search of the residence, police located three hockey sticks inside of Mr Hiscox’s bedroom.

41. At about 11:15pm, Mr Hiscox was placed under arrest and cautioned. He declined to speak to police. Police located a white iPhone that they suspected to be Mr Hiscox’s inside of the residence. Police asked him to provide consent for the password, but he declined. He was served with the s 3LA order, however refused to provide the password as per the order. He was then conveyed to the watchhouse.

42. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Hiscox that this was not a serious example of this type of offence. This was submitted to be because the contents of the phone could not have been capable of relating to an offence of significant seriousness. The difficulty I have with that submission is that if the offences to which the warrant related to were serious offences, then s 3LA(6), and a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, would apply.

43. It follows that, in my view, this is a typical example of an offence contrary to s 3LA(5). There are seemingly no aggravating features. There was no significant adverse consequence that immediately resulted from the failure to comply. Nonetheless, it remains that if stern deterrent sentences are not imposed for offending of this type, the very power that a s 3LA order provides will be undermined. I am satisfied that, after considering all other available sentences, that no sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate: s 17A Crimes Act (Cth).

44. In accordance with R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550, I was referred to sentencing statistics for this offence and the following comparative authorities: DPP v Al-Mofathel [2024] ACTSC 117; R v White [2022] ACTSC 178; DPP v Doughty [2023] ACTSC 397; Zahab v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 7; Rodgerson v The Queen (No 2) [2022] VSCA 154; R v Morrison [2020] QCA 93; and DPP v Torbert [2023] ACTSC 332. Many of those authorities involve different maximum penalties that were applied, and circumstances where the 3LA offence was inextricably part of broader more serious offending. Nonetheless, they are of assistance in demonstrating that imprisonment is typically imposed for offending against this section.

45. Otherwise with respect to this offence, I observe that I am not persuaded that substance dependency “substantially contributed” to this particular offending. Mr Hiscox’s criminal history (see below at [50]) is not indicative of someone who is typically compliant with police and court orders. It was not made clear to me how his substance dependency had a role in this particular offending, beyond, I infer, it being indicative of a person living a lifestyle that implicitly involves defiance of compliance with law and order. Having regard to Mr Hiscox’s history, and the lack of apparent link between the offending and substance dependency, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that substance dependency “substantially contributed” to the s 3LA offence. Mr Hiscox is therefore not eligible for a treatment order with respect to this offence. Nonetheless, the period in presentence custody is such that this sentence is to be regarded as already served.

Subjective circumstances

46. Mr Hiscox will soon be 36 years of age. He was aged 34 and 35 years at the time of the offending.

47. He reports having a “good family” with “upstanding” parents, but he experienced traumatic incidents in his childhood that informed his commencement of substances from the age of 14 years. The prosecution accept that the Henry principles (R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346) are enlivened, while the defence submitted that the Henry and Bugmy principles (Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571) are enlivened. It is difficult, but ultimately unnecessary, in this matter to delineate which principle is to apply. What can be concluded is that full weight is to be given to a reduction in moral culpability in the sentencing exercise with reference to Mr Hiscox’s background.

48. Mr Hiscox commenced use of amphetamine and methylamphetamine at age 14. He was also playing sports at a high level in AFL and soccer. To enable him to continue in his sporting pursuits, at 17 years of age he entered his first rehabilitation program. He experienced trauma in that setting and exited the program. His substance use escalated, with the use of cannabis, MDMA, cocaine, and some heroin use. By the end of his adolescence, he was also engaged in problematic alcohol use. Thereafter, his substance use included the use of GHB, along with methylamphetamine.

49. He was able to achieve abstinence for a period of two years and eight months when he was aged from 25 to 28 years. This occurred after he completed a residential rehabilitation program as part of a Drug Court order in New South Wales (NSW). However, he reflects now that he continued to associate with antisocial people, and he returned to substance use.

50. Mr Hiscox has a limited criminal history in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), but has a relatively extensive one in NSW. In the ACT, he was sentenced in December 2024 to a short period of imprisonment for an offence of assault committed in April 2024. In NSW, his criminal history commences from when he was 18 years of age with property offending, and continues throughout his adulthood with offending including driving offences and property damage. He has been previously convicted for contravention of an apprehended violence order and, in 2013, was convicted of an offence of assault. In more recent years, in 2018, he was imprisoned for firearm and drug offences. Overall, it is a criminal history reflective of the need for deterrent sentences and one that limits the availability of leniency.

51. Mr Hiscox has available to him protective factors. He is engaging in counselling to address his history of trauma, he has a relationship with a supportive partner, he has housing that has been found suitable, and he has the support of his parents. While his relationship with his parents is one that he describes as “distant” due to his substance use, they have demonstrated their ongoing support of him with attendance during his court appearances and in a letter provided to the court. Mr Hiscox has little contact with his siblings, but is motivated to address his illicit substance use to be capable of being more supportive to a younger sister who has a significant disability and requires 24/7 support. He is also motivated by being able to be a positive influence in his partner’s son’s life.

52. Additionally, Mr Hiscox completed the Solaris Therapeutic Community program in January 2025, with completion of this program informative for the prosecution in their position that Mr Hiscox has a foundation to comply with a treatment order. Mr Hiscox is reported to be a positive support for newer participants in this program and he holds a position as a peer support graduate. He has returned negative results for substances in testing conducted in February and April 2025.

53. Mr Hiscox has goals to return to employment. He has completed his year 10 certificate and has completed other employment-related certificates and qualifications. He has had a varied employment history including in spray painting, sand blasting, mining, and forklift operations. He also has goals to disengage from negative associates, and to engage in prosocial leisure activities. He has enjoyed sports in the past, and has recently been engaging in meditation and breathing exercises.

Pleas of guilty

54. Pleas of guilty were entered with respect to all charges in the Magistrates Court, prior to the preparation of a brief of evidence being prepared. The matters were committed for sentence in the Supreme Court. A reduction in the order of 25 per cent is appropriate to reflect the significant utilitarian value involved.

Time in custody

55. Mr Hiscox has been in custody in relation to these offences from 21 January 2024 to 22 January 2024 and then from 2 September 2024 until the date of sentence. A total period of 277 days in presentence custody applies.

Totality

56. Mr Hiscox has additionally spent a period of some twenty one days serving an unrelated sentence from 12 August 2024 until 1 September 2024. While not attributable to the offending here, I bear in mind that Mr Hiscox has now spent a continual period of almost ten months in custody, which has inevitably provided a deterrent effect on him.

57. The totality principle is otherwise of application in the sentencing exercise given the multiple offences involved. I consider it appropriate to impose sentences that reflect the distinct nature of the offending on separate occasions, but to impose a level of concurrency for the related offending that occurred on 6 August 2024. Consideration

58. ACT Corrective Services consider that Mr Hiscox’s minimisation of the seriousness of his offending behaviour, and his history of noncompliance with supervision such that he returned to substances and offending behaviour, result in Mr Hiscox not being suitable for a treatment order. Corrective Services also hold concern as to Mr Hiscox’s antisocial attitude.

59. However, these attitudes, while of concern, have been more recently shown to be shifting. The protective factors as outlined above (at [51]) are informative in this regard. His parents describes that their son is displaying a level of maturity and desire to improve his life that is at a different level to his past attempts in rehabilitation. They express that they hope the court will see their son for not just his mistakes but for his potential to overcome them with the proper support.

60. The report from Canberra Health Services is also informative as to Mr Hiscox’s prospects of rehabilitation on a treatment order. This report describes Mr Hiscox as “future-focused” and demonstrating a “strong commitment to engaging in treatment”. Mr Hiscox expresses that “I’m not going to rush anything and will do what I have to do to get it right”.

61. Canberra Health Services have identified a therapeutically recommended residential program for Mr Hiscox. The identified program enables longer term care, up to 12 months, if required. Mr Hiscox is willing and committed to engaging in a residential program. Such an environment, engaged in with the supervision of a treatment order, promotes community protection, and the victim’s safety, in the sentencing order.

62. Mr Hiscox has previously experienced the onerous demands of a treatment order, albeit in the NSW jurisdiction. Having experienced this, he recognises that the structure of a treatment order will be beneficial to him in addressing his substance use. He is reported as reflecting that while he expects a residential program to be “difficult and confronting”, he anticipates he will benefit from being held accountable and forced to do things that are uncomfortable for his recovery. He is reported as saying that he is “100% invested” in succeeding under a treatment order. He reports that he is “further down the track [for recovery] than he has ever been”.

63. The extent that Mr Hiscox understands the requirements of a treatment order, and his willingness to engage with such an order, is a positive indication of his capability to meet the requirements, and objects, of such an order. He demonstrates insight into the challenges of his substance dependency, and his offending behaviour. He demonstrates a commitment and motivation to move beyond this lifestyle.

64. I am satisfied that Mr Hiscox is eligible for a treatment order with respect to the 6 August 2024 offending, and that it is an appropriate and suitable order to be made: ss 12A, 80S, 80T Sentencing Act.

Orders

65. For those reasons the following orders are made:

Sentence served: (1) On the charge of contravene s 3LA order (CAN 2024/8241), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 4 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 30 August 2024 and end on 29 November 2024. (2) On the charge of burglary (CAN 2024/961), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, reduced from 8 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 30 November 2024 and end on 29 May 2025.

Sentenced to: (3) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CAN 2024/8235), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 4 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 30 May 2025 and end on 29 August 2025. (4) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CAN 2024/8236), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 4 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 30 July 2025 and end on 29 October 2025. (5) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CAN 2024/8237), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, reduced from 8 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 30 August 2025 and end on 28 February 2026 . (6) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CAN 2024/8238), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, reduced from 8 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 30 November 2025 and end on 29 May 2026. (7) On the charge of reckless threat to kill (CAN 2024/8240), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, reduced from 12 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 30 January 2026 and end on 29 October 2026. (8) On the charge of common assault (CAN 20248239), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 80 days on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 30 September 2026 and end on 29 November 2026.

Drug and alcohol treatment order (9) A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order pursuant to s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) is made for Kyle Hiscox, in respect of the eligible offences set out in Orders 3 to 8, of which Kyle Hiscox has been convicted, and for which he has been sentenced to a total term of 18 months imprisonment, commencing on 30 May 2025 and ending on 29 November 2026. (10) The drug and alcohol treatment order be for 17 months and 27 days, to commence on 3 June 2025 and end on 29 November 2026. (11) The Custodial Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order for the eligible offences be suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from 3 June 2025 to 29 November 2026. (12) The Treatment and Supervision Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order be for 12 months, to commence on 3 June 2025 and end on 2 June 2026. (13) Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Kyle Hiscox be required 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 the day after the end of the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, 3 June 2026, until the end of the total sentence, 29 November 2026, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him. (14) For the Treatment and Supervision Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order: (a) The core conditions of the order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be hereby imposed. (b) Kyle Hiscox undertake any program, treatment or counselling, alcohol and drug testing or case management, and comply with any direction as to where he resides, or any curfew that may be required, by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that Team. (c) If Kyle Hiscox is discharged from or leaves any treatment program, he is to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00pm on the next business day. (d) Kyle Hiscox not return a positive test sample under alcohol and drug testing. (e) Kyle Hiscox not consume or use alcohol, cannabis, illicit drugs and prescription drugs not prescribed to him. (f) Kyle Hiscox comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means. (15) Kyle Hiscox be directed to sign a sealed copy of this Order and an undertaking to comply with the Order and any obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for the period that this Order is in force before he leave the Court precincts on 3 June 2025. (16) Kyle Hiscox return for DASL review in person or by AVL on Friday, 6 June 2025 at 12:30am.

I certify that the preceding sixty-five [65] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen. Associate: Date: 5 June 2025