• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

1. Gavin Massey is to be sentenced in respect of 12 offences involving property and dishonesty offending committed in July and August 2023. It is not in issue that lengthy terms of imprisonment are to be imposed. It is in issue how that sentence is to be served.

2. Mr Massey has now spent some three months in custody solely in relation to these charges, and has otherwise been in custody continuously since August 2023, a period of some 14 months. Mr Massey seeks an opportunity to serve the remainder of his sentence under a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order).

3. ACT Corrective Services find Mr Massey not suitable for a treatment order as he has a history of non-compliance with community based orders. ACT Health Services find Mr Massey suitable for such an order, and have identified a therapeutically recommended program that is available for him. The prosecution, appropriately, acknowledge that community protection can be achieved through a sentence order that promotes rehabilitation.

4. As will become apparent, a treatment order is an appropriate and suitable sentence order for Mr Massey, despite his history of non-compliance with community based orders. A treatment order is a unique judicially supervised sentencing order that is capable of securing compliance with community-based supervision. By addressing substance dependency through a treatment order, compliance with supervision is secured. It then follows that there is a move away from offending behaviour, and a move towards a community protected from the offender.

The offending

5. On a date unknown after 22 June 2023, Mr Massey came to be in possession of a 2023 Kia Sorento rental vehicle. The vehicle had been hired from Hertz Rental Car by an unknown person using identification from a person who had lost their wallet, containing identification material, in March 2023. The vehicle was not returned to Hertz and was reported stolen. Mr Massey is not suggested to be involved in the theft of this vehicle.

12 to 14 July 2023 offending

6. On 13 July 2023, Mr Massey committed an offence of aggravated burglary (CAN 2023/7569) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) and an offence of theft (CAN 2023/8205) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. The offence of aggravated burglary carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, 2000 penalty units, or both. The offence of theft carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, 1000 penalty units, or both.

7. The day prior, on 12 July 2023, at approximately 8:42pm the Kia Sorento was observed driving past a residence in Ngunnawal. The occupants of the residence were away overseas.

8. At 8:47pm, the vehicle came to be stopped outside of the residence. Mr Massey got out of the driver’s side. His clothing included a beanie. Some minutes later, he returned to the vehicle and drove away, driving slowly past the residence as he did so.

9. The following morning, at 6:01am, Mr Massey returned, on foot, to the residence. He was wearing the same clothing as the previous night, and he was with another male. They walked up the driveway towards the residence. Some 10 minutes later, they walked back down the driveway.

10. Between 6:34am and 7:54am, Mr Massey and the unknown male made repeated approaches to, and departures from, the residence. Mr Massey was observed on three separate occasions carrying bags and items and loading them into the Kia Sorento. The unknown male was also observed carrying bags and items to the vehicle, as well as riding an electric scooter down the driveway and loading it into the vehicle, with Mr Massey’s assistance.

11. They left the location in the Kia Sorento after 7:54am, with Mr Massey in the driver’s seat, and the unknown male in the passenger seat.

12. On 18 July 2023, the family who lived at the home returned from their overseas trip. It was found that multiple potential entry/exit points were broken, being a window to the side of the front door, a window near the kitchen, a window in the second bathroom, and a side gate. The master bedroom had been ransacked with personal belongings strewn everywhere. Police were contacted.

13. It was determined that 16 individual items had been stolen, with an estimated value of $21,068.00. The items included luxury accessories, a drone, and jewellery.

14. On 29 July 2023, police executed a search at Mr Massey’s residence. Six of the items stolen from the residence in Ngunnawal were located, including the scooter and drone, and were returned to the victims. The other items were never recovered.

15. During the search warrant, police also located the vehicle that was used during the burglary and theft. Subsequent forensic examinations linked Mr Massey to this vehicle. The driving of this vehicle without consent (CAN 2023/7573) amounts to an offence contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units, or both. The driving is charged as having occurred on or between 12 and 14 July 2023, which is not a short period for Mr Massey to have had possession of the vehicle. It is not clear whether there was any damage caused to it. The vehicle was used in the commission of the other offences, which aggravates the offending, but also warrants concurrency in the sentence orders. Similarly, a level of concurrency is appropriate between the burglary and theft offences given the inextricable link between the offending.

16. On 29 July 2023, Mr Massey spoke to police in a record of interview. He denied any involvement in the offending. By his plea of guilty, Mr Massey now admits involvement.

17. It is offending that is a serious example of this form of offence. It has the aggravating factor that it was committed in the company of another person, which accounts for the increased maximum penalty. It is otherwise aggravated by it being seemingly planned, and then brazen and determined offending involving multiple entries with damage caused on entry. The value of the property stolen was significant, with few of the items recovered.

18. It was no doubt very distressing for the victims to return to their home to find it had been entered, and their privacy and safety violated in this way. In addition to the emotional distress they will have experienced, there would have been financial implications, as well as the inconvenience from having to repair and restore the house, as well as replace items. Some of the items stolen included luxury items and jewellery which may very well have been items of sentimental value, exacerbating the likely distress caused to the victims.

14 July 2023 offending

19. On 14 July 2023, Mr Massey committed four offences, being two offences of burglary (CAN 2023/8202, CAN 2024/2157) contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, 1400 penalty units, or both, and two offences of theft (CAN 2023/8274, CAN 2024/8203) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. The offending on this date involves the entry and theft of items from two separate residences.

20. The first residence entered by Mr Massey was in Casey, which he broke into and entered between 8:51am and 9:58am. During the entry, Mr Massey took a photograph of the victim’s Harley Davidson, which was in the garage, and sent the photograph to associates to seek their advice as to whether to take the motorbike. He was informed of its likely value, and it seems made a decision not to take the motorbike.

21. He did though take a number of items from the house, including identification documentation, a tool bag, a cash box, and an item of jewellery. The jewellery item, being a 100-year-old wedding band, was of particular sentimental value.

22. When the occupant of the Casey residence returned home in the evening, he found one of the bedrooms to have been ransacked. The value of the items taken, beyond the sentimental value, is unknown.

23. During the search warrant executed on 29 July 2023, police located some of the identification documentation and the cash box. The other items were not recovered.

24. The entry and theft from this house was again a brazen example of the offending, having regard to the apparent confidence Mr Massey had in engaging with associates while he was at the residence. The time of his entry reduced the prospect of causing apprehension to the occupants by encountering him, but the duration that he remained at the residence increased the prospect of this. Fortunately, they did not directly encounter Mr Massey. It was nonetheless no doubt distressing for them to return home to find the room that was ransacked and that items were taken, in particular, the ring of significant sentimental value. The taking of identification document will have also been of concern, and, as submitted by the prosecution, elevates the offending as having a level of sophistication given the potential use to be made from the theft of such items.

25. Later that day same day, between 6:43pm and 7:07pm, Mr Massey entered another residence. This was a home in Franklin. Items were again stolen from the residence.

26. When the occupants of the residence returned home later that evening, it was found that a window next to the laundry door was opened and the fly screen had been pushed in. The laundry door was open, and their dog was loose. The main bedroom had been searched and a number of items strewn across the floor and bed.

27. A large number of items were taken, mostly of sentimental value, being multiple pieces of jewellery and jewellery boxes. The estimated value of the items taken was between $18,075.00 and $20,675.00. This stolen property was never recovered.

28. The loss of such a large number of items of sentimental value, along with the searching of the main bedroom, will have been particularly distressing for the victims. The entry to the house occurred at a time when there was an increased risk of the occupants being present, and it was an entry that involved some damage being caused. 28 July 2023 offending

29. A further four offences were committed by Mr Massey on 28 July 2023. Two of the offences committed were burglary (CAN 2024/2158, CAN 2024/2159) contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code, along with a charge of theft (CAN 2024/ 8205) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. A summary charge of minor theft (CAN 2024/8204) contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code, and carrying a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, 50 penalty units, or both, was also committed.

30. Mr Massey again entered and stole property from two residences on this day.

31. The first house entered was in Nicholls and was entered between 1:57pm and 2:10pm. The victim returned home at approximately 4:45pm to find his back sliding glass door window shattered. Drawers in his bedroom had been rummaged through, and less than $50.00 in change and notes had been stolen. When police attended, they located a black cloth face mask near the front door. Subsequent forensic examinations linked Mr Massey to the mask.

32. While the theft from this property did not involve significant financial loss, the entry involved causing damage. The cost incurred by the victim for replacing the door was $810.00. There was likely significant inconvenience also caused, as well as the concern of the house being unsecured while waiting repairs, in addition to the concern caused to the victim by the entry. A level of planning was seemingly involved in the offending with the use of the mask by Mr Massey, although his having left the mask behind is not indicative of him offending with a high degree of sophistication.

33. Shortly after the entry to the house in Nicholls, Mr Massey entered a house in Dunlop. He entered between 2:39pm and 2:56pm and stole property including currency, a large amount of jewellery, backpacks, and an expired credit card. The jewellery items included rings and earrings, and items of jewellery with the victim’s child’s picture inside. The financial value of the items stolen was estimated to be $10,000.00. The stolen items were not recovered.

34. The entry to the house was done by smashing a window, with the curtain and rail damaged. A front door panel was also smashed. The victim incurred a cost to replace the window of $600.00, with insurance covering the other costs. These financial implications emphasise the effects from such offending on victims. This was in addition to the likely significant impacts from the high number of sentimental items stolen. 29 July to 4 August 2023 offending

35. On or between 29 July 2023 and 4 August 2023, Mr Massey committed an offence of unlawful possession of stolen property contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/2170). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, 50 penalty units, or both.

36. During the search warrant executed on 29 July 2023, police also located a pharmaceutical prescription pad that Mr Massey had without permission.

37. A further search warrant was executed at his residence on 4 August 2023. Inside of a wallet found within Mr Massey’s clothing, police located a number of identification cards, licenses, and bank cards belonging to two other people. These items had been previously stolen and were in Mr Massey’s possession without permission. There was a total of 11 items, along with the prescription pad. This is a ‘rolled up’ charge, and one that is a relatively serious example of this offence having regard to the number of items involved.

38. Mr Massey’s partner, who was also an occupant of the house where the search was executed, was charged in relation to the unlawful possession of stolen property. She pleaded guilty to the possession of the prescription pad and was sentenced to a 2 month fully suspended term of imprisonment. She was found guilty following a hearing relating to one of the luxury bags stolen from the Ngunnawal residence, but Mr Massey is charged with a distinct and more serious offence in relation to this item.

39. In relation to the proceeding for Mr Massey’s partner, the prosecution fairly raised whether s 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) applies. Mr Massey gave evidence at the hearing of his partner, although it seems that it was a reluctant participation. It was not pressed on behalf of Mr Massey that a lesser sentence be imposed having regard to this assistance. The decision whether to do so is a discretionary one, and I do not consider it appropriate that any such reduction be afforded.

Pleas of guilty

40. In relation to all charges, Mr Massey entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court. It was not though the earliest plea which would warrant the typical full reduction. The pleas of guilty were entered after an initial plea of not guilty, after provision of the brief of evidence, and after a hearing date was listed. The pleas of guilty were then entered well in advance of the hearing date. I assess that a reduction in the order of 20 per cent is appropriate to reflect the extent of utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty. Subjective circumstances

41. Mr Massey is now 42 years of age. He has a supportive partner, and two children.

42. He had a difficult upbringing. The details of this are unnecessary to repeat in circumstances where the prosecution accepts that the principles from Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 are enlivened such that Mr Massey’s moral culpability for the offending is reduced.

43. His background is one that has led to mental health challenges, and he has been diagnosed with persistent depressive disorder and complex post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A psychological assessment undertaken on his behalf finds that Mr Massey has used substances throughout his life to manage the complex PTSD that has been present since his childhood. On his behalf, it was submitted that limb one of R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 is enlivened, in circumstances where his mental impairment is causally connected to the offending. The prosecution did not submit against such a finding. I accept that Mr Massey’s moral culpability is also reduced on this basis.

44. Mr Massey has a long-standing issue with substance dependency. This commenced when he was 13 years of age with cannabis, and then with heroin from 15 years of age. He has consistently used substances since that time, although last used heroin in 2022. When he was 29 years of age, he started using methylamphetamine which immediately became problematic. At the time of the offending the subject of sentence, he was heavily using substances following a family tragedy that occurred.

45. Mr Massey has a close relationship with his mother. His mother is currently seriously unwell, and this circumstance provides a motivating factor for him to rehabilitate. Mr Massey, in a letter and in evidence given at the sentence hearing, expressed that he wants his mother to be able to see him change his life, so that his mother can rest knowing that he broke the cycle of drugs, crime, and prison. He also has siblings, including a sister who is important to him, and provides him with support. His sister has provided a letter to the Court in which she speaks of her optimism that her brother can achieve rehabilitation. Mr Massey is also motivated to rehabilitate and be able to support his sister, as he feels that this ought to be his role as an older brother.

46. Mr Massey has a lengthy criminal history, consistent with his long-standing drug dependency. It is a criminal history from both New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and includes offences of drug possession, theft, burglary, and driving offences. His criminal history is such that no leniency can be afforded.

47. The offences were committed while Mr Massey was on conditional liberty. He was on both parole and on bail. This is an aggravating consideration on sentence, and is informative in giving weight to the concern raised by ACT Corrective Services as to Mr Massey’s likelihood of challenges with compliance with a treatment order. Mr Massey was found by ACT Corrective Services unsuitable for a treatment order on this basis. Similarly, he was found not suitable for an intensive correction order. As Corrective Services point out, this is not the first occasion that Mr Massey has offended while on conditional liberty. In fact, he has a long history of doing so: Massey v Roberts [2010] ACTSC 126; R v Massey (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 24 October 2013); R v Massey [2018] ACTSC 352.

48. This long history of offending behaviour, and disregard for court orders, suggests that if there is to be any prospect of rehabilitation for Mr Massey, and community protection from him, a different approach is necessary. His history is a cycle of addiction and offending that necessitates a response that has not been tried before. Mr Massey himself recognises this, saying in his evidence that “I’ve just got to do something different”.

49. This was also something recognised by the prosecution. The prosecution submitted that: The prosecution and indeed the community want to see the offender break the cycle of illicit substance use which clearly drives his offending behaviour. The offender may well be at a good point in time to try and learn positive coping mechanisms with the wrap around comprehensive support that a [treatment order] can provide.

50. Further, the prosecution, fairly, acknowledged in their submissions that there are a number of factors that may warrant, should the Court consider that an eligible sentence is within range, departing from the recommendation of ACT Corrective Services. This included that the prosecution submitted that there is force in the following observation of Ms Leesa Morris, the psychologist who conducted the assessment of Mr Massey: see above at [43]. In relation to the finding of ACT Corrective Services, Ms Morris observes that: [T]his presents a common frustration for inmates, where they may have developed the insight, maturity and readiness to engage in a different lifestyle, however their past behaviours discourage the systems around them from providing yet more support that is not appreciated.

51. The prosecution also acknowledged that the principles from R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 (Henry) as to early addiction are enlivened. I agree, and consider it appropriate in the circumstances to give primacy to the promotion of rehabilitation in the sentencing exercise. In doing so though, it is appropriate to apply what was said by Simpson J in Henry at [344], namely: In an appropriate case, rehabilitation might outweigh other sentencing factors. In order for those circumstances to provide a reason for reduction of sentence, however, there would need to be strong evidence of real progress towards actual rehabilitation. I would not wish to be understood to be saying other than that leniency of the kind to which I refer depends heavily upon demonstrated (as distinct from theoretical) rehabilitative prospects.

52. I am satisfied that Mr Massey demonstrates such prospects. He is using pharmacotherapy to good effect and has returned mostly negative results for substance use while in custody. He has engaged in drug rehabilitation courses and counselling while in custody. This includes having completed a Certificate II in Construction in 2023, a significant achievement given the disruption to his schooling.

53. He demonstrated in his evidence a genuine willingness to be vulnerable and engage with supports, both of which are necessary if he is to succeed on a treatment order. The supports available to him include some positive and supportive friends, and he has an intention to avoid antisocial associates upon release from custody. The positive friends available to him include two previous participants of treatment orders, both of whom are known to this Court to have achieved rehabilitation and now live prosocial lives.

54. Further, his partner is described as having made an effort to ensure they will have a safe network around them upon Mr Massey’s release from custody. His partner has provided a letter of support for Mr Massey. She speaks of her own journey of recovery and rehabilitation and how this provides her with knowledge to assist Mr Massey. She is committed to assisting him with the commitments he would have under a treatment order.

55. A further positive indicia of his prospects of rehabilitation is Mr Massey’s gains in remorse and insight to his offending. He acknowledged the impact of his actions on the victims, and recognised his conduct as being selfish and greedy. He said he is ashamed. He described that he had not previously thought about the impacts of his offending, but, after a family member’s own property was burgled, he has gained understanding as to this. Mr Massey expressed that he really regrets the burglaries, recognising that it is “such an invasion of privacy”. He apologises for his actions “and the people they effected … I have caused the victims of my crimes emotional distress, PTSD, feeling unsafe and more, and for that I am sorry. I know sorry doesn’t make up for my actions, all I can do is make changes in my life and make sure it doesn’t happen again”.

56. Mr Massey has goals to “put the last 20 odd years of drug use, crime and jail” behind him. He wants to be a better brother, son, and partner, and to be a father to his son. He wants to be a role model to his son and ensure that his son does not follow the same path that he, Mr Massey, did. He has a goal of securing a stable job and life. Mr Massey expresses it this way in saying “I don’t need a statue in the park, but I just want to be happy with my family and have them know they can count on me like I count on them”.

57. Mr Massey also demonstrates insight into his rehabilitation needs, expressing a preference for the structure of a treatment order, and for a residential rehabilitation program upon release. ACT Health Services, who have found Mr Massey suitable for a treatment order, have identified an available program for that purpose. The admission to such a program gives confidence that Mr Massey will have comprehensive support available to him without the need to rely on family members and his partner at the particularly vulnerable first stage of recovery. It is intended upon completion of the program that Mr Massey will reside at his partner’s residence, which has been assessed as suitable.

58. The value of an opportunity for engagement with rehabilitation outside of the custodial environment is also borne out by the finding of Ms Morris that: [W]hile Mr Massey professes readiness to finally cease his substance use, his insight into the cognitive patterns that lead to substance use, including following his own rules, has not developed. Given that these elements are addressed in recovery and rehabilitation programs (and not jails), it is unsurprising.

59. Ms Morris also finds that Mr Massey would benefit from intervention with a forensic psychologist, alongside substance use intervention.

Presentence custody

60. Mr Massey has been in custody since 29 July 2023, following his arrest for the last of the offending. His bail was refused, and he was remanded in custody solely in respect to the charges the subject of sentence.

61. From 1 August 2023, Mr Massey remained in custody, his parole having been revoked in respect to a sentence imposed on 18 January 2023. He spent a period of 58 days in custody in accordance with that parole revocation, until 27 September 2023. On 28 September 2023, he began serving a backdated sentence that was imposed on 15 October 2024 in the Magistrates Court and expired on 27 November 2024.

62. Accordingly, Mr Massey has been in custody since 29 July 2023, with a period of 92 days solely attributable to the offending the subject of sentence (29 July 2023 – 31 July 2023 and 28 November 2024 – 24 February 2025).

Disposition

63. It is readily apparent that for all of the offences no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. Imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence to reflect the denunciation and accountability that is warranted given the recidivist nature of Mr Massey’s serious offending.

64. In so concluding, and in determining the appropriate terms, I have also had regard to a number of authorities as to current sentencing practice as provided by the prosecution, to the extent these can be of assistance: DPP v Steep [2024] ACTSC 326; R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64. The prosecution also, reasonably, accepted that a period of imprisonment of four years is within range and that Mr Massey would not be precluded from eligibility for a treatment order. Further, with reference to authorities provided on behalf of Mr Massey, I have had regard to what has been said as to range of sentences for burglary offences in R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 at [67] and in R v Crawford (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 99.

Totality

65. The application of the totality principle is then of significance. I have concluded that in this matter, the overall sentence is appropriately structured such that the total effective sentence to be imposed is one that is less than four years imprisonment. The following factors have been informative as to that conclusion: (a) the ‘crime spree’ nature to the offending, it having occurred over a period of only some weeks; (b) the inextricable link between many of the offences, as observed above at [15]; (c) the total period that Mr Massey has now spent in custody, which provides a deterrent effect beyond the period in custody solely attributable to the index offending; and (d) the significance of avoiding a crushing sentence, particularly for a person whose moral culpability is reduced and for whom promotion of rehabilitation has prominence in the sentencing exercise.

Treatment order

66. It follows, that the total period of imprisonment to be imposed is such that Mr Massey is eligible for a treatment order: s 12A(1)(b)(ii) Sentencing Act. I am also satisfied that he is dependent on a controlled drug, that his dependency substantially contributed to the offending, and that he will live in the ACT for the term of the sentence: s 12A(2)(a) Sentencing Act.

67. The issue becomes whether such an order is an appropriate and suitable one. Mr Massey presented before me, and in the information tendered on sentence, as genuinely motivated to change. There is nothing in the material to suggest that such expressions of intentions to rehabilitate, and the same motivating factors, have been available previously. It gives confidence as to Mr Massey’s potential for commitment to a treatment order. As was submitted on his behalf, Mr Massey is “precisely the type of offender that [treatment orders] were designed to help”. And further, that “addressing his drug addiction will likely substantially reduce his risk of re-offending and better protect the community in the long term”.

68. Taking into account the matters as provided in sub-ss 12A(2)(b) and (c) and ss 80S and 80T of the Sentencing Act, I am satisfied that a treatment order is an appropriate and suitable one.

Orders

69. For those reasons, the following orders are made: (1) On the charge of aggravated burglary (CAN 2023/7569), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, reduced from 20 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 November 2024 and end on 23 March 2026. (2) On the charge of theft (CAN 2023/8205), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 August 2025 and end on 23 April 2026. (3) On the charge of drive motor vehicle without consent (CAN 2023/7573), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 September 2025 and end on 23 May 2026. (4) On the charge of burglary (CAN 2023/8202), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, reduced from 15 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 June 2025 and end on 23 June 2026. (5) On the charge of theft (CAN 2023/8274), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 5 months imprisonment, reduced from 6 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 February 2026 and end on 23 July 2026. (6) On the charge of burglary (CAN 2024/2157), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, reduced from 15 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 February 2026 and end on 23 February 2027. (7) On the charge of theft (CAN 2024/8203), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 July 2026 and end on 23 March 2027. (8) On the charge of burglary (CAN 2024/2158), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, reduced from 15 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 September 2026 and end on 23 September 2027. (9) On the charge of minor theft (CAN 2024/8204), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 75 days imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 September 2026 and end on 23 November 2026. (10) On the charge of burglary (CAN 2024/2159), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, reduced from 15 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 May 2027 and end on 23 May 2028. (11) On the charge of theft (CAN 2024/8205), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 5 months imprisonment, reduced from 6 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 January 2028 and end on 23 June 2028. (12) On the charge of unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 2024/2170), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 100 days imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence 24 May 2028 and end on 23 August 2028.

Drug and alcohol treatment order (13) A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order pursuant to s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) is made for Gavin Massey, in respect of the eligible offences set out in Orders 1-12, of which Gavin Massey has been convicted, and for which he has been sentenced for a total term of 3 years and 9 months imprisonment. (14) The drug and alcohol treatment order be for 3 years and 6 months, to commence on 24 February 2025 and end on 23 August 2028. (15) 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 24 February 2025 and until 23 August 2028. (16) The Treatment and Supervision Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order be for 18 months, to commence on 24 February 2025 and end on 23 August 2026. (17) Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Gavin Massey 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, 24 August 2026, until the end of the total sentence, 23 August 2028, 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. (18) 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) Gavin Massey 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 Gavin Massey 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) Gavin Massey not return a positive test sample under alcohol and drug testing. (e) Gavin Massey not consume or use alcohol, cannabis, illicit drugs and prescription drugs not prescribed to him. (f) Gavin Massey comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means. (19) Gavin Massey 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 leaves the Court precincts on 24 February 2025. (20) Gavin Massey be directed to appear in Court for DASL Review in person or by AVL on Friday, 28 February 2025 at 12:30pm.

I certify that the preceding sixty-nine [69] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: 27 February 2025