R v Bhatia

Pre-Sentence Custody

1. The offender was arrested on 14 December 2018 and has been in custody since that time. The sentence I impose today will commence on that date.

Form 1 Offences

1. He also asks that I take into account two additional offences on a Form 1 signed on behalf of the Crown and by the offender. The first of those is an offence contrary to s 188(1) Crimes Act 1900. The particulars of the offence are that at Ryde on 1 November 2018 the offender disposed of three boxes of baby formula for the sum of $360. The offence was included on the Form 1 after having been brought into this Court by way of s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The jurisdictional limit applicable to that offence is imprisonment of two years with a fine represented by 200 penalty units. It is certain that the matter would have been dealt with in the Local Court had it been prosecuted separately or in this Court subject to that jurisdictional limitation notwithstanding that the maximum penalty specified for the offence in s 188(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 is imprisonment for ten years.
2. The offence listed as the second item on the Form 1 is one that was committed between 8 November 2018 and 15 November 2018 at Moorebank. This is an offence of larceny as a servant contrary to s 153 Crimes Act 1900. The offence was again in respect of baby formula to the value of $7,992 stolen from the offender's employer. The maximum penalty for that offence dealt with summarily is again two years' imprisonment with a fine represented by 100 penalty units and it also is before the Court by way of s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and therefore it would be dealt with, if prosecuted separately, subject to that jurisdictional limitation whether in this Court or in the Local Court, notwithstanding that the maximum penalty specified for the offence is imprisonment for ten years. Larceny simpliciter carries a maximum penalty of five years. The more serious version of larceny, when committed by somebody enjoying the trust of his or her employer, attracts the greater maximum penalty.
3. The Form 1 offences will be brought to account. I confirmed with the offender that his wish was for the Court to do so and I confirmed with the offender that he is guilty of each of them. He must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the principal offence bringing to account these additional offences, thereby increasing the sentence that would have otherwise been imposed to the principal offence if it were prosecuted alone.
4. The offender has gained a significant advantage in taking this course. He has avoided separate punishment for the additional offences. In accordance with what Spigelman CJ said in Attorney General's Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518, the additional offences will impact upon the principal offence requiring an appropriate increase to reflect the need for greater weight to be given to the aspect of personal deterrence arising from the extent of the offender's misconduct and the community's entitlement to retribution for his commission of those crimes.
5. The selection of baby formula in the commission of these offences reflects what has been an item of some interest in the media in recent times wherein there has been commentary upon baby formula in this country being favoured by citizens in China with high demand here for that product for transmission or export to that country. I asked the offender why he selected baby formula in the commission of these offences and he explained that his drug supplier asked him what products he had involvement with in the employment in which he was engaged. When informed that it included baby formula his supplier agreed to take that product in return for drugs that he was supplying to the offender, and it was the offender's understanding that the formula was then on‑sold to an Asian lady. That is as much as the offender knew.

The Application of R v Henry & Ors

1. There has been debate in this case about the extent to which the robbery is comparable to or to be contrasted with the guideline judgement in R v Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346. There are differences and these were, at least in one respect, the subject of discussion in an authority to which I have been taken, Liu v R; LV v R [2017] NSWCCA 148 wherein the judge at first instance was found to have made an error of law in the exercise of the sentencing discretion, holding the victim in that matter to be vulnerable within the context that was discussed in the Henry guideline judgement. In paragraph 144 of his judgement Garling J, with whom Hoeben CJ at CL and Bellew J agreed, wrote: "The finding of vulnerability…ought be categorised, properly, as a finding of situational vulnerability. That is, the victim was in a position by virtue of the dynamic factors of the particular offence, where he was vulnerable to, and could not escape from, the conduct of the offender. That seems to be what her Honour meant when she said that the victim was vulnerable because he was in a car with the three offenders. Her Honour had earlier noted that he was sitting between the two male offenders in the rear seat. This particular reference to vulnerability by her Honour seems to be in the context of the guideline decision in Henry. 145. However, it is clear from the Henry guidelines that the vulnerability there being discussed was not one of situational vulnerability as was the case here, but rather a vulnerability by reason of being the holder of a particular occupation or a member of a particular class. 146. It is clear that in terms of his particular situation, the victim here was in a vulnerable position, but that was not an aggravating factor to be considered in which the way her Honour has done. The fact that the victim was sitting in the back seat reflected the circumstances in which the robbery occurred, namely that he, in effect, had no choice but to comply with the demand to hand over his wallet and its contents. Having regard to the range of factual ways in which compliance with demands may be achieved, this particular circumstance suggested conduct more towards the lower end of the range of methodology."
2. The facts upon which that decision was reached are described at para 9 and following in his Honour's judgement. The circumstances were to some extent comparable with the present matter. The victim was walking towards a railway station on his way to work. He was approached by an offender who offered to drive him. He entered the vehicle and sat in the back seat between that offender and another offender, with a third female offender driving. They drove a short distance. He was there threatened. The demand was made that he give them $30,000. He was punched. In response to the proposition that he did not have the money, he was informed he should ask his family or friends. One of the offenders still had his arm around the victim and he was told that if he did not comply he would be struck again. He was told to take out his wallet. He was asked how much money he had in an account. He was told he should take money out of that and was driven to a bank in Burwood.
3. The contrast in this case is that this victim was in the car with one offender, in circumstances where the offender had a knife, which he held at the victim's throat. In this "situational vulnerability", which the Crown does not rely upon as an aggravating factor, and in respect of which it has disavowed any reliance upon the Henry guideline judgement, is part of the factual matrix upon which the assessment of the sentence is to be made It is a matter of some significance; although I do not have a victim impact statement before me, it would be most surprising if the victim did not experience a measure of fear and anxiety from being placed in such a position with a knife against his throat.

The Facts

1. The agreed statement of facts contains a description of each of the offences that are here for my consideration.
2. At the material times the offender was employed as a storeman by the employer company, the victim of the offence of larceny as a servant. This enterprise is a warehousing and distribution company which stores and distributes goods on behalf of its clients, including baby formula stored in tins which, in turn, are contained in boxes and sealed in plastic on pallets. The pallets are not unsealed at the company premises.
3. On 31 October 2018 the victim, GZ, saw an advertisement on Gumtree offering for sale tins of baby formula for $13.99 per tin with a contact telephone number. GZ sent an SMS to the mobile and received a response inviting him to call. He did so. He spoke with the offender. He negotiated the purchase of a quantity of the baby formula and provided his address for delivery. At 9.41pm on 1 November 2018 the offender rang GZ and they agreed to meet outside a church in Ryde for the transaction to conclude. At 9.48pm the offender arrived in a Toyota Aurion car and met with the victim, GZ. He handed to GZ three boxes, each containing six tins of baby formula and was paid $360. These were previously stolen from the employer company. The offender drove away and the victim, GZ, returned to his home.
4. In submissions the proposition advanced was that care would be needed with regard to this offence lest I fall into conflict with the De Simoni principle because the offender is not charged with the theft of these items but charged with the offence of disposing of them, but in circumstances where there could be no other conclusion drawn but that he was the person who did take them. But, as was pointed out, I am here to sentence him for the offence charged, taking into account this as an additional item in the sentencing exercise, and he is not charged with stealing in respect of that matter.
5. At 10.10pm that same day, 1 November 2018, the offender rang GZ and said he had another 14 tins of baby formula which he offered at $20 each. GZ agreed to this arrangement and at 10.35pm the offender rang Zhang again using the same phone number and the two agreed to me about two minutes later at the same location. When the offender arrived he told GZ to enter the car, which he then drove a short distance before stopping in Gowrie Street, Ryde. The offender then produced a knife, which he held to GZ's neck, while telling him to "drop all your money and put it in the centre of the car". GZ put $290 in the centre of the car. The offender then withdrew the knife from GZ's neck, allowing him to leave. The offender drove off.
6. At 10.43pm GZ received an SMS message from the same phone number. This was the offender saying, "Sorry, Tom," the name which he used when dealing with GZ. Between 11.23pm and 11.25pm GZ received two calls and one SMS message using the same phone service in each of which the offender demanded money. GZ contacted the police who began their investigation. The police seized the three boxes of baby formula. The offender's fingerprints were identified on the boxes.
7. On 14 November 2018 the offender left work at the company without explanation. The offender's manager viewed CCTV footage from the workplace for that day and saw the offender load six boxes of tins of baby formula to the value of $1,296 into his car. He had no authority to do this. Suspecting that this might have occurred on previous occasions, the manager reviewed older CCTV recordings and saw the offender loading his car on 9 November 2018 with seven boxes containing 42 tins valued at $1,512, and on 10 November a further quantity valued at $5,184. This was reported to the police. The offender did not return to work. That is the conduct upon which the offence of larceny by servant is charged.
8. The offender was arrested at his home in Auburn. He was interviewed. He admitted stealing the baby formula, selling some to GZ and having robbed him with a knife. He gave his reason for offending that he was under the influence of drugs and needed money to sustain his addiction. He expressed his regret and acknowledged that he had messaged GZ to say sorry, reflecting that he had that state of mind. Compensation in the sum of $7,992 is sought for the thefts on 9, 10 and 14 November 2018. I do not propose to make that order. The offender will be serving a period of time in custody; it is really not sensible for the Court to add that burden at this point. If the company wishes to pursue its remedy, or the insurer that might have covered the loss wishes to pursue their remedy, they are perfectly entitled to do so.
9. I should note here that the history of drug use is relevant to the assessment of moral culpability but, to the extent that the offender sought to rely upon the fact that he was under the influence of drugs in the commission of these crimes, it is not a matter that be brought to account in mitigation upon the application of s 21A(5AA) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, but it has a role to play in accordance with judgements in the Henry guideline judgement.

The Offender

1. He is now 29 years of age, born in 1990. He has a record of antecedents commencing in July 2007 in the Children's Court where he was ordered to submit to probation for an offence of aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company. In November 2008 in the Local Court he was convicted in his absence for resisting an officer in the execution of duty, common assault and intimidating a police officer in the execution of duty. These were brought back before the Court in January 2009 where he was placed on a bond, pursuant to s 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for a period of 12 months for the common assault and fined for the resist, put on another s 9 bond for two years for the intimidation, and sentenced until the rising of the Court for failing to appear in accordance with bail, as a consequence of which he had been convicted in his absence.
2. In December 2008 in a Local Court he was fined for disobeying a one‑way sign and fined and disqualified for driving whilst his licence was suspended. In February 2009 for driving whilst disqualified, he was ordered to perform community service. In August 2009 for driving whilst disqualified, he was called up for failing to complete his community service and was sentenced to imprisonment for one month. In July 2012 he was fined for dishonestly obtaining property by deception. In July 2013 for shoplifting he was convicted in his absence and, in due course, sentenced to imprisonment for five months, suspended pursuant to s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. In July 2013 for goods in custody he was convicted in his absence and, in due course, sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment of five months pursuant to s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
3. In November 2008 he was convicted in his absence for driving whilst suspended and, in due course, ordered to enter a bond pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for two years and disqualified. In December 2008 for exceeding a speed limit by more than 15 kilometres per how and driving while suspended he was fined and fined disqualified respectively. In May 2009 for causing a hazard to a person or vehicle, he was fined; for not giving particulars to another driver he was fined; for driving whilst suspended he was convicted in his absence and, in due course, sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months suspended, pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and disqualified. Then in his next appearance, which is out of sequence, for driving whilst disqualified and stating a false name, he was convicted in his absence. In due course, he was fined and disqualified for the disqualified driving charge and fined for giving a false name.
4. His experience in custody has been limited. I have his custodial record which shows that he was in a juvenile facility between 15 September to 12 October 2006, and at Burwood Court in custody on 8 December 2008 for one day. From 25 August 2009 to 24 September 2009 he was in custody until his sentence expired, and then admitted into custody on 14 December 2018 for the present matters. He has had no punishment imposed upon him whilst in the various periods of incarceration.
5. He was raised by loving and caring parents. I should note that the offender gave evidence before me. I found him to be a credible witness. I found him to be responsive and polite, quietly spoken, consistent with the observations made by the psychologist who provided a report tendered in his case. Ms Sarah Brann wrote her report on 26 June 2019 and, from my perception of the offender and the detail into which she has gone in the preparation of her report, it appears to me she has accurately captured his personality.
6. He presented with criteria that would support a finding that he suffers from agoraphobia and has done so for some significant time. It has not been entirely disabling, however, but I accept that it has contributed to his propensity for misuse of prohibited drugs, which ultimately explains why he engaged upon this criminal misconduct. It is, as Ms Marsden said on his behalf in this case, an episode of escalation when one contrasts the serious misconduct with which I am now concerned with the prior offences on his record.
7. He did not present as a socially sophisticated person. One might take the view, turning that phrase around, that he is relatively socially unsophisticated and has difficulty coping when things go awry for him. He came to this country as a 16 month old child from India. His father had preceded the family into this country but, once the family was restored, he grew up in a stable home environment with parents who were both affectionate but with expectations of him at home for behaviour and to commit himself to his schoolwork so that he might achieve a better life.
8. There were no negative experiences, apart from perhaps being disciplined with a wooden spoon, which ultimately was ineffective and abandoned when he was about four or five. He was not exposed to negative influences within his home environment, although his mother, he said, yelled a lot about minor issues. He said loud people tended to make him anxious. He suffered some antisocial influences in his community. He grew up proximate to Redfern and there was some racism suffered in that environment over those years. Redfern now is not what Redfern was 20 years or more ago and I would not disbelieve that he might have suffered some element of racism in his day to day activities.
9. The family moved to Auburn when he was 13. He continued to live with his parents until he was arrested. He gave evidence of being challenged by the care required of him for his father, who has a heart condition, and his mother, who has chronic arthritis and cannot walk any distance. His education went to year 11. He was not a good student. He wanted to become a train driver after school. He took a course in information technology but ceased after three weeks. He began labouring, unloading containers. He operated forklifts. He worked in factories. He held a position for six years as a storeman for a logistics company, and left that role at age 27 seeking full‑time hours and greater job security. This had an impact upon his cash flow and financial circumstances, to which he spoke in his evidence, and this also contributed to his decision to embark upon this misconduct.
10. He lacked insight into potential performance issues. He reported having called in sick because of his substance abuse issues. He had an unremarkable medical history. He suffers from asthma and carries a Ventolin inhaler but takes no preventative medication. He has no history of self‑harm or suicidal ideation. His agoraphobia appears to have contributed to his decision to embark upon the misuse of alcohol, illicit drugs and online gambling. His binge drinking commenced at the age of 14 or 15 but he has not been drunk from alcohol since 21. At 15 he began smoking cannabis so that he might fit in socially at school and "look cool". He was smoking daily by the age of 17 and then progressed from cannabis to smoke ice to help manage stress, which he has not yet shown any consistent ability to avoid or control.
11. He began consuming stimulants at age 18. He reported consuming ecstasy at rave scenes and dances until 21. The quality of ecstasy declined, he thought, and then he moved onto methylamphetamine from 16 or 17 up until the current offending. He was curious about that poison as a teenager and by the age of 21 he was smoking half a gram a day as well as infrequently using cocaine. This must have been costing him a great deal to be able to maintain a habit at that level.
12. He continued drug use, wanting to avoid withdrawal symptoms, and he reported financial stress associated with the stimulant abuse. He did not believe this impacted upon his work. He felt it gave him increased energy to do long hours. This clearly demonstrated lack of insight. He smoked stimulants at breakfast, during lunch breaks, and it could not have had any impact other than a deleterious effect upon his work performance I would have thought, a view offered by the psychologist, especially in work that might have been physically hazardous. He meets the criteria for stimulant use disorder, moderate, in early remission in the controlled environment of prison.
13. He also used heroin at age 22 under peer pressure. He had a negative view of this drug associated with his childhood exposure to heroin addicts but, this notwithstanding, he progressed to smoking 0.25 grams of heroin daily and was dependent upon it at the time of the offences. He met the criteria for opioid use disorder, moderate, in early remission in the controlled environment of gaol. He also abused benzodiazepines, non-prescribed, between 23 and 26 to assist managing his difficulty in crowds.
14. He was on methadone for six years and was prescribed 100 milligrams, reduced to 40 milligrams at the time of the crimes. In custody he has attended Narcotics Anonymous. He has been doing that for six months, a matter he confirmed in evidence. He engaged upon infrequent and moderated gambling up until March 2018 until he began to think about ways of doubling his money. He placed bets online as well as played poker machines, spending between $500 and $1,000 on each occasion. He sometimes lost up to 90% of his income. Clearly, gambling became a problem for him.
15. He hopes that he will not need to continue with NA in the community because his goal is to come off methadone completely. I agree with the observation made by the psychologist at p 23, except that I would go further and say that the offender's view is unrealistic and, were he to take that course, he would be at increased risk of relapse once he returned to the community and in contact with the stressors that encouraged his misuse of these substances previously.
16. He had a relationship that was of some five years' duration and that came to an end when he was aged 26. The blame fell to him for this apparently because of his prioritising of work and substance abuse at the expense of the relationship with his then partner.
17. There was a period of stability for about six years between the last episode on his record and the current offending. His motivation for stealing the baby formula is admitted in the discussions with the psychologist to exchange it for drugs. The initial $360 obtained in the disposal charge was lost to gambling. He did demonstrate insight into the factors that contributed to his predicament in which he finds himself. In the future he plans to abstain from substances, return to employment and cease contact with his substance abusing peers. At para 29 and following there is the analysis of his profile which meets the criteria for agoraphobia and the point is summarised in the following terms: "Mr Bhatia reported that he does not like crowds, or going to places where there are a lot of people such as shopping centres, that he has stayed home a lot over the years and abused substances in order to cope with situations that prompt his anxiety. While he reported attending nightclubs when younger he stated that he does not enjoy this, or being in the dark, and substances assisted him cope with these situations."
18. He is said to have been suffering agoraphobia at the time of these offences, in response to which he abused the drugs for which he then needed the resources that were provided by way of these offences. The anxieties that he experienced outside of gaol have become focused in gaol upon his safety in his proximity to others. There is some reference to him having been assaulted at some point and the need to be in protection but that was not developed before me. There is no suggestion that his time in custody is harsher because of that, though I would accept that, although he is not a small man, he presents as someone who might be acquiescent and over whom stronger personalities might bear influence.
19. He was assessed for his depression and anxiety and stress levels. These were not extraordinary. He has reached suboptimal maturation through his development, with limited independence compared to people of his age. His passivity is evident in the way that he has responded to difficulties. He will need to develop more adaptive ways of coping and communicating his feelings and views and the formulation then offered from para 33 and following provides a fair summary of the matters that I have drawn from the earlier portions of the report.
20. To summarise, his agoraphobic symptoms from an early age contributed to a pattern of social withdrawal and resort to problematic forms of escape, including misuse of prohibited drugs and gambling, ultimately leading to the commission of this most serious sequence of offending that will hereafter appear on his antecedents.
21. There is before me a document from his sibling, younger than he, consistent with what the psychologist has written and clearly reflecting the affection held for the offender. There is a letter of apology to the victim which I have read and a letter addressed to the Court, to which he spoke when it was brought to his attention, confirming his contrition and remorse, which I accept. It is in that document that he refers to being in protection because of being assaulted numerous times in the general population. He is receiving treatment and making progress, which I accept.

Submissions

1. I have written submissions from both the Crown and on behalf of the offender. They follow the general pattern that one has come to expect in offences such as this. The Henry guideline is visited and contrasted and comparisons are made. He is relatively young, although at 29 he is beginning to approach middle age. He has the burden of substance misuse. We do not know anything about the knife, as to its size or shape, only that a knife was used placed against the neck of the victim. There was a measure of planning but not sufficient to aggravate the offence. It involved the meeting arranged with the victim, having him enter the motor vehicle to be driven away to another location before the robbery occurred, not spontaneous, perhaps involving a measure of impulse in deciding to commit the crime with modest planning.
2. There was violence, not merely the threat of violence, with the knife placed against the victim's neck. The vulnerability point I have already addressed. It is not an aggravating factor but, as was discussed by Garling J in the judgment to which I referred, there was certainly situational vulnerability by reason of the nature of the offence and the circumstances under which it was committed. I agree with the Crown's submission that the form 1 offences are not to be seen as minor. I view them as serious offences. They involved a breach of trust implicit in such crimes, integral to them, although the disposal of the stolen baby formula does not involve the relationship with the employer as an element of the offence, though it does in the larceny as a servant offence.
3. Both offences were clearly deliberate and involved a measure of planning. The Crown invites me to take notice of the high demand and need for baby formula in the community. At this stage of life with young and very young grandchildren I believe I can take notice of that fact, also being aware of the interest shown in the product produced in this country from overseas. He was motivated by financial advantage. That is not taken into account as an aggravation but as a part of the factual matrix upon which to assess the Form 1 offences.
4. The Crown suggests a significant increase in the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed for the robbery offence. Significant perhaps might be a little strong. There will be an increase but to the extent which I believe is appropriate, bearing in mind the other objective factors and the subjective material relevant to the robbery offence. The antecedents do aggravate, but not so as to increase objective gravity or the sentence that would otherwise be proportionate to the misconduct. It does inform the aspect of specific deterrence, however, and the extent to which he ought not to have leniency that might otherwise have been extended.
5. The Crown reminds me that, other than the background of substance abuse, which is of significance in this case, the report does not present a remarkable history. There is nothing that could be said about his upbringing by his parents that contributed to this misconduct. It is a case of his personality, flawed in the way described, involving challenges for him which he sought to address by inappropriate means. The Crown concedes special circumstances. I find that there are special circumstances. He does need a measure of punishment but he also does need an extended period on parole under supervision to build upon the progress which I accept he is making in custody toward his rehabilitation.
6. Prospects for rehabilitation are, at this stage of the history of his life, to some extent guarded. His history so far before coming into custody offers challenge to the proposition that there are good prospects for rehabilitation. I accept that there are prospects for rehabilitation. I accept that he is sincere in his wish to redirect his path, but he has some little way to go yet before one could take the view that his prospects for rehabilitation could be described as "good" or "strong".
7. I have had the benefit of written submissions from Ms Marsden on behalf of the offender. They are quite detailed and she spoke to them thoroughly in the course of her oral submissions. She draws distinctions between the Henry guideline example and the present offence.
8. He is not a young offender she acknowledges but his criminal history is relatively limited. On one view it is extensive but, when one looks at the nature of the offences, as noted, this is an escalation upon the level of criminality in which he engaged in the past. With regard to the weapon, as I have noted, he not only threatened with a knife, he actually used the knife to apply it to the neck of the victim in the circumstances described. That takes it above someone simply holding a knife to threaten a victim who does not have the blade pressed against their body.
9. Evidence of planning is conceded but not so as to aggravate; I accept that. Limited violence I accept, with a real threat thereof, which must be accepted in the circumstances. I have already dealt with the question of vulnerability; there was a small amount taken, and the plea of guilty to reflect the contrition and to provide utility, bearing in mind the strength of the Crown case.
10. Submission was made that the Form 1 offences should be dealt with to achieve only a marginal increase in the sentence that would have otherwise been imposed. I am not persuaded of that. There should be something more marked in this case, in my view.
11. I have taken into account his plea of guilty, his background and the fact that he is said to meet the criteria for agoraphobia; it is conceded that the line in s 5 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 has been crossed and that a sentence of full‑time custody must be imposed.
12. The purposes of sentencing articulate in s 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 are all engaged. General deterrence has its role to play. There must be adequate punishment. Specific deterrence must be addressed, denunciation, recognition of harm. Protection of the community from the offender is perhaps of limited significance in this matter in light of the progress he has made towards rehabilitation in that there are some prospects. He is to be made accountable for this offending and the Court must recognise the harm that has been caused both to the community and to the victims.

The Sentence

1. That brings me to the imposition of sentence. Bringing to account the Form 1 offences, I shall certify the document if I could have the original signed by--
2. KEMP: I think if your Honour's looking for an original copy, there may be a difficulty. The document I think may have come from the Crown to defence to the offender in custody and then back out again electronically.
3. HIS HONOUR: Then you don't have anything to say if I sign the photocopy that's included in exhibit A?
4. MARSDEN: No issue, your Honour. It's because Mr Bhatia signed it while in custody so it came back to me by fax.
5. HIS HONOUR: Yes, that's all right. I can do that. I'll sign this photocopy. That will suffice.
6. I convict the offender of the offence of robbery armed with an offensive weapon. Taking into account the additional offences, I specify a non‑parole period of 2 years and 9 months commencing on 14 December 2018. He will be eligible for parole on 13 September 2021. I impose a further period of imprisonment of 1 year and 4 [1] months to commence at the expiration of the non‑parole period. That will expire on 13 January 2023. I would not adjust the ratio provided in s 44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to any greater extent. To do so would not reflect the measure of punishment which I believe is required in this case. I am corrected; it is 13 December 2022.
7. Mr Bhatia, just stand up. I will explain this to you. You have got to serve 2 years and 9 months, of which you have served some time already. You will be eligible for your parole on 13 September 2021, which is next year. You will then be on parole for a period of 1 year and 4 months thereafter. You will be under supervision then. If you keep making the progress that you have demonstrated so far, I am confident that you will get parole when you are entitled to make an application for it and then you will need to continue along that path, hopefully not to ever come back into the criminal justice system, because you have reached that stage of life where the Courts are going to be less and less sympathetic to you.

Endnote

1. I here misspoke but then corrected the error below. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 16 October 2019