R v Collins [2019] ACTSC 302

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment and Punishment - Sentence - joint commission of damage to property - obtaining property by deception - taking and driving a motor vehicle without consent - aggravated furious, reckless or dangerous driving - driving while disqualified - deferred sentence - where evidence of rehabilitation

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 108

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 12, 19, 33

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 22

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 32

Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) s 63

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 7

Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59

Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80

R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346

R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14

R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48

R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212

R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103

R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109

Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

SCC 167 of 2018; SCC 168 of 2018

1. On 28 June 2018, Brent Collins (the offender) pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a) one offence of damage to property by joint commission contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (CC18/6756) (Count 1). The maximum penalty for that offence is 1000 penalty units, 10 years' imprisonment, or both;

(b) one offence of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code (CC18/6753) (Count 2). The maximum penalty for that offence is 1000 penalty units, 10 years' imprisonment, or both;

(c) one offence of riding or driving a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code (CC18/4244) (Count 3). The maximum penalty for that offence is 500 penalty units, 5 years' imprisonment, or both; and

(d) one offence of taking a motor vehicle without authority contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code (CC18/6176) (Count 4). The maximum penalty for that offence is 500 penalty units, 5 years' imprisonment, or both.

2. The following transfer offences are also before this Court for sentence:

(a) one offence of aggravated furious, reckless or dangerous driving contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) (Road Safety and Traffic Act) (CC18/4248) (Count 5) (first offender). The maximum penalty for that offence is 300 penalty units, 3 years' imprisonment or both. The relevant disqualification period pursuant to s 63(3) of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) is 12 months, or longer if the Court imposes;

(b) two offences of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (Driver Licensing Act) (CC18/6140 and CC18/4245) (Counts 6 and 7). The maximum penalty for that offence is 100 penalty units, 1 year imprisonment, or both. The relevant disqualification period pursuant to s 32(5)(b) of the Driver Licensing Act is 24 months or longer, if the Court imposes; and

(c) one offence of minor theft contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code (CC18/6751) (Count 8). The maximum penalty for that offence is 50 penalty units, 6 months' imprisonment, or both.

3. The agreed facts are set out in the Statement of Facts, which forms part of the Crown Tender Bundle.

4. On 13 December 2017, the offender damaged the window of a vehicle belonging to Mr Gibbs that was parked at Parkes Place West, with a co-offender Paulkam Phavong (the co-offender). This act constitutes Count 1. From inside the vehicle he took the following items:

(a) a set of house and car keys and a GPO box key on a key chain;

(c) a rose gold Samsung 8 Phone, its case, an attachment on the back, and a clear screen cover;

(e) one pair of bud earphones and one pair of wireless earphones;

(i) various membership, frequent flyer, health fund and transport cards;

(n) a staff pass for a federal government department; and

6. The transaction card, owned by Ms Armstrong, was used for one unsuccessful transaction, followed by a successful transaction of $77 at a Caltex Service Station. These acts constitute Count 2.

7. The offender then went to Ms Armstrong's residence and took her car out of the unit complex garage. At the time the offender's license was disqualified. These acts constitute Counts 4 and 6 respectively.

8. On 14 March 2018, the offender drove a Mazda belonging to Ms Magarry in the areas of Deakin, Garran and Mawson. At this time his licence was disqualified. These acts constitute Counts 3 and 7 respectively. The police gave the offender verbal directions to stop and get out of the car, and deployed tyre deflation devices. The offender drove away at high speed along a footpath, which caused a pedestrian to take evasive action. These acts constitute Count 5.

9. In evidence before me are two Victim Impact Statements from the victims of the offences. The Victim Impact Statements were tendered at the sentence hearing.

10. The extent of the impact upon the victims was made clear by the Victim Impact Statements. Courts know the extremely serious effects of such offences as these. Nevertheless, it is valuable to hear the words of the victims. The Court acknowledges the significant impact that the offences have had and continue to have on the victims.

11. Counsel for the offender submitted that the offences were low range.

12. The prosecution did not cavil with that submission and I make that finding as it accords with my view.

13. In evidence before me is the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) prepared for the offender dated 27 August 2018.

14. The offender is 28 years old. He reported a supportive childhood and family life. However, between 19 and 27 years of age, he acknowledged involvement with anti-social peers and drug use. At 24 he moved to Coffs Harbour to remove himself from these influences, but returned to them when he returned to Canberra 12 months later. It was noted by the offender's relatives that a high school sport injury and associated health matters caused him to withdraw from sport and his pro-social influences.

15. The offender reported consuming alcohol between 17 and 21 years, using cannabis from 16 years old, methamphetamine from 23 years old and also prescribed medication for a behavioural condition. He attributed his offending to poor decision making primarily due to his drug use. The offender engaged in drug counselling with Directions ACT in 2014, but failed to attend a drug program in 2016 to which he was referred. On 12 July 2018, the offender self-referred to mental health services hoping to obtain medication for ADHD.

16. The PSR notes the offender expressed a desire to complete intensive drug support including residential rehabilitation, and relocate to Queensland to remove himself from antisocial peers.

17. The PSR author recommended that supervision could include strategies to address drug abuse, anti-social peers and health conditions. This may include intensive drug intervention including residential rehabilitation (which the offender has already successfully completed), counselling to address decision-making and association with anti-social peers, and health support to maintain diagnosed health conditions.

18. The offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offences.

19. As stated in R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 at [15] by Wood CJ:

Betrayal of the opportunity for rehabilitation offered through probation or parole, or of provisional release on bail, is regarded very seriously and should here have been weighed against the respondent.

20. The fact that the offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offence is an aggravating factor on sentence. I take the conditional liberty into account as an aggravating factor on sentence.

21. In evidence before me were four undated references in support of the offender tendered when the matter first came before me in August 2018.

22. First, a letter from a childhood friend of the offender, which includes the following:

Over the past few months [the offender] and I have reconnected as he suddenly returned to being the person I always knew. He has been a lot more positive in his outlook. We caught up a couple of times and I could sense his remorse and intentions to improve his situation were genuine from the way he spoke about the impact his life choices had had on his family, friends and of course the people who fell victim to the crimes he got involved in.

...

I was relieved to hear he had more than distanced himself from the people and the negative influences that had led to his situation and it was clearly obvious he was enjoying the environment he had created for himself both directly and mentally.

23. Second, a letter from the older brother of the offender, which includes the following:

Unfortunately, [the offender] had multiple injuries, although trying to play on in Rugby under his injury cloud he soon came to the realisation that he no longer could. In doing so he lost his ability to connect with his group of friends as he could no longer live the same life that they were. This took a massive toll on him. He lost a big part of himself and from then on felt out of place. ...

[The offender] struggled mentally and hated the position he was in. His lifestyle changed and he formed new friendships. ... He surrounded himself with people that were not going anywhere good in life and [the offender] was easily influenced. He then started to slowly live the life that they were. Years went by and he began to dabble in drugs and partying.

...

However, recently (past few months) he had changed for the better dramatically. His whole personality and outlook on life has brightened beyond belief. The loving, cheerful brother that I have memories of from many years ago seems to be back. He has ambition again. He seems a lot happier and has great plans for the future. Although I'm disappointed with his previous actions and choices he has made, I am very happy to see that he has finally had the wakeup call he needed.

[The offender] has spoken to me about how he now [sees] his actions not only impacted himself and his family but also the victims. ... He now understands the emotional impact maybe ongoing and they may never recover from that - he thinks they may forever find it difficult to trust people and may be apprehensive of strangers in car parks and a general feeling of their personal space having been invaded.

24. Third, a letter from the offender's father, which includes the following:

I am [the] father of four children and [the offender] is our youngest. [The offender] growing up was the most focused, successful and caring out of all of them. He was the kid that would hand a wallet in if he found it with the money still in it and was known amongst mates as Tim Tam because everybody loved him.

When he had a couple of serious sporting injuries unfortunately the surgery wasn't successful enough to allow him to continue to play Rugby Union and Baseball for his club and represent the ACT, something which had always been a passion and focus for [the offender]. Along with this he was told at 15 he would need to think of another career other than carpentry or building as his injuries would severely impact his ability to perform the work required. It was at this time we noticed that he lost confidence in himself and his circle of friends changed, and not for the better.

As time went on we noticed obvious depression and drug use which put him into a downward spiral which is why he is in the situation he is now. My wife ... and I spent most nights with little sleep and very worried about [the offender's] future. Then earlier this year our long-time family friend ... visited us, down from Sapphire in Queensland and was keen to catch up with [the offender]... [The friend] quickly noticed that he wasn't going very well and offered to take him back to Sapphire to live with and employ him in his business. [The offender] was quite excited about this but knew that while [the friend] loved him like his own son he also was very strict and disciplined as an ex-military man, and lived his life as a prominent part of the Sapphire community with very high morals, principles and standards so it wouldn't be an easy ride. So it wasn't until May this year that [the offender] committed to going to live in Sapphire under [the friend's] mentorship.

...

When he arrived.... [he] was positive for the first time for as long as we could remember. He regained a great deal of his self-worth back as he met a lot of the locals with [the friend], even the local Police, Ambulance, Chemist and store owners. He mingled with the locals and attended local community events when they arose. He was able to start with a clean slate, without his past and his reputation haunting him and earn the locals' respect on his own merit. He said he began to see it was possible to build a new life. He made enough of a good impression on the locals that some of them offered to give [the offender] references in view of him being arrested.

Even before he was arrested [the offender] spoke to me a lot about how sorry he is for what he did and all the people he has hurt including his victims. He has expressed his regrets about how being there for his nieces and nephews, along with the emotional impact his actions will have long term on the victims. He feels they may have emotional and trust issues that will outlast the financial costs, which he recognises, was unexpected and not budgeted this would have added stress to both of them and their financial situation.

... I have been amazed at how willing he is to accept the punishment for his actions - particularly where it has been such a devastating experience for him to have got himself clean and have then had charge after charge laid. ... Even in these circumstances he has been able to accept that his lifestyle and the offences were completely abhorrent and needs to accept responsibility, no matter how much he feels he has changed. I am very proud of him as a father that he has stepped up.

I understand that [the offender] needs to be held responsible for what he has done and when he is free again [the offender], [the friend] [my wife] and myself are all very excited to get him back to work in Sapphire and on the way to his full recovery and a life that he can be proud of.

25. Fourth, a letter from the offender's grandparents, which includes the following:

Our support of [the offender] was reinstated when he moved to Sapphire and we saw what a big change he was prepared to make to get himself back on track. This was before his arrest and incarceration so showed us it was sincere and not just a reaction to the police charges or an attempt to minimise the punishment he would receive. Since then the difference in his attitude and acceptance of his self-inflicted predicament has been remarkable. He is ashamed of his previous behaviour and is determined to turn his life around having now taken responsibility for his actions. He wants to seek whatever assistance he needs to restart his life drug free and can think clearly.

We now visit [the offender] as the Alexander Maconochie Centre on every visiting day he has. He has explained to us he just wanted to admit to the mistakes he has made and get on with his life free of drugs. This is the grandson that we prayed would one day come back to us. The young man we see now is the one we had before the drugs took a hold of his life - a kind, honest young man.

We are proud to say that [the offender] has also discussed with us his remorse for the impact he has had on his victims both emotionally and financially. He understands his actions may affect them in various ways, long into the future, including a general feeling of uneasiness and lack of trust when faced with strangers in general and particularly in car parks. He has said that because of the drugs he did not even consider his actions at the time but particularly since being in the Alexander Maconochie under lock down for up to 23 hours a day he has had so much time to think, and has reflected on how his actions affected those who became victims of his crimes as well as his family who he has caused so much grief. He says he knows he has broken our hearts time and time again and given another chance he wants only to prove to his family especially his mum that he can turn his life around.

My husband and I are both 76 years old and have serious health problems having said this we will support [the offender] in any way we can to ensure he achieves his goals both personal and professionally. He has expressed a desire to help young people that may be tempted to follow the path he had been on, we believe he has much to share regarding the bad decisions and choices he has made. He has a natural ability to be able to talk to anybody as he is very genuine and can express both serious and jovial qualities, which endear him to people. We would love to think we could live long enough to see our grandson become a positive hard-working member of society.

26. In evidence before me were four further references in support of the offender which included the following tendered on 28 August 2019.

27. A letter from ONE80TC, dated 27 August 2019 which included the following:

[The offender] has assumed a leadership role at ONE80TC, being given responsibility of leadership of his caseload, providing instruction and direction in house duties and other areas. [The offender] has regularly been called upon to assume 'big brother' duties, in orientating new students. [He] has also been entrusted with facilitating introductory classes at ONE80TC. [He] has demonstrated vigilance, determination and a strong work ethic in his efforts to identify the underlying causes of his substance abuse, and address what has historically motivated him to fall into chemical dependency. [The offender's] personal growth, when using the measurement of comparison to his condition at intake, is of impressive proportions.

....

[The offender] will be graduating from the ONE80TC residential program on 30/08/2019. [He] has expressed interest in attending the non-residential ONE80TC Outreach Program following his graduation, where he will be provided with counselling and drug testing. [He] has also expressed his intention to volunteer with the partner organisation of ONE80TC, the charity 'Christ Mission Possible'. These activities could constitute up to three days of the week for [the offender]. [He] has gone out of his way to provide himself with comprehensive accountability and post-graduation support. This objective seems to have been unlikely one for [him] to have sought out at outset of the twelve month program.

1. A letter from the offender's older sister dated 23 August 2019 which included the following:

Since starting the program at ONE80TC I have been quite astonished how well [the offender] has done. [He] sought out contact with us and explained the situation he had gotten himself into and what he was doing to better himself. We knew of the offending from the previous court appearances but [the offender] spoke about the offences now candidly and openly. His shame was intense. [The offender] explained how he had sunk so low into drug use, becoming dependent on a daily cocktail of drugs, and that that period of his life was a bit of a blur. He apologised for how poorly he had treated everyone and for taking everything we tried to do for him for granted. He was grateful for us giving him another chance and spoke about ONE80TC very fondly, he said it is extremely strict but that it had been good for him to have some boundaries and to be able to start completely fresh. It has really changed his life and he looks and sounds like a completely different person now.

...

When you speak to [the offender] now you can see his renewed vigour for life. He talks about his plans with [w]ork and life and he sounds confident and excited. It is lovely to have him back and present and I thank Your Honour so much for giving [him] this opportunity.

1. A letter from the offender's older brother dated 26 August 2019 which included the following:

12 months ago he started at the 180tc rehabilitation centre, wow what a difference the past year has made! [The offender] is now bouncing around excited about life. My positive, funny and up-beat little brother is back again. His attitude ... has improved tenfold. He is beaming with ambition to do great things again. I can see that he genuinely is ready to make up for those lost years and get back to kicking goals again. My wife, my three girls and I have noticed a positive change in [the offender]. Not only has 180TC done a fantastic job of re-shaping [the offender] but I believe most of the change was done by [the offender] himself as we can all finally see that he has a want for greatness again. We are all excited to have the real [him] back in our lives, as well as being very keen to see what the future brings with [him] involved in our family again.

1. A letter from his other older sibling dated 26 August 2019 which included the following:

I have seen a dramatic change in [the offender] whilst he has been at ONE80TC, previously to this, our relationship was strained and I did not engage in a relationship with him due to his behaviour.

[His] attitude over the last nine months of us rebuilding our relationship has been positive and I can say that I genuinely look forward to spending time with him. I can see [he] is back to being the happy, respectful, caring and compassionate younger brother before the drugs. I can say with confidence that his time at ONE80TC has been beneficial for him to gain the skills and provide him with the knowledge to be able to move forward to be a functioning member of society and leave his past behind.

31. I take these impressive references into account on sentence.

32. The offender has a criminal history in the ACT and NSW, but has clearly reached a crossroads in his life as evidenced in the material before me (R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212).

33. The offender entered pleas of guilty at an early opportunity.

34. Pursuant to s 33(1)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act), when deciding how to sentence an offender, the sentencing Court is required to take into account a plea of guilty by the offender. Section 35 provides for the matters that must be considered in that regard. This provision may be compared with the less prescriptive terms of s 22 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). Section 22 is focused on the utilitarian value of pleas of guilty: see R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 (Toumo'ua) at [41]-[48].

35. Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80 noted that the ACT Courts have adopted an approach to s 35 discounts that is similar to NSW at [47]. However, the ACT statutory scheme does differ from that of NSW: see Toumo'ua at [50].

36. I therefore allow a discount of approximately 25% for the pleas of guilty.

37. The offender has spent 88 days in custody solely referable to these offences. I take into account that the offender has spent 12 months in residential drug treatment. In accordance with the authorities I take that into account as quasi-custody for a period of approximately 6 months. Both counsel agreed that this results in a backdate to 1 December 2018.

38. The Court of Appeal in Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2 at [24] stated the following:

[J]ust as equal justice requires that like offenders should be treated alike, relevant differences should also be acknowledged: Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295, 301-2 (Postiglione) per Dawson and Gaudron JJ. This approach to parity has been applied by this Court in many cases, including Singh v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 17 at [74], Rubino v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 22 at [26]-[27] and Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 at [48] (Le Clair).

39. The principles in relation to parity in sentencing co-offenders are well known. Unjustifiable disparity is an infringement of the equal justice norm: Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 (Green) at [32].

40. Both counsel agreed that parity was not a consideration in the offender's case.

41. In sentencing the offender, the Court is required to take into account those matters under s 33 of the Sentencing Act that are known and relevant. I have referred to the relevant matters above.

42. The Court sentences in the context of the objects of the Sentencing Act in s 6 and the sentencing purposes in s 7 of the Sentencing Act. The sentencing purposes of punishment, general and specific deterrence, the protection of the community, accountability, denunciation, and recognition of harm to the victims are important sentencing considerations.

43. Rehabilitation is also an important consideration having regard to the offender's impressive rehabilitation at residential drug treatment.

44. The sentencing process also requires an examination of s 10 of the Sentencing Act and alternatives to prison. I propose to suspend the sentence taking into account previous custody.

45. As with every sentencing exercise, careful attention must be paid to the maximum penalty, which provides a yardstick: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357.

46. Drug addiction is a relevant circumstance for the Court to consider but is not, of itself, a mitigating factor: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [193]- [203], [273] and [347]; R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 at [19]- [30].

47. When sentencing for multiple offences, I must fix an appropriate sentence for each offence and then consider questions of accumulation or concurrence, as well as totality: Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53 at [64] (Zdravkovic). The real question is whether the total sentence is "just and appropriate" to reflect the total criminality: Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59; R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 at [66]; Zdravkovic at [71].

48. It must be recognised by the Court that the offences committed against the victims have had a serious and significant impact upon them all. Both the short and long-term consequences of being the victim of these offences must be acknowledged.

49. In coming to a sentence by way of instinctive synthesis, I have taken into account all the matters discussed above, including the objective seriousness of the offences, subjective matters, and the very impressive rehabilitation.

50. The appropriate sentence for the offence of joint commission of damage to property contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code (CC18/6756) is 8 months reduced to 6 months on account of the discount for the plea of guilty.

51. The appropriate sentence for the offence of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code (CC18/6753) is 4 months reduced to 3 months on account of the discount for the plea of guilty.

52. The appropriate sentence for the offence of riding or driving a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code (CC18/4244) is 12 months reduced to 9 months on account of the discount for the plea of guilty.

53. The appropriate sentence for the offence of taking a motor vehicle without authority contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code (CC18/6176) is 12 months reduced to 9 months on account of the discount for the plea of guilty.

54. The appropriate sentence for the offence of aggravated, furious, reckless or dangerous driving contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Safety and Traffic Act (CC18/4248) is 20 months reduced to 15 months on account of the discount for the plea of guilty.

55. The appropriate sentence for the two offences of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Driver Licensing Act (CC18/6140 and CC18/4245) is 8 months each reduced to 6 months each on account of the discount for the pleas of guilty.

56. The appropriate sentence for the offence of minor theft contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code (CC18/6751) is 6 months reduced to 4 months on account of the discount for the plea of guilty.

57. I note that this conviction puts the offender in breach of two good behaviour orders, but in relation to each I take no action on the breach as permitted by s 108 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT).

58. Overall there will be a sentence of 2 years, taking into account totality, accumulation and concurrency, backdated to 1 December 2018 to take into account previous custody and quasi-custody the balance of which will be suspended from today. There will also be a good behaviour order of 2 years imposed starting today.

59. Pursuant to s 19 of the Sentencing Act, the victims seek the following reparations:

(a) Mr Gibbs: $325.00;

(b) Ms Armstrong: $856.04;

(c) Ms Magarry: $347.50.

(a) I record convictions in relation to the offences.

(b) In respect of the offence of damage to property by joint commission contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code (CC18/6756), the offender is sentenced to a term of 6 months of imprisonment, commencing on 1 December 2018 and ending on 31 May 2019.

(c) In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code (CC18/6753), the offender is sentenced to a term of 3 months of imprisonment, commencing on 15 March 2019 and ending on 14 June 2019.

(d) In respect of the offence of riding or driving a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code (CC18/4244), the offender is sentenced to a term of 9 months of imprisonment, commencing on 1 April 2019 and ending on 31 December 2019.

(e) In respect of the offence of taking a motor vehicle without authority contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code (CC18/6176), the offender is sentenced to a term of 9 months of imprisonment, commencing on 1 May 2019 and ending on 31 January 2020.

(f) In respect of the offence of aggravated, furious, reckless or dangerous driving contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Safety and Traffic Act (CC18/4248), the offender is sentenced to a term of 1 year and 3 months of imprisonment, commencing on 1 July 2019 and ending on 30 September 2020.

(g) In respect of the offence of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Driver Licensing Act (CC18/6140), the offender is sentenced to a term of 6 months of imprisonment, commencing on 15 April 2020 and ending on 14 October 2020.

(h) In respect of the offence of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Driver Licensing Act (CC18/4245), the offender is sentenced to a term of 6 months of imprisonment, commencing on 15 May 2020 and ending on 14 November 2020.

(i) In respect of the offence of minor theft contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code (CC18/6751), the offender is sentenced to a term of 4 months of imprisonment, commencing on 1 August 2020 and ending on 30 November 2020.

(j) Pursuant to s 12 of the Sentencing Act the remainder of the sentence is suspended with immediate effect upon the entry into a good behaviour order for a period of 2 years commencing today, 28 August 2019, and ending on 27 August 2021. The offender is subject to a condition for this period that you accept the supervision of the Director-General of ACT Corrective Services as deemed appropriate by your supervising officer, and you are to obey all directions of the Corrective Services.

(k) In relation to the reparation order, pursuant to s 19 of the Sentencing Act, I make a reparation order requiring the offender to make reparations to the victims by payment of the following amounts (to be paid within 6 months):

• (i) Mr Gibbs: $325.00;
• (ii) Ms Armstrong: $856.04;
• (iii) Ms Magarry: $347.50;

(l) In relation to the disqualification of the offender's driving license, I impose the following:

• (i) CC18/6140: 24 months;
• (ii) CC18/4245: 36 months;
• (iii) CC18/4248: 12 months;
• (iv) Total concurrent license disqualification is 36 months.

I certify that the preceding 60 [sixty] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Loukas-Karlsson.