CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment and Punishment - Sentence - Aggravated burglary - Guilty verdict - Parity between co-offenders - Youth and rehabilitation are relevant sentencing considerations

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12, 33, 35

R v Jagjit Singh (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Nield AJ, 3 July 2012)

R v Jones; R v AI [2015] ACTSC 264

R v Keir [2016] ACTSC 266

R v McKenna [2014] ACTSC 219; R v McKenna [2015] ACTSC 253

R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305

R v Ruby Schrattenholz [2017] ACTSC 416

R v Schrattenholz [2017] ACTSC 247

SCC 95 of 2018; SCC 98 of 2018; SCC 213 of 2018; SCC 214 of 2018

1. On 18 April 2019, a jury found that the offenders CN, SN and Rosemary Rix were guilty of the offence of aggravated burglary in that, on 12 February 2018 at Canberra, they had entered a house at Griffith as trespassers with intent to commit an offence that involved causing harm or threatening to cause harm to a person in the building, and at the time they had been in the company of each other.

2. Pursuant to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code), the maximum penalty for aggravated burglary is 20 years' imprisonment and/or a substantial fine.

3. In relation to CN, a transferred charge of possessing an offensive weapon with intent to use it to commit an offence involving actual or threatened violence was withdrawn and is dismissed.

4. In relation to Ms Rix, in addition to the principal offence, I am asked to deal with a breach of good behaviour order associated with a partly suspended sentence.

5. On 18 April 2019, CN and Ms Rix were refused bail. On the same day, SN was granted bail and I ordered that she be assessed for an intensive correction order.

6. A few days prior to the offence, there was an altercation involving CN and LK, a victim of the offence. During the altercation, CN's jaw was injured. As a consequence, she was hospitalised.

7. Soon after CN was discharged from hospital, she suggested to Ms Rix (a close friend) and SN (CN's younger sister) that they "go for a drive to see if [LK and her partner NB] are there", i.e. were at Griffith premises that were owned by LK's mother and occupied by LK. Ms Rix and SN agreed. CN armed herself with a knife "for intimidation".

8. In evidence at the trial, CN made it quite clear that she went to the Griffith premises for the purpose of intimidating and provoking LK, and that she was pleased that the group had achieved its purpose.

9. CN said that the group drove past the Griffith premises. They ascertained that LK and her partner were at home. She then directed SN (who was driving) to pull over so that she could obtain a brick that she had seen by the roadside. She announced to the co-offenders that they should "get this bitch" and SN agreed.

10. The group drove back to the Griffith premises, exited the car and approached the fence to the backyard. Looking over the back fence, CN could see NB and LK's brother. She wielded the knife in her right hand and demanded to know the whereabouts of LK. LK's partner and brother then went inside to inform LK of the offenders' presence.

11. At the trial, the contentious issue was not whether the group had gone to the premises, but, rather, whether all the offenders had entered the premises. CN told the police that neither she nor her companions had entered the premises. In evidence, she was more equivocal, suggesting that, while her companions may have entered the residence, she did not. The jury was directed that, to be satisfied of the element of entry in company, they would need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all offenders had entered the building.

12. The jury's verdicts establish that, consistent with the evidence of LK and NB, the jury accepted that all offenders had entered the premises and that, at the time of entry, they had intended to cause harm or threaten to cause harm to a person or persons inside the premises.

13. After the offenders entered the premises, they were chased outside by a dog that belonged to KL and NB. In the course of a contemporaneous 000 call, LK said that "They've all got knives on them" and "They ran inside my house and then ran out because my dog was with me".

14. LK told the police officers who attended the scene that the offenders had been in possession of knives and had come into her house and threatened to stab her. In evidence, she said that all three had had knives and that Ms Rix had pointed a knife at her, threatening to kill her.

15. However, the other prosecution witnesses who were present did not give evidence that they had observed all offenders to be armed with knives inside the premises.

16. As LK's observations may have been affected by the fear that she was experiencing, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Rix or SN was in possession of a knife. While I accept that someone threatened LK, I am also not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that person was SN or Ms Rix.

17. By the same token, as far as the possession of knives is concerned, it would have been quite clear to Ms Rix and SN that, at the time that the group entered the premises, CN was in possession of a knife; she had been wielding the knife before she entered the premises. They also knew that she was in possession of a brick, because they had been present in the car when CN directed SN to stop the vehicle so that she could obtain the brick.

18. On the basis of the evidence given by LK, her brother, and a neighbour, I am satisfied that LK followed the offenders outside the residence, and CN threw the brick or half brick at her. Further, after LK re-entered the premises, CN attacked the locked Crimsafe screen door to the premises with a shovel and a garden stake that she had located nearby in the yard.

19. I accept the prosecution's submission that within the range of offences covered by s 312 of the Criminal Code, home invasions are generally objectively serious matters. This was a home invasion. It occurred in an otherwise quiet residential area, and the offence spilled outside the premises. The purpose of the burglary was to threaten or harm LK. The nature of the conduct can be contrasted, for example, with that involved in a burglary of commercial premises that is primarily directed at obtaining property; as a general proposition the latter would be considered to be of significantly lower objective seriousness.

The circumstances in which this offence occurred made it likely that the victims would be severely traumatised, as indeed they were. There were three immediate victims of the offence, not just one person, and the incident would have been very frightening to the neighbours as well, some of whom became peripherally involved. It was submitted that the home at which the offence occurred did not belong to LK. While that is true, it was nevertheless her mother's home, a place with which she, no doubt, felt a very close association. In that sense, her domestic space was violated. The incident was planned, at least on the part of CN, who armed herself with a knife and brick.

(a) The incident occurred in daylight when other people were in the vicinity and the victims were not isolated in that sense.

(b) The incident lasted only about seven or eight minutes.

(c) The incident did not result in any physical injury to the victims, although it did result in very significant psychological trauma (which is discussed below).

21. Looking at the roles of the individual offenders, CN was the instigator of the offence. The purpose of the offence was to exact retribution for perceived wrongdoing by LK against CN. Not only was CN in company, which is the aggravating feature charged in the indictment, but, when she entered the premises, she was also in possession of a knife that she had deliberately taken with her for the purpose of intimidation, and that she had wielded towards NB and KL's brother when they were in the backyard. A brick was also in CN's possession. She must have seized the shovel and garden stake that she used to attack the Crimsafe door. It is not clear that she had any weapon other than the knife in her possession when she entered the premises. Nevertheless, the use of the brick, the garden stake and the shovel at the exterior of the premises provides context to the offence of aggravated burglary and would have added to the trauma experienced by the victims.

22. SN was CN's younger sister and the relationship may have had some bearing in SN's involvement. She was the driver. It is unclear what role she played at the scene itself. The substance of the 000 call suggests that, at the time of that call, she had moved away from LK's immediate vicinity.

24. It is unhelpful to characterise the offence generally or the offences committed by particular offenders on a scale of objective seriousness. Suffice it to say that, in the case of all offenders, and particularly in the case of CN, the offence was of very significant objective seriousness.

25. The Crown prosecutor read victim impact statements from LK, her brother, and her partner. Each of the victims was highly traumatised by the incident. Anyone subjected to an incident of the type in question would undoubtedly be highly traumatised. Each of the victims described symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and I accept that they suffered post-traumatic stress as a consequence of the incident.

26. In addition, LK said that she had been in the early stages of pregnancy at the time of the incident and now has the care of a young child. These circumstances would have increased her feelings of vulnerability in relation to the offence.

27. As far as NB is concerned, in addition to dealing with his own trauma, he also has responsibility for providing care to LK and their young child, and assisting her to deal with her trauma.

28. The position in relation to the extent of the trauma suffered by the victims is somewhat muddied by the fact that they, or at least LK, may have had other traumas in their lives. Particularly because of the brevity of the victim impact statements, it is hard to know what role this offence played in their ongoing trauma. However, I have no doubt that, even considered in isolation from other traumas that the victims may have suffered, the incident had a very severe impact on the victims.

29. On 18 April 2019, CN was refused bail. Earlier, she had spent one day in custody in relation to the offence. She was on bail for about 14 months and was compliant with her bail conditions.

30. CN is now 22 years old. She was 20 years old at the time of the offence.

31. CN has not previously received a sentence of imprisonment. She comes before the Court with no prior criminal history of any moment. She has one prior conviction. In October 2016, she was sentenced to a 12‑month supervised good behaviour order for an offence of driving with alcohol in her blood or breath, which had been committed in December 2015. There was no offending during the order but, as the Crown prosecutor noted, this offence occurred within a month of the expiry of the order; it would appear that the gains made during the supervised good behaviour order were not maintained.

32. The authors of the pre-sentence report stated that, although the offender was compliant while subject to the good behaviour order and on supervised bail, her conduct in custody has been disrespectful. The offender's counsel submitted that the offender has did not realise the significance that might be attached to using offensive language in the prison environment. No doubt, she is now well aware.

33. CN and her sister SN are Kamilaroi women who were born in Sydney. They moved to Canberra with their family in 2009, when CN was 12 years old. They are the two oldest of five children. CN's family situation (as the oldest of a number of children) may have influenced the formation of her strong character.

34. The parents of CN and SN separated when the offenders were children. Their childhoods were very unstable; they were characterised by constant relocation, family violence, and substance abuse on the part of their parents. SN reported that their father experienced, and continues to experience, mental health difficulties. He has been (and may currently be) a patient in a mental health unit.

35. One of the reasons that the family led a transient lifestyle during the CN and SN's childhoods was that the family was attempting to escape domestic violence at the hands of the father. He re-entered their lives from time to time. At times, the family lived in refuges. CN (and, I infer, SN) was both the immediate victim of physical violence and a witness to violence towards other family members. Their mother struggled to find stable work and accommodation.

36. CN was given alcohol as a child and consumed alcohol on a daily basis from 12 to 16 years of age.

37. In addition to the violence associated with her family upbringing, CN has, in the past, been in a relationship with a volatile man who reportedly threatened her with knives during the relationship.

38. As the oldest of the five children, CN was always burdened with responsibility for her younger siblings. When she was 17 years old, she left home as there was inadequate space to accommodate all the children and she was the oldest.

39. After CN left home, she managed to reduce her alcohol intake. However, in the period leading up to the offence, she was binge drinking. Her alcohol use was assessed as at a risky or hazardous level and requires intervention. CN reported a modest history of cannabis use, but the assessment of her abuse of illicit substances concluded that her abuse was at a risky level, requiring intervention.

40. An alcohol and drug counsellor has spoken to CN, both at the AMC and prior to her incarceration. CN has expressed willingness to engage with treatment and address the issues underpinning her alcohol abuse.

41. CN described previous contact with a psychologist, stating that she terminated the relationship because she found counselling to be too traumatic. She reported previous treatment at the Winnunga Health Service in relation to mental health, anger management, and drug and alcohol misuse. It is unclear whether CN was referring to one or two treatment episodes.

42. CN's mother described her as a kind and loving person who has always been fiercely independent, and who is motivated to study and improve her situation in life. She stated that, in the period leading up to the offence, CN was highly stressed because her grandmother (who had helped to raise her) had been diagnosed with cancer.

43. Recently, CN's grandmother passed away. In a further blow, an uncle (the only positive male role model in CN's life) relocated to Queensland, with the result that CN has limited contact with him. In addition, CN's great-grandmother passed away very recently.

44. Due to her family's transient lifestyle, CN's schooling was highly disrupted. She attended at least seven schools before entering secondary school. She left school in Year 9. In no way should her schooling record be seen as reflective of her underlying intelligence and capacity.

45. CN informed the authors of the pre-sentence report that she has completed a number of certificate qualifications: in community services, construction, personal fitness, and drug and alcohol treatment. She has been employed as an executive assistant (in 2016), a kitchen hand, and with a construction company (in 2018). In September 2018, she was selected to participate in a government-funded employment initiative in the construction industry and her employer described her as a "genuinely nice person and a strong team member who could both follow instructions and work unsupervised". Upon release from custody, CN hopes to pursue a carpentry apprenticeship. She has also expressed interest in working in the fitness and personal training industry. While in custody, she has attended a hairdressing course.

46. In relation to the offence, CN informed the authors of the pre-sentence report that she had made formal complaints to the police that LK had assaulted her several days prior to the incident, but the police had taken no action. This statement is consistent with the evidence that she gave in Court, which was to the effect that, as the police took no action, she decided to take the law into her own hands. The Court must take a strong stance against such an approach.

47. When speaking to the authors of the pre-sentence report, CN stated that she had been found guilty of an offence that she had not committed. She acknowledged that she had taken a knife with her to the incident, stating that she took it for protection (contradicting the evidence that she gave at the trial). However, CN told her mother that she is remorseful and regrets her actions, realising that they were immature.

48. It is obvious from the above that some of the statements that CN gave to the authors of the pre-sentence report are contradicted by other material, including, for example, the fact that CN indicated that her substance abuse problem was significantly less than the assessed level.

49. CN furnished material that attested to her good character and general capacity. An outreach worker at the Street University, who became acquainted with CN in mid-2018, described her as an energetic and caring young woman who was an active participant in a variety of programs, was proud of her indigenous heritage, and seemed motivated to pursue study with a view to expanding her employment opportunities. The artistic director of the Street University described CN as "Intuitive, intelligent, caring, hardworking, reliable and enthusiastic" and said that CN has considerable artistic talent.

50. The authors of the pre-sentence report assessed CN as at medium to low risk of general reoffending and referred to her many protective factors, including permanent housing (in public housing), employment, family support, and the fact that she is attempting to advance herself academically and financially. The report recommended counselling for childhood trauma and grief, in addition to substance abuse.

51. The Court has great difficulty in reconciling the person described in the reports presented to the Court with the person described in parts of the pre-sentence report and the Court's own observations of CN in the witness box. Part of the explanation probably lies in CN's obvious difficulty in accepting authority which, in turn, is at least partly explained by the very challenging circumstances of her upbringing.

52. I agree with the Crown prosecutor's suggestion that, as SN has had the benefit of an assessment for an intensive correction order, it may be appropriate to afford the same opportunity to CN, without prejudging in any way the Crown's ultimate position on penalty, or that of the Court. If nothing else, an intensive correction order assessment will enable the Court to determine whether CN has changed her attitude to authority and would genuinely be prepared to accept an order involving close supervision over a considerable period of time.

53. Following the verdict, SN was granted bail. I requested an assessment for an intensive correction order. The assessment found that SN was suitable for such an order and was also suitable to undertake community service work as a condition of the order.

54. SN is 20 years old. She was 19 years old at the date of the offence. She resides in supported accommodation that is managed by Barnardos Australia.

55. SN's criminal history involves offences committed after the subject offence. In that sense, she comes before the Court as a person with no prior criminal history. On 15 February 2019, she was sentenced to a 12-month good behaviour order for driving a motor vehicle with alcohol in her blood or breath. On the same day, she was sentenced for two offences of common assault and one offence of obstructing a public official, in each case receiving an 18-month good behaviour order with conditions directed to addressing an alcohol problem. As will become apparent, SN has made excellent progress on the good behaviour orders.

56. SN is close to her siblings. Recently, her formerly problematic relationship with her mother has improved. She reported a "fractured" relationship with CN but a very close relationship with her three younger siblings.

57. SN experienced difficulty during her school years and there were periods of suspension due to misbehaviour. However, despite these difficulties and the family's transient lifestyle, she managed to complete Year 10. She has worked in the hospitality industry and currently works part-time in that industry.

58. From 12 years of age, SN consumed alcohol. From 14 years of age, she regularly consumed cannabis. However, she informed the authors of the intensive corrections order assessment report that, since March 2019, she has not used alcohol or other substances, and other material corroborates her assertion. Recently, she was assessed as having a moderate substance abuse problem over the 12 months preceding the assessment, but that does not deny the proposition that she has been substance‑free for a period of some months. SN appreciates that her past substance abuse has been a way of self‑medicating for psychological injury.

59. Following the offence, SN was supported by Canberra Youth Residential Service for three months. During that period, she was approved for social housing, reconnected with the Jehovah's Witness Church and a gym, renewed her driver's licence and registered her car, sought employment, and provided care and support to her younger siblings. As a result, she was accepted into the Barnardos Friendly Landlord Service Program, thereby securing more stable accommodation.

60. Barnardos Australia provided the Court with a report describing SN as a conscientious, mature and independent young woman, who has embraced the opportunity to access independent accommodation, meets all her tenancy commitments, and requires little support from Barnardos workers.

61. A report provided by SN's caseworker at CatholicCare states that SN has made significant positive changes to her lifestyle and confirms that she has ceased all use of alcohol and illicit substances, secured safe and stable accommodation, and is undertaking a part-time job in the hospitality industry. Further, she is a positive and stabilising influence within her family. She has developed strategies to cope with stressors and disassociated from negative peers. CatholicCare proposes to provide case management and counselling to SN for a further three months and then connect her to other suitable programs.

62. Since 2014, Bible studies have been an important part of SN's life. She has become a Jehovah's Witness which, according to her caseworker, has provided her with a positive community of peers and a strong moral framework.

63. The Court received a report from a recruiter with Salvation Army Employment Plus confirming that SN has recently secured employment in the hospitality industry and reconnected with the Jehovah's Witness Church, and stating that the reporter believes that "she is on a strong path to rehabilitation".

64. The one cloud in this very bright picture is that SN minimised her culpability for the offence to the authors of the intensive correction order assessment report, stating that the allegations were exaggerated and attributing blame to the victim. However, the intensive correction order assessment report referred to SN's many protective factors, including stable accommodation, part‑time employment, and pro‑social family and organisational supports, as well as her willingness to comply with any conditions imposed. The reporters considered that, from a rehabilitation perspective, a less intensive option would be appropriate. I take the authors to be saying that, as SN has taken advantage of all the opportunities that have been offered, there is little further that they could offer beyond the supports that are now in place.

65. Other than in the area of accepting full responsibility for the offence, all reporters (most of whom know SN well) describe SN in glowing terms as a model of self‑motivated rehabilitation and maturity such as one rarely sees in a young person from a highly disadvantaged background.

66. Following the verdict, Ms Rix was refused bail.

67. She is 21 years old. She was 19 years old at the time of the offence.

68. Her criminal history reveals that she has had a significant substance abuse problem over a number of years.

69. Her criminal history is significantly worse than that of the other offenders. As an adult, she committed offences in 2016 of failing to appear on bail (two offences), riding a motor vehicle without consent (three offences), common assault (two offences), knowingly obstruct a public official, failing to stop motor vehicle for police, dangerous driving, and drive while disqualified.

70. Further, on 7 February 2018 (five days before the subject offence), she was sentenced for an offence of riding in a motor vehicle without consent that had been committed in April 2017. She received a six-month sentence of imprisonment, backdated to 8 September 2017 and suspended after five months, i.e. on 7 February 2018. This meant that, at the time of the offence, she was subject to a good behaviour order supporting a suspended sentence which she had received only a matter of days earlier. She had just been placed on conditional liberty in the community.

71. The breach of the good behaviour order is before me.

72. In the past, Ms Rix has received several suspended sentences and served two prior periods of fulltime custody (November 2016 to February 2017 and September 2017 to February 2018). She has had the benefit of a number of suspended sentences, and the opportunity to learn a lesson from fulltime imprisonment prior to commission of the subject offence, but, nevertheless, proceeded to commit the offence.

73. On the other hand, the offence itself was committed in February 2018, almost 18 months ago. Although one can only hope that young people have the capacity to change reasonably significantly within such time frames, within the prison environment Ms Rix's behaviour has been disruptive and non-compliant.

74. Ms Rix is a Kurnai woman, but she was born in Canberra. She is one of six children. She came from a supportive and loving family that continues to support her. Her father was a good role model, and he has had significant involvement with the Aboriginal community, particularly in connection with teaching Aboriginal art and culture to the community.

75. However, in addition to trying to raise six children, her parents also fostered many other children, creating a huge household. This must have meant that Ms Rix did not receive the same level of attention that she would have received within a smaller family group.

76. Ms Rix has had two relationships. The second was abusive.

77. She left school before completing Year 10. She has no history of employment. Prior to her current incarceration, she received a disability support pension.

78. Ms Rix says that she has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, anxiety, and depression, which have caused her to act impulsively without thinking of the consequences. However, she believes that, since she has been in custody, her mental health situation has improved.

79. At 12 years of age, Ms Rix began to use cannabis. From 14 years of age, she used it daily. At 13 years of age, she began to use methylamphetamine. From 16 years of age, she used it daily. It is only during periods of custody that, as an adult, Ms Rix has not engaged in substance abuse. She was assessed as having a severe substance abuse problem.

80. There is limited material before the Court in relation to Ms Rix's mental health status, and there is no expert material in that regard. However, her parents agree that she is addicted to methylamphetamine. In addition, they state that Ms Rix was first diagnosed with mental health problems at 15 years of age, and has had a difficult history with her mental health.

81. Ms Rix was assessed as at medium to high risk of general reoffending, having regard to her illicit substance abuse, mental health conditions, and lack of pro‑social activities and peers.

82. In the letter that she wrote to the Court, Ms Rix demonstrated some insight into her offending behaviour and accepted responsibility for it. She is interested in entering a rehabilitation program and obtaining employment. Her period in custody has enabled her to reflect on her future, and she is motivated to adopt a more positive lifestyle upon her release. She would like to pursue mental health treatment through the Winnunga Health Centre. When she was in the community, she joined a yarning circle which she said assisted her mental health.

83. Ms Rix's prospects for rehabilitation are more doubtful than those of CN and SN. However, she says that she is motivated to rehabilitate. As I have given CN the opportunity of obtaining an intensive correction order assessment, I consider that I should afford Ms Rix the same opportunity, but without wishing to indicate that a favourable assessment will result me making an intensive correction order.

84. Defence counsel referred to the following comparable cases.

85. In R v Keir [2016] ACTSC 266, the offender and two co-offenders had taken part in a home invasion in response to an alleged drug debt owed to Mr Keir. One co-offender picked up a weapon at the scene. Mr Keir was less involved, and tried to encourage the co-offenders to withdraw from the scene. He did not expect the violence that occurred and was not implicated in weapon use. The offender was 36 years old and had an extensive criminal history (mostly for traffic and drug possession offences), but had not served a sentence of fulltime imprisonment. At the time of sentence, he had spent 233 days in custody for the principal offence and other offences following the revocation of his bail. Refshauge J sentenced the offender to 18 months' imprisonment, wholly suspended upon entering a good behaviour order for two years: at [76].

86. R v Schrattenholz [2017] ACTSC 247 and R v Ruby Schrattenholz [2017] ACTSC 416 concerned two sisters, Holly and Ruby Schrattenholz, who were co-offenders in an unplanned home invasion in the context of a family dispute. The complainant was punched and kicked multiple times by Holly Schrattenholz, encouraged by Ruby Schrattenholz, while the complainant's children watched. A plate was seized by Holly Schrattenholz before entering the house, but there was no weapon of significance. Ruby Schrattenholz was 23 at the time and Holly Schrattenholz's age was not included in the judgment, but presumably, she was also young. The offenders pleaded guilty. In sentencing Ruby Schrattenholz, Mossop J emphasised her lack of prior convictions, strong prospects of rehabilitation (no history of illicit drug use or anti-social behaviour), and the fact she had spent no time in custody. The starting point for the sentence was 17 months' imprisonment, and it was reduced to 14 months' imprisonment for the guilty plea. The sentence was wholly suspended, with a two-year good behaviour order. Holly Schrattenholz had a limited criminal history but was the main perpetrator of the offence. She had spent two months and 11 days in custody in relation to the matter. She was assessed as having reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. The starting point for the sentence was 20 months' imprisonment, and the sentence was reduced to 16 months' imprisonment for the guilty plea, suspended after three months of fulltime imprisonment.

87. In R v Jones; R v AI [2015] ACTSC 264, three men entered the complainant's room at night and assaulted him by punching him. One co-offender had had an earlier dispute with the complainant and had a machete in his possession. Mr Jones was not the instigator; he entered the premises at the last minute to assist the primary offender. He pleaded guilty at the first opportunity following a recalibration of the prosecution brief. He had a history of domestic violence and drug and alcohol offences. He received a wholly suspended sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, discounted from 24 months imprisonment, backdated to recognise the four months that the he had spent in custody.

88. R v McKenna [2014] ACTSC 219; R v McKenna [2015] ACTSC 253 concerned a home invasion for a drug debt. Three people had gone to the complainant's house to assault him and steal drugs and money. The offender was charged with one count of aggravated burglary and one count of intentionally inflicting actual bodily harm. He had mental health issues and had had a difficult upbringing. Penfold J deferred sentencing the offender for 12 months to enable him to address his substance abuse and seek psychological help. In relation to the aggravated burglary charge, he ultimately received a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, reduced from 24 months' imprisonment for his guilty plea, wholly suspended upon entering a good behaviour order for 21 months.

89. In R v Jagjit Singh (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Nield AJ, 3 July 2012), the offender and an accomplice invaded the complainant's home at night while heavily intoxicated from alcohol. The complainant was known to the offender and there was "bad blood" between them. The complainant was attacked and assaulted, suffering injuries to his left shoulder and both legs. The offender was charged with aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and was found guilty by a jury. Nield AJ emphasised the right of "every home occupier to be safe with his or her home", making a home invasion, particularly a violent home invasion, a "very serious offence": at T [31]. The offender had no criminal history, had not previously displayed violence, and had good prospects of rehabilitation. General deterrence was considered to be a significant sentencing factor. Nield AJ sentenced the offender to three years and six months' imprisonment, wholly suspended.

90. R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 was also mentioned by defence counsel. It should be differentiated from the other cases as it was of significantly greater objective seriousness; one of the offenders wielded a firearm. Each offender received seven years' imprisonment for aggravated burglary, and lengthy non parole periods were imposed.

91. The sentencing purpose of general deterrence is very important in this case. Home invasions are abhorrent to the community, and the community expects that perpetrators will be punished accordingly, in part to reflect the harm caused to the immediate victims and to the community generally by such offences. As well as the sentencing requirement for adequate punishment, sentencing purposes of accountability, denunciation, and recognition of harm are very important.

92. As all three offenders are young, and were even younger at the time that they committed the offence, rehabilitation is a prominent sentencing purpose. It is accepted by counsel for all offenders, and I agree, that given the objective seriousness of the offences, the only appropriate sentence, is a sentence of fulltime imprisonment. The purpose of rehabilitation will be a prominent purpose when determining how each sentence of imprisonment is to be served.

93. In addition, it is very relevant that CN and SN have very limited criminal histories and have not previously served a sentence of fulltime imprisonment.

94. Statistics from the ACT Sentencing Database show that, for 61 per cent of offences against s 312 of the Criminal Code, a sentence of fulltime imprisonment has been imposed, often in the range of 18 months to three and a half years. In most cases, the sentences have followed a plea of guilty and reflect a significant discount under s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act), which does not apply in the present case. In a significant number of cases, fully or partly suspended sentences have been imposed. However, as noted above, s 312 captures a broad range of criminal conduct.

95. I am aware that in sentencing the offenders, the Court is required to have regard to relevant factors in s 33 of the Sentencing Act and I believe that I have referred to relevant factors in the case of each of the offenders.

96. Further, I acknowledge the need for parity in sentencing co-offenders; this is a consideration not only in relation to the length of sentences but also in the manner in which they are directed to be served.

Breach offence - ride motor vehicle without consent - Ms Rix

97. In relation to Ms Rix, I am also to deal with a breach of good behaviour order associated with the suspended sentence for the offence of riding in a motor vehicle without consent.

98. The facts in relation to that matter are that, on 26 March 2017, the victim's vehicle was taken without her consent. At 2:00 PM on 28 April 2017, police saw it in Chisholm. They observed Ms Rix exiting the front passenger door of the vehicle and they called out to her. She ran back to the vehicle, reversed the vehicle and drove away at speed.

99. When police spoke to Ms Rix on 2 May 2017, she admitted that she had been a passenger in the vehicle. At the time when she was a passenger in the vehicle, Ms Rix knew that the vehicle had been taken without the consent of the owner.

100. Having regard to Ms Rix's prior history for such offences, and the fact that she committed the very serious principal offence that is before the Court only a matter of days after her release on the good behaviour order, I consider that she should serve the whole of the suspended portion of the sentence (one month) in custody.

101. On 17 July 2019, I adjourned the proceedings and refused bail to enable an intensive correction order assessment to occur. CN attended one interview, in which she stated that she no longer wished to be considered for an intensive correction order as she found the associated conditions "too onerous". The author explained the process and purpose of an intensive correction order but CN was adamant that she did not wish to continue the process. Accordingly, CN was assessed as unsuitable for an intensive correction order.

102. CN is convicted of the offence. I impose a sentence of three years' imprisonment, from 17 April 2019 to 16 April 2022.

103. Having regard to the offender's youth and the fact that she has not previously served a period of imprisonment, let alone a significant period of fulltime imprisonment, I will impose a nonparole period that is 50 per cent of the total term. She will be eligible for release to parole on 16 October 2020. She is to report to Community Corrections within two working days of her release and submit to supervision by Community Corrections for as long as they consider appropriate.

104. I impose a sentence of two years' imprisonment from 17 July 2019 to 16 July 2021. Pursuant to s 12 of the Sentencing Act, I suspend the whole of the sentence and make a good behaviour order for two years, on condition that:

(a) The offender is to accept the supervision of Community Corrections for a period of at least 12 months from today. Thereafter, Community Corrections may terminate supervision if they consider it appropriate to do so; and

(b) The offender is to undertake 150 hours of community service work.

105. I have decided to proceed by way of suspended sentence rather than an intensive correction order because SN has set up an appropriate support system, which can't be significantly improved upon, and it would be a waste of public resources to impose an intensive correction order in those circumstances.

106. I find that the breach is established. I cancel the good behaviour order and impose the suspended sentence of one month's imprisonment, from 18 April to 17 May 2019. That sentence has been served.

107. I requested an assessment for an intensive correction order to address the need for parity in relation to sentencing. In doing so, I did not intend to suggest that I would necessarily impose such an order if the assessment were positive.

108. In any event, Ms Rix was assessed as unsuitable for an intensive correction order.

109. The offender is convicted of the principal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months, from 18 May 2019 to 17 November 2021.

110. The total period of imprisonment in relation to the breach offence and principal offence is 31 months, from 18 April 2019 to November 2021.

111. I fix a nonparole period that is 50 per cent of the total term. The offender will be eligible for release on parole on 31 July 2020. In relation to parole conditions, she should report to Community Corrections within two working days of her release and submit to supervision by Community Corrections for as long as they consider appropriate.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eleven [111] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell.