• 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

The court’s power

4. The offender was originally sentenced under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Section 20A(5)(c) of that Act sets out the options that are available to the court when such a sentence is breached. The court may: (a) impose a monetary penalty of not more than $1,000; (b) amend the order to extend the period for which the offender is required to give security to be of good behaviour (though the amended period cannot be more than five years); (c) revoke the order and make an order under s 20AB (additional sentencing alternatives); (d) revoke the order and deal with the offender for the offence or offences in respect of which the order was made by ordering that the offender be imprisoned for that part of each sentence of imprisonment that they had not served at the time of their release; or (e) take no action.

Mandatory considerations

5. In addition to any other matters that the court considers relevant, s 20A(6) of the Act requires that the court must take into account: (a) the fact that the order was made; (b) anything done under the order; and (c) any other order made in respect of the offence or offences.

Disposition

6. It is regrettable that the victim of the offending giving rise to the breach was the offender’s mother, the very person on whom he relies to get through life, as discussed in R v Bolton [2024] ACTSC 314 at [38] and [63]. Caregivers are to be respected, indeed cherished, and the burden on family members in circumstances of disability can be great and at times unappreciated. However, the offender has been dealt with separately in relation to the conduct itself and had a further term of imprisonment imposed referable to the offending, albeit such term was suspended. I have taken that order made in respect of the breach offence into account.

7. The offender otherwise appears to have complied with his obligations under the RRO. Specifically, the offender has also complied with the suspended sentence order that was imposed in respect of the breach offence, which has included engaging with supervision by corrective services.

8. The appropriate course here is to amend the original order to extend the period for which the offender is required to give security to be of good behaviour.

9. That is the appropriate course here because: (a) The offender has little financial wherewithal to pay a fine. (b) The further offending warrants a consequence because the nature of the breach was one of further criminal behaviour. (c) However, the behaviour was not of an objective seriousness that would warrant revocation of the RRO and imposition of any sentence of full-time custody. I accept that to impose the remaining term of one year and nine months of imprisonment would be a disproportionate outcome.

10. In this case, I consider that it is appropriate to extend the period by four months. Orders

11. Accordingly, the orders of the Court are: (1) Pursuant to s 20A(5) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the term of the Recognisance Order made on 17 October 2024 is extended for a period of four months, such that it now concludes on 16 January 2027.

I certify that the preceding eleven [11] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice McWilliam.

Associate: Date: