• 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. The offender, Michael Gordon Pallier, is to be sentenced for the following offences: (a) Aggravated furious, reckless, dangerous driving (CC2024/3830) contrary to s 7(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) which attracts a maximum penalty of 300 penalty units, imprisonment for 3 years, or both, as well as an automatic license disqualification of 12 months, or longer if the Court orders. (b) Possess unregistered/prohibited firearm (CC2024/12609) contrary to s 177(2)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) which attracts a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both. (c) Drive while disqualified (repeat offender) (CC2024/12603) contrary to s 32 of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) which attracts a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units, imprisonment for 1 year or both, as well as an automatic license disqualification for a period of 24 months.

Agreed facts

2. At about 9:53am on Wednesday 25 December 2024 the offender, Mr Pallier, was riding a motorcycle at high speed in an eastbound direction on Parkes Way, Canberra City, ACT. At that time, police were on patrol in the area of Parkes Way when they observed the offender on a black motorcycle, wearing black clothes and a blue helmet travelling at high speed in an eastbound direction. Police radioed the description of the motorcycle and rider on a secure Police radio channel.

3. At about the same time other Police members were conducting random breath testing operations on Commonwealth Avenue in the vicinity of Vernon Circle. A Police member on Commonwealth Avenue observed the black motorcycle with rider wearing black clothes and a dark helmet exit from Parkes Way (eastbound) onto a slip lane which connected to Commonwealth Avenue (southbound). Police moved towards the slip lane and directed the motorcycle to stop at 9:54am that same day, and the offender brought the motorcycle to a stop. The offender was directed to move from the centre of the slip lane to the side of the roadway, when he engaged the motorcycle in gear and rode away from Police at high speed, contrary to Police directions.

4. Police observed the motorcycle to be bearing a New South Wales (NSW) registration "[redacted]". The offender was wearing a black motorcycle helmet, grey and black checkered top, black pants, and brown boots. The offender had a black backpack on his back.

5. The offender continued riding the motorcycle southbound on Commonwealth Avenue, City and Parkes ACT, at high speed, and weaved in and out of moderate density traffic. Police estimated that the motorcycle was travelling at no less than 120 kilometres per hour on Commonwealth Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 70 kilometres per hour. This manner of riding was captured on camera footage from a dashcam system fitted to the Police car.

6. Police broadcast the description of the motorcycle and rider, and particulars of the incident, over a secure Police radio. The offender was observed by a Police motorcyclist located on Commonwealth Avenue, Parkes in the vicinity of Parliament House, to approach from the north at high speed, cross the centre median strip near the up ramp to Parliament House, and manoeuvre onto the incorrect side of the roadway, riding south in the northbound lanes of Capital Circle, Parkes. This riding manoeuvre was captured on the body worn camera of the Police officer on Commonwealth Avenue, Parkes. The Police officer mounted his motorcycle and began to circulate the area in search for the motorcycle.

7. At about 10:00am the Police motorcyclist observed the offender wearing black pants, a black singlet and black backpack walking eastbound along a concrete retaining wall adjacent to Capital Circle, under the Melbourne Avenue bridge, Parkes near the southern side of Parliament House. This was captured on the body worn camera of the Police motorcyclist.

8. At about 10:04am Police located the black motorcycle, NSW registration [redacted], in the gardens located on the south-western side (Senate side) of Parliament House. A set of keys were located near the motorcycle, with none fitting the ignition barrel. The vehicle identification number of the motorcycle, a black coloured Suzuki [redacted], was observed to be [redacted]. A caliper lock was fitted to the brake caliper of the motorcycle.

9. At about 10:08am Police located the offender, wearing black pants, a black singlet and black backpack at the intersection of National Circuit and Hobart Avenue, Forrest. The offender was aggressive with Police from their first interaction. The offender provided his name and date of birth to police, and advised that he was currently couch surfing and was of no fixed abode.

10. Checks on the license status of the offender revealed it to be disqualified on 7 March 2023 for a period of twenty-four months. The offender was arrested and cautioned.

11. At 10:30am that day the offender was subjected to breath screening for alcohol which returned a value of 0.000. The offender was subjected to drug screening which returned a positive indication to the presence of a prescribed drug, namely methylamphetamine, and was advised he would be taken to City Police Station for the purpose of oral fluid analysis.

12. The offender was searched at Hobart Avenue, and a proof of identity card in his name and matching his appearance was located. The offender was also in possession of a set of keys which were later taken to the gardens of Parliament House where the motorcycle was, and a key from the set was found to unlock the ignition of the motorcycle. Another key in the set was found to unlock the caliper lock fitted to the motorcycle braking caliper.

13. The offender was found to be in possession of one homemade "Slamfire" firearm (which comprises two component parts), loaded with a shotgun shell. The offender was found to be in possession of a metal case containing loose ammunition, comprising two shotgun shells and four rifle cartridges. The offender is not authorised by license or permit to possess firearms or ammunition in any Australian jurisdiction.

14. A search was undertaken near Parliament House from where the motorcycle was located towards the bridge of Melbourne Avenue over Capital Circle. Police located a black motorcycle helmet with a grey and black checkered top in the gardens of Parliament House, both of which matched the description of those worn by the rider at the fail to stop on Commonwealth Avenue, City.

15. The offender was conveyed to City Police Station, and was introduced to Senior Constable Troy Mensinga, an approved oral fluid analyst. At about 11:07am the offender supplied a sufficient sample of oral fluid. The oral fluid sample was analysed using an OFA instrument. An OFA instrument was used to conduct a preliminary analysis on a small portion of that sample obtained from the offender. This preliminary analysis resulted in an invalid result to prescribed drugs being able to be detected in that small portion of the oral fluid sample. The remaining portion of the offender’s oral fluid sample was sealed in a labelled vial using a tamper-evident seal, number [redacted].

16. The sealed vial containing the remaining portion of the offender’s oral fluid sample was stored securely and delivered to an approved facility for confirmatory analysis.

17. The offender informed Police he had taken a ball of ice (methylamphetamine), cocaine and MDMA earlier that day. Police observed that the offender’s facial colour appeared flushed, and his eyes were normal. His speech was fast. At times the offender was aggressive, could not sit still and was constantly fidgeting and grinding his teeth.

18. At the time of the incident Commonwealth Avenue, City and Parkes was a multi-lane, divided major arterial road. It is predominantly surrounded by parklands which are tourist attractions in the Canberra area. Traffic volume was moderate at the time of the offending, and the road surface was dry and in good condition. Parkes Way, City, Commonwealth Avenue, City and Commonwealth Avenue, Parkes are roads in the ACT as defined by road transport legislation.

19. Police conducted further checks on the ACT Road Transport Authority (RTA) driver license and registration database which confirmed that the offender’s driver license was disqualified on 7 March 2023 by Magistrate Stewart in relation to CC2022/7241. The offender is a repeat offender in relation to driving disqualified due to a previous relevant conviction.

20. Checks on the ACT RTA driver license and registration database revealed that VIN [redacted] was last registered in NSW and the registration had expired on 2 November 2024, fifty-three days prior to the Defendant riding the motorcycle in relation to this matter. Due to the vehicle being unregistered for more than 14 days it was not covered by motor accident injuries insurance. Consequently, as the registration had expired for longer than fourteen days the Defendant used an unregistered and uninsured (compulsory third party) vehicle on ACT roads on Wednesday 25 December 2024. Further checks on NSW registration plate [redacted] which revealed it linked to a Yamaha [redacted] motorcycle. NSW registration plate [redacted] was validly issued to a different vehicle and was not properly issued to VIN [redacted].

21. The offender was offered the opportunity to participate in an interview in relation to the incident which he declined.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

22. As Refshauge AJ observed in R v Law [2021] ACTSC 351 at [1] traffic offences do, or have the capacity to do, great damage to the community; a motor vehicle being “potentially a lethal weapon”. In DPP v Coulter [2024] ACTSC 262; 107 MVR 391 I acknowledged at [37] that “too many families in our community know the traumatic and devastating consequences of a decision made to drive a motor vehicle with little regard for the safety of others”.

Aggravated dangerous driving (CC2024/3830)

23. In DPP v Clarke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 261 at [38] I summarised, by reference to R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 at [122] and R v Law at [31], the following factors as relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of this type of offence: (a) the extent to which the public and other road users were put at risk, the number of them and their vulnerability (children, the elderly, frail or disabled); (b) the nature of the location where the driving occurred (residential, busy commercial, shared user zone) and the time of day or night of the driving; (c) whether there were any passengers in the vehicle who were put at risk, especially if there were young children; (d) the variety and duration of aspects of the driving that were dangerous and the extent to which it was a multifaceted and/or a lengthy course of conduct especially factors such as driving into oncoming traffic, onto footpaths or other places where pedestrians are, through stops signs, red lights or give way signs; (e) the distance driven and the period of the driving; (f) the speed of the vehicle and regard for the conditions; (g) whether the vehicle is engaged in a pursuit from police or fails to stop when directed to do so by police; (h) whether the offender was intoxicated by alcohol or drugs and the degree of intoxication; (i) whether there was competitive driving or street racing on a public road or showing off; (j) damage occasioned to other vehicles, objects, houses or people; and (k) the extent to which police were put at risk when trying to terminate the driving.

24. The offender drove a motorcycle dangerously over a number of roads in a central area with moderate traffic. The conduct occurred on the morning of 25 December 2024, a public holiday and the offender drove past an unrelated police operation. The offender’s driving included: (a) High speeds of up to 120km/h in a 70km/h zone. (b) Weaving in and out of moderate traffic. (c) Crossing a median strip. (d) Travelling in the direction on oncoming lanes. (e) 7 minutes of offending conduct which occurred on at least two main roads. (f) A failure to stop for police.

25. I accept that the driving was not pre-meditated and occurred for a relatively short period. Whilst there was undoubtedly inherent risk in the manner of driving, there was no evidence that the safety of pedestrians, pursuing police or other road users were in fact placed at imminent risk of harm because of the offence.

Possess unregistered firearm (CC2024/12609)

26. Against the background of the factors identified by Refshauge J in R v Guy [2022] ACTSC 373 at [53] as relevant to the objective seriousness of this offence I note the following features: (a) The firearm possessed by the offender was a homemade “slamfire” shot gun. (b) The firearm was loaded and the ammunition was stored insecurely within the firearm. The firearm was stored insecurely in the offender’s backpack. (c) The purpose of possession and the circumstances in which the offender came to possess the firearm are unclear. (d) The firearm was in the offender’s possession for the period of his driving and until his arrest.

27. The offender’s wife confirmed that she asked him to dispose of the firearm. The offender explained his attempt to evade police as arising from his knowledge that the firearm was in his possession.

Drive while disqualified (repeat offender) (CC2024/12603)

28. I note that the transferred charge of drive while disqualified as a repeat offender occurred in circumstances where the offender came to police attention for the manner of his driving. This requires care so as to avoid double punishment. The disqualification came into effect in March 2023. This offending occurred in December 2024, twenty-one months after the disqualification.

Subjective circumstances

29. Before the court were two intensive corrections order assessment reports (ICOAR) and a Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List Eligibility Assessment Report (DASL eligibility report). Together with the submissions made on his behalf by Ms Baker-Goldsmith, the offender’s history, personal circumstances and challenges can be summarised as follows.

30. The offender is 36 years old. His parents separated when he was born and he moved with his mother to Parkes, NSW. His mother re-partnered and his stepfather was a drug user and perpetrated domestic violence against him and his mother. The offender reported being subject to extensive physical abuse at the hands of his stepfather during his childhood. At age 8, his mother left his stepfather and they relocated to Leeton, NSW to live with his maternal grandparents. The offender reported this part of his upbringing was more positive although his grandparents were strict and used physical discipline against him. The offender described difficulty in engaging in schooling and reported he was frequently subject to disciplinary sanctions. The offender left school in Year 9.

31. The offender reported close and positive relationships with both his mother and maternal grandmother. He noted he reconnected with his father however they share a sporadic but positive relationship.

32. The offender first consumed alcohol at age 10 and described problematic alcohol consumption as a feature of his life. The offender first consumed cannabis at 8 years of age and went on to engage in heavy illicit substance use, including amphetamines, benzodiazepines and intravenous heroin use. The offender described a pattern of use where would consume whatever quantities were available to him which also applied to other substances such as gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and antipsychotic medications (Seroquel). The offender reported that a one stage he was using at least an ‘8-ball’ (3.5g) of methamphetamine per day. He reported numerous negative effects of all his drug use including “lack of sleep, psychosis symptoms, conflicts in his relationship and constant threats of violence”.

33. The offender was in his previous relationship for 13 years. He described it as negative and noted that it involved extensive drug use. He has two children from the relationship who do not live with him. He has ongoing contact with one of those children.

34. The offender reported abstinence from illicit substances for approximately 2 years. He described his consumption of illicit substances at the time of the offending in December 2024 as a one-off lapse. The offender has undertaken drug testing whilst on bail and consistently returned negative results since May 2025.

35. The offender has participated in the Solaris Therapeutic Community program on four occasions. He stated he found this to be a valuable program and had acquired new tools to assist with his recovery each time. He also engaged with the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS) though did report that he felt discussing substance use triggered his desire to use.

36. The offender has experienced a range of mental health concerns including depression and anxiety type symptoms. In custody the offender was diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) and was prescribed anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication. He ceased using that medication in the community arising from a concern that use may ‘trigger’ a relapse. The DASL eligibility report recorded that the offender had reported multiple suicide attempts when highly intoxicated. He attempted suicide by manoeuvring his motorcycle towards an oncoming truck which avoided colliding with him in December 2024, which was corroborated by Canberra Health Services electronic records. The offender reported that he found counselling accessed through the justice system in the past to be ineffective.

37. The offender has been in a relationship with his wife for two years. He described it as a positive and supportive relationship. The offender resides with his wife and her three children for whom he plays a major caring role. He is directly involved in home-schooling the youngest child who has autism. The offender reported to have now distanced himself from his previous anti-social associates and reported he only spends time with his and his wife’s families.

38. The offender is presently unemployed however aspires to own a business with his wife. He has been doing weekly volunteer work with St Vincent de Paul. A letter from St Vincent de Paul confirmed this was so, and noted that he is a “productive, joyful and valued member of our team”. The offender has had a history of paid employment and currently receives Centrelink support. He reported some difficulty meeting his financial commitments.

39. The offender was assessed as suitable for an intensive corrections order (ICO).

40. The offender was assessed as suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO) however the assessor noted that being exposed to individuals who are actively using substances may compromise his rehabilitation efforts, and intensive drug treatment programs, “may inadvertently increase the risk of reoffending or substance use relapse among individuals with lower treatment needs, and may even contribute to the development of substance dependence”.

Letter under the hand of the offender

41. The offender authored a letter to the court in which he explained the events which led up to the offending and his personal challenges. He described his childhood “full of violence” which led him to see “authority as [his] enemy”. At the time of offending, he noted he was in a fresh relationship and had allowed an old friend stay with him following his friend’s release from custody. He explained “in hindsight [it] was a very foolish decision because that bought drugs with him and my most recent lapse”.

42. The offender acknowledged the seriousness of his offending and stated that he has “never been more serious about changing my life and striving to be the best version of myself not only for the people that I love but for myself”.

Reference letters

43. The offender tendered reference letters under the hand of his wife, stepson, brother-in-law, father-in-law, and an extended family member. Each reference confirmed the stable home environment the offender and his partner have created. The references commended the offender’s commitment to being a positive role model to his children and a supportive partner to his wife who described the significant emotional support the offender provides across the family unit.

44. The material demonstrates that a period of full-time imprisonment would have a significant and detrimental effect on the offender’s partner and children beyond the financial stress caused by his absence from the family home.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

45. The offender’s early childhood experience saw him exposed to drug use and violence perpetrated against him and his mother. As a consequence, the offender experienced significant instability in his living circumstances and his schooling. The offender’s disadvantaged childhood must be given “full weight”. In Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [44], the High Court explained that the effect of childhood disadvantage for the purposes of sentencing does not “diminish with the passage of time and repeat offending” but does not have the same “(mitigatory) relevance for all purposes of punishment”. The offender’s background which includes drug use from a very young age, is connected to the long-term challenge he has faced with illicit substance use. In turn his drug use explains his offending conduct to an extent. I find the offender’s moral culpability is reduced to a degree.

46. Despite remarks attributed to him in the ICOAR which could be seen as an attempt to minimise his conduct, I accept that the offender is genuinely remorseful for his conduct. The presence of genuine remorse properly influences an assessment of an offender’s potential for rehabilitation: see R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 at [41].

47. The offender has now consistently taken significant steps toward rehabilitation. It remains a compelling sentencing consideration.

48. The prosecution accurately identified that this is not the first time that the offender was noted to have gained control over his drug use following offending: see R v Pallier [2017] ACTSC 112 at [10].

49. The offender does have a demonstrated history of, at times, poor compliance with community-based orders. Since the commission of these offences his performance on bail supervision since April 2025 has been without incident and he was described as demonstrating “a high level of compliance”.

Conditional liberty

50. The offender was on bail and subject to a NSW sentence order at the time of the December 2024 offences. The offending was a betrayal of the opportunity to remain in the community. Such a betrayal is a factor relevant to the determination of the appropriate punishment bearing in mind that I must approach this feature of the offending with care to avoid double punishment.

Plea of guilty

51. The offender entered pleas of guilty to all offences in the Magistrates Court at the mention stage prior to the provision of a brief of evidence. Accordingly, the offender’s pleas of guilty had significant utilitarian value and saved the court and the community the cost of a trial.

52. The prosecution submitted that the case against the offender for the driving offences was “overwhelmingly strong”: see s 35(4) of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT). As was observed by Mossop J in DPP v Nguyen [2025] ACTSC 364 at [26] absent a brief of evidence (as is the case here) an assessment of the strength of the prosecution case for the purposes of s 35(4) is “more difficult”. Whilst the agreed facts demonstrate a compelling case against the offender, I am not persuaded on the material that it is in the small category of cases where an acquittal would be “realistically unlikely” (as to which see R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20; 367 FLR 122 at [31]).

53. In recognition of the significant utilitarian value of the offender’s pleas of guilty, I will apply a 25 per cent reduction to the sentence I impose.

Criminal history

54. The offender has an extensive criminal history which includes like offending and limits the leniency that can be afforded to him.

Time in custody

55. The offender has spent 104 days in custody in relation to the offences. I will take that period of pre-sentence custody into account. Current sentencing practice

56. The prosecutor provided a table of comparable sentencing outcomes, which are annexed to this judgment. I have carefully considered the outcomes in those matters and bear in mind that a consideration of sentencing practice is in pursuit of consistent application of legal principle and not mathematical equivalence in sentencing outcomes.

Determination

57. The finding I have made with respect to the offender’s moral culpability does not extinguish the need to ensure that the sentence imposed deters the offender and others in the community minded to engage in this type of offending. Protection of the community in light of the nature of the offending and the risk it presented, in particular to other road users, carries considerable weight. The offender has made significant progress toward rehabilitation which provides a strong foundation for its promotion in the outcome.

58. I am satisfied that the seriousness of the offending dictates that a period of imprisonment is the only just and appropriate outcome. A concession to that effect was appropriately made by counsel for the offender.

59. When this matter first came before me for sentence, there was some basis for caution about the offender’s capacity to maintain his rehabilitative efforts. I adjourned the matter for a further period to assess the offender’s ongoing compliance with bail. A bail progress report (BPR) and an updated ICOAR were prepared. The offender’s performance has been exemplary. There have been no breaches alleged and the offender has maintained a high level of contact with ACT Corrective Services as has been required of him. He has undertaken urinalysis as directed on 12 occasions since his release on bail and has recorded negative results on each occasion for illicit substances. In addition, the offender has made further progress in setting up a business venture with his wife and he has continued to volunteer at St Vincent de Paul. He is on the waitlist for psychological services. Since January 2026, the offender has also been volunteering with a local business which has led to the prospect of ongoing paid employment. The offender remains suitable for an ICO.

60. Against that background, the prosecutor did not oppose an order that the offender serve a period of imprisonment by ICO. Whilst the prosecutor noted a lingering concern about the offender’s challenges with compliance in the past, she fairly acknowledged the substantial effort and significant progress that the offender has made since the last sentencing hearing. In effect, it was accepted that the onerous regime of structured supervision provided by an ICO would provide for both support and accountability.

61. A return to full time custody for this offender would undoubtedly risk all that he has achieved whilst on bail. This would be detrimental to the offender, his immediate family, and the community.

62. It should be recalled that he has spent time in custody arising from the commission of the offences. If his consistent commitment to rehabilitation since his release is any indication, the period in custody has had some deterrent effect upon him.

63. Taking into account the time the offender has already spent in custody, I am satisfied that the imposition of an ICO would promote the offender’s rehabilitation and mark the gravity of his offending. In my view the leniency involved in the imposition of an ICO is warranted in the circumstances. It should not be forgotten that despite its service in the community an ICO is a period of imprisonment and any non-compliance with the strict regime of supervision for the entire period the ICO is in place will risk a return to custody.

64. It seems to me the offender is now highly motivated to avoid that outcome and is now capable of making the most of the opportunity to remain in the community. The most effective way to protect the community is to continue to promote and encourage the offender’s apparent realisation that significant self-change is required for him to steer his life away from the criminal justice system. As the author of the ICOAR observed “the strict conditions of such an order may support [the offender] to remain on track with his rehabilitation”.

65. The offender’s conduct can properly be viewed as one episode of criminality. I have determined to impose a period of full-time imprisonment for the drive disqualified offence which, taking into account the period of pre-sentence custody, the offender has now already completed. There is a need for some cumulation as between the remaining offences. A sentence imposed on one of the offences cannot entirely comprehend the criminality of the other and I have structured the sentence accordingly.

66. The starting point for aggravated furious, reckless, dangerous driving (CC2024/3830) is 12 months of imprisonment reduced to 9 months in recognition of the plea of guilty.

67. The starting point for possess unregistered/prohibited firearm (CC2025/12609) is 12 months of imprisonment reduced to 9 months of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

68. The starting point for drive while disqualified (repeat offender) (CC2024/12603) is 4 months of imprisonment reduced to 3 months of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty. Orders

69. I make the following orders: (1) On the charge of drive while disqualified (repeat offender) (CC2024/12603) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment to commence on 25 December 2024 and end on 24 March 2025. (2) On the charge of aggravated furious, reckless, dangerous driving (CC2024/3830) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months of imprisonment to commence on 5 March 2026 and end on 4 December 2026. (3) On the charge of possess unregistered/prohibited firearm (CC2024/12609) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months of imprisonment to commence on 5 August 2026 and end on 4 May 2027. (4) I direct that the periods of imprisonment imposed on CC2024/3830 and CC2024/12609 are served by way of ICO. The ICO is for a period of 14 months commencing on 5 March 2026 and ending on 4 May 2027. (5) I note that the offender’s licence is automatically disqualified for 24 months on CC2024/12603. The offender’s licence is disqualified for 12 months on CC2024/3830, and I direct that it be concurrent with the automatic disqualification.

I certify that the preceding sixty-nine [69] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor. Associate: P Beohm Date: 5 March 2026 Annexure A – comparative case table

Matter Charges Sentence Notes

DPP v Gowshall Sentenced for Aggravated Offender suffered [2025] ACTSC 490 aggravated dangerous driving – mental and dangerous driving 9 months 18 days behavioural and driving at police imprisonment disturbances, reduced from 12 depression, months on account prospects of of plea of guilty, by rehabilitation way of ICO.

DPP v Massey Sentenced for two For two counts of Bugmy and [2025] ACTSC 312 counts of driving aggravated Verdins enlivened, vehicle without dangerous driving reduced moral consent and two (repeat offender) - 7 culpability. counts of months, 14 days Extensive history dangerous driving imprisonment, including relevant as a repeat reduced from 9 offences. offender months on account of plea of guilty, and 1 year, 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 18 months on account of plea of guilty.

DPP v Clarke (No Sentenced for a Aggravated 2) [2023] ACTSC number of driving dangerous driving – 261 offences including 9 months reduced dangerous driving, from 12 months on driving at police and account of plea of failing to stop guilty, to be served by way of ICO.

DPP v Sentenced for Aggravated Dangerous driving Kayvanshokoohi aggravated dangerous driving – aggravated by [2024] ACTSC 386 dangerous driving, 7 months reduced FTS, intoxication and drug, threat to from 9 months, total and putting kill and assault term of 2 years 6 vulnerable road offences. moths suspended users at risk. after 12 days upon Psychosis at time entering GBO for 2 of offending years 7 months.

DPP v Barnes (No Sentenced for Unauthorised Slam fire firearm, 2) [2024] ACTSC firearms, possession of a stored insecurely in 240 ammunition and prohibited forearm backpack, not theft offences. [sic] (s177) – 9 loaded. Very strong months case. imprisonment reduced from 12 months on account Offences of plea of guilty. committed while on treatment order. Bugmy and Verdins.

DPP v Stewart Sentenced to 9 Unauthorised Firearms found in [2023] ACTSC 252 offences including possession of a headboard, property damage, prohibited forearm overwhelming weapons offences [sic] (s177) - 2 case. and forgery months reduced Application of offences from 67 days for Bugmy. Significant plea of guilty, by pre-sentence way of DATO custody.

R v Celeski (No 2) Sentenced for a Unauthorised Sentences largely [2022] ACTSC 393 range of offences, possession of a served by way of including prohibited firearm – treatment order, possession of a 9 months firearm sentenced prohibited firearm imprisonment served in pre- (under s 43) reduced from 11 sentence custody. months on account of plea of guilty.