R v Darcy

District Court of NSW|2020-11-18

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Criminal Defence Lawyers File Number(s): 2018/00389554, 2019/00070480, 2019/00076821, 2018/00081466, 2019/00114105, 2019/00120339, 2019/00189659 & 2019/00192608

INTRODUCTION

Ethan Darcy appeared for sentence in the District Court at Sydney on 2 November 2020 upon an array of charges to which he pleaded guilty in the Local Court. In addition there is an array of offences to be taken into account attached to a good number of the offences upon which sentences are to be imposed. All of these are set forth in their respective Form 1 documents signed by the offender and on behalf of the Crown.
The offences in this Court are the subject of eight separate files reflecting that their prosecution at least in this Court commenced on progressive occasions. The offences are so extensive in their number that it was necessary to adjourn the proceedings until November 10, 2020 to allow me the opportunity assimilate them and the circumstances in which they were committed. As matters progressed however it was necessary to adjourn the proceedings again until today predominantly because of trials in which I am presiding currently, but also because there was some error in the assembly of the material which was discovered upon close analysis of the various offences and the inter-relation with the offences on the Form 1 documents which I have taken into account. In due course it was confirmed that there were four from the multitude of offences that had not been accounted for in the material prepared, and so today I addressed the offender upon two of those which are offences to be taken into account in respect of which he acknowledged his guilt and confirmed that he wanted them brought to account. In respect of the other two they were offences to which he pleaded guilty in the Local Court and now adheres to those pleas of guilty in this Court.

THE OFFENCES

To assist with the resolution of this matter there is a table that I have prepared for the particulars of each offence and the files in which they are recorded in this Court and the references by which they were recorded in the Local Court for transmission for their final disposition in the District Court. I shall read the content onto the record, and would suggest that this portion of the judgement might be read with the table which appears at the end of the judgement.
I expect because of the course to be taken, with the referral of the offender to the Drug Court, it will be necessary to have this judgement prepared for publication and when it is provided I shall incorporate this information in table format that I have prepared in draft form for the purposes of this judgement.
First I will note that there are 17 offences upon which I am to impose sentence. Seven of those have Form 1 documents attached to them.
Court file reference 2019/00114105 which correspondingly has the sequence, H424818692, I shall refer to the H sequence particulars as I proceed through these.

Sequence 2, upon which sentence is to be imposed, is an offence contrary to s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900. It was on 20 October 2018 in West Ryde; the offender entered the garage of Pink Lotus Massage with intent to steal. The maximum penalty specified is imprisonment for ten years, this being a second or subsequent offence following upon the offence committed in sequence 3 to which I shall come, to be taken into account when I am determining sentence for that offence and other following offences in the Series H71173766. The first of those offences, sequence 2, was on 16 December 2018 in the Haymarket; the offender obtained property to the value of $44.80, by deception, using the bank card of SG, contrary to s 192E(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for ten years.
Sequence 3 in the series is to be taken into account was on 16 December 2018 at Chippendale; the offender stole a wallet and bank card from the same person, contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years.
The next offence to be taken into account is sequence 4 in the series H71173766; on 16 December 2018 at Chippendale he entered the Fogo Restaurant with intent to steal contrary to s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900. This would carry a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment as a second or subsequent offence.

The next offence upon which sentence is to be imposed is sequence 3 in the series H424818692; on 25 October 2018 at West Ryde he entered the garage of Pink Lotus Massage with intent to steal after a prior conviction of break enter and steal set down on 11 May 2018 at the Local Court in Sutherland, contrary to s 115 Crimes Act 1900; the offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for ten years.
The next offence upon which sentence is to imposed is in the series H424818692 sequence 4; on 20 October 2018 at West Ryde an assault upon HLZ contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years.
The next offence upon which sentence is to be imposed is within the series H69414011, sequence 13. On 30 November 2018 at Burwood theft of a handbag with $2000 cash, Pandora jewellery of $1000 in value, reading glasses of $200 value from ML contrary to the s 117 Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty imprisonment for five years. When sentence is determined for that matter:

Sequence 9 in the series is to be taken into account. On 17 December 2018 at Burwood, theft of a wallet with $50 in cash, two bank cards, identification cards and Opal card and keys from SP, contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900. Again the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years.

Sentence is to be determined upon sequence 11 in this series. An offence on 11 December 2018 at Drummoyne of the theft of $700 cash from Kikki K, a business, contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years.
The next two offences are Form 1 offences to be taken into account in the determination of sentence for sequence H71852315/4; offence of theft of $40 cash in a shop from which the offender broke out contrary to s 112(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900. The Form 1 offences are:

In the series H69414011 sequence 16, an offence on 14 December 2018 at Strathfield; he entered the building of Beijing Impressions Restaurant intending to steal, contrary to s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty 10 years imprisonment as the second or subsequent offence; and
Sequence 12 on 14 December 2018 at Strathfield; the theft of a wallet with a Korean passport, $100 cash, a bank card and an Opal card and cigarettes from EC, contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty of imprisonment is five years.

The offence in which those are to be taken into account sequence 4 in the series H71852315 as I noted; 12 December 2018 at Chatswood $40 cash from QAF in 88 Foot Massage after which theft he broke out of those premises, contrary to s 112(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900; the maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years.

Also to be taken into account when sentence is determined for that offence is sequence 3 in that series; on 12 December 2018 at Chatswood; intentional damage to a vase within those premises contrary to s 195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900; the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years; and
Sequence 5 on 12 December 2018 at Chatswood; a break and enter at Welcome Health Chiropractic, with damage to the door and lock contrary to s 112(1) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years.

In the sequence series H69414011 sequence 14 sentence is to be imposed. The offence was on 18 December 2018 at Ashfield entering Beijing Impressions Restaurant with intent to steal, contrary to s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years.

There is a second subsequent offence to be taken into account from the same series, sequence 2, an offence on 18 December 2018 at Ashfield, the theft of a handbag with a Health card, Medicare card, Opal card and dentures, glasses, and a lunchbox and a card holder from QS contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty imprisonment for five years.

Sentence is to be imposed upon sequence 15 in this series, an offence on 18 December 2018 at Ashfield entering the Beijing Impressions Restaurant with intent to steal after a prior conviction on 11 May 2018 at Sutherland Local Court for break enter and steal, the maximum penalty imprisonment for 10 years.

The next two offences are Form 1 offences. They are sequences 4 and 6 respectively.
The first of those on 18 December 2018 at Ashfield, resisting a sergeant of police in the execution of his duty contrary to s 58 Crimes Act 1900, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 15 years with a two year term if dealt with in the Local Court.
The sequence 6 offence is on the same day at the same location, a charge of goods in custody in respect of the Korean identity document contrary to s 527C(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 12 months with a fine represented by ten penalty units.

These offences are to be taken into account when sentence is determined for the offence in sequence 3 in this series, on 18 December 2018 at Ashfield, an assault on Sergeant John Rayment in the execution of his duty occasioning to him actual bodily harm. The offence is contrary to s 60(2) Crimes Act 1900. It is before the Court by way of s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and thus the jurisdictional limit of the Court is imprisonment for two years but has the maximum penalty specified in the legislation of seven years imprisonment with a three year standard non-parole period.
Sequence 5 in this series is again an offence before the Court pursuant to s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986, on 18 December 2018 at Ashfield, being in possession of 0.08 grams of crystal methylamphetamine contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
In the series H73127083 sequence 6, sentence is to be imposed. The offence was on 8 December 2018 at St Ives. The offender stole $34,235 cash from HY and DQ contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900 maximum penalty imprisonment for five years.
In the series H69195460 sequence 1 sentence is to be imposed; an offence on 10 December 2018 at Eastwood the theft of $900 cash from HSC contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900, again the maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years.
In the series H72965681 sequence 8 sentence is to be imposed. An offence on 11 December 2018 at Gladesville and West Ryde the offender entered Roaming Bird Shop with intent to steal contrary to s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty 10 years imprisonment this being a second or subsequent offence.

When sentence is determined on that offence there is an additional offence to be taken into account in the same series sequence 4 on 10 December 2018 at West Ryde entering the Roaming Bird Shop with intent to steal contrary to s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900 with the same maximum penalty 10 years as a second or subsequent offence.

Sentence is to be determined upon sequence 9 in the same series, an offence on 11 December 2018 at Gladesville and West Ryde, entering the Roaming Bird Shop with intent to steal after conviction of break enter and steal at Sutherland Local Court on 11.05.2018; s 115 Crimes Act 1900; maximum penalty of imprisonment 10 years.
In the same series, sequence 1, an offence on 11 December 2018, theft of a handbag with contents from HXP contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900, this is to be assessed for the purposes of sentence, maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years.

The next offence is sequence 3 in the same series; a Form 1 offence on 11 December 2018 at Meadowbank, theft of a backpack containing the passport, sunglasses, headphones and clothing to the value of $600 from JG, contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years.

This is to be taken into account when sentence is to be determined on sequence 6, an offence on 11 December 2018 at Meadowbank and West Ryde, entering the Bencino Café with intent to steal, s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years as a second or subsequent offence.
I pause to interpolate that the reference to two locations in some offences is to include reference to the location of the other event which increases the maximum penalty to which the offender is exposed.
Also to be taken into account on that matter, sequence 6, in which a sentence is to be determined are sequences 4, 6 and 7 of H72965681. These are respectively:

On 17 October 2018 at Rozelle entering Darling's Bistro with intent to steal, s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty 10 years imprisonment as a second or subsequent offence;
Sequence 6, 17 October 2018 at Rosehill the theft of a Samsonite backpack and contents from MC, s 117 Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years; and
Sequence 7, on 17 October 2018 at Rosehill theft of a Calvin Klein backpack and contents from RS, s 117 Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years.

Form 1 offences are sequences 4, 6 and 7 from the series H 71932242.
Sequence 7 in the series H72965681 requires the assessment of sentence. The offence was on 11 December 2018 at Meadowbank, West Ryde, entry of Bencino Café with intent to steal, after conviction for a break enter and steal at Sutherland Local Court on 11 May 2018, s 115 Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years.
This exhausts the list for the offences with which the Court is concerned.

THE FORM 1 OFFENCES

In response to the offender's request pursuant to s 33 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, I shall take into account the additional offences when determining the sentence for the principal offence to which they relate.
There are seven Form 1 documents which the offender signed containing the relevant particulars which were also signed on behalf of the Crown. The offender, in Court, has confirmed his wish that the offences be taken into account and admitted that he is guilty of them.
The additional offences shall impinge upon the sentences for the principal offences in which they are to be taken into account requiring an appropriate increase in the sentences that would otherwise be applied to those principal offences standing alone, thereby to reflect the need for greater weight to be given to the aspect of personal deterrence arising from the extent of the offender's conduct and the community's entitlement to retribution for all of these offences. I have had regard to the judgement of Spigelman CJ in Attorney-General's application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 and noted the guidance his Honour there provided for sentencing courts.

STANDARD NON-PAROLE PERIOD

The offence in the table, sequence H69414011/3, on 18 December 2018 at Ashfield, when the offender assaulted Sergeant John Rayment in the execution of duty occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 60(2) Crimes Act 1900 has a standard non-parole period of three years which would be brought to account as one of the matters to which the Court must attend if imposing a sentence upon indictment. However the offence is before the Court, pursuant to s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986, in which case the standard non-parole period is not brought to account other than to note that the inclusion of this offence in the table of offences for the purposes of Part 4 Div 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 reflects the seriousness with which parliament views this misconduct.

PLEAS OF GUILTY

The Crown concedes that the pleas of guilty to the offences upon which sentence is to be determined should attract a discount of 25% to the sentences that would otherwise have been imposed to reflect the utility the pleas provided upon the application of s 25B Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY

The offender was arrested on 18 December 2018 and has been in custody since that time however he was required to serve other sentences since that date including balance of parole so that custody, solely related to the present matters, commenced on 21 August 2020. I note that the material tendered specifies the date 20 August 2020 but that is a period at which the preceding custody concluded and thus the custodial component that is strictly relevant to this conduct before me begins on 21 August 2020.
The offender was admitted to parole on 19 September 2018 after serving the custodial component of his sentence for break enter and steal and robbery in company. This was revoked and he was required to serve the balance of parole from 18 December 2018 until 30 May 2019. The revocation was not for this further misconduct but followed upon his failure to comply with conditions requiring him to report to Community Corrections and to comply with directions.
The aggregate sentence I impose today must be commenced upon a date consistent with the proper exercise of discretion as discussed by Simpson J in Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58, and to ensure that the sentence he suffers does not exceed what is appropriate to address the totality of his offending within this period of his life. There will also need to be an adjustment in the custodial component to extend the period he will be subject to parole upon the finding of special circumstances I make against the risk of his institutionalisation apart from other matters.
I shall commence the sentence I impose today on 1 January 2020. The sentence will be an aggregate sentence upon the accumulation and concurrence of indicative sentences which I have selected upon the synthesis of objective and subjective material before me to which I have applied the discount of 25% in each case.

THE FACTS

There is an amended statement of agreed facts provided after the resolution of the questions arising from the discovery that not all of the offences upon which the offender was brought to this court had been particularised and dealt with in the original bundle of material tendered.
The amended statement begins with the identification of the offender and his birthdate late in 1997. He will thus, at the end of this year, be 23 years of age. The offences were committed over a period of time beginning on 17 October 2018 until his arrest on 18 December 2018, a period of two months.
The facts begin with the description of the offences on 20 October 2018 at the Pink Lotus Massage and the offences on 16 December 2018 at the Fogo Restaurant. The offences at the Pink Lotus Massage were in the series H424818692, sequence 2, entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence, being a second or subsequent offence, sequence 4, common assault and sequence 3 committing the offence of entering with intent to steal having a prior conviction.
Attaching to the offence charged in sequence 3 are three offences at the Fogo Restaurant. These are sequences H71173766, sequence 2, dishonestly obtaining property by deception, sequence 3, larceny, and sequence 4 entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence, again a second or subsequent offence.
The Pink Lotus offences are discussed. The victim is HLZ. She was in the process of setting up a massage parlour, given the name Pink Lotus, at West Ryde. There was a two car garage accessed from Graf Avenue. About 4.30pm she was in the process of locking up the premises. Her friend, a Mr M, was also at the premises at the time. She went into the garage, unlocked her car and placed her handbag on the front passenger seat. This was a Gucci handbag with her iPhone X valued at $1600, and a Gucci purse, with her driver's licence, Medicare card, bank cards, and other personal documents. She saw that the light was still on in the toilet inside the shop and so she walked back inside. Mr M walked into the garage and saw that the rear driver's side door of the car was ajar and that the offender was hiding near the passenger's side front. He was thus charged with the offence of entering the building with intent to commit the indictable offence of larceny and having done so, and having a prior conviction.
Mr M shouted out to HLZ who ran back into the garage. He blocked the offender from leaving by standing between the cars so that the offender could not escape. He could not see anything in the offender's hands at this time. HLZ checked the front passenger seat of the car and found her handbag was missing. Mr M asked "Where is her handbag?" He replied "I don't know". The offender ran out of the garage via the internal door and tried to run towards the rear gate via the side walking area of the business but Mr M ran out from the garage via the roll-a-door and locked the gate. The offender turned around and went back into the garage. Mr M ran into the garage and shut the roll-a-door of the premises to stop him escaping that way. The offender ran towards HLZ who was standing near the internal door leading into the garage. He pushed her out of his way causing her to scratch her little finger when it struck the wall. She sustained a small cut to her lip which she believes might have occurred when she bit her lip at that point. Thus he was charged with the offence of common assault.
The offender ran upstairs into the roof of the shop, jumped onto the roof of the neighbouring property, and then jumped into the carpark of the shop next door. HLZ found her handbag lying beneath the car near the front passenger door where the offender was standing when Mr M first saw him. There was nothing missing from it. Police were called, they attended. The car was forensically examined. A fingerprint from the exterior front passenger door near the handle was matched to the fingerprint impression of the offender. The police attended the offender on 19 February 2019 pursuant to a s 25 order and spoke to him regarding the matter. He declined the opportunity to participate in an interview and he was subsequently charged on 3 April 2019.
The Form 1 offences arising in the Fogo Restaurant were as follows. This is located in Central Park Mall in Chippendale. On Sunday 16 December 2018 the victim, SG, went to the restaurant to visit her friend Julia who worked there. When SG arrived the restaurant was closed and Julia and another staff member were inside cleaning and packing up. No-one, other than employees, was allowed to be in the restaurant at closing time unless they were invited by staff. SG placed her bag on a trolley in the corridor in the kitchen area at the back of the restaurant. She and her friend Julia spent about 20 minutes outside in the rear carpark area.
About 9.30pm the offender was captured on CCTV entering through the front door of the restaurant. He crouched down and walked past the bar area and then reached the doorway to the rear kitchen area and reached in through the doorway and picked up SG's handbag from the trolley. He then crouched down and appeared to be trying to avoid being seen by staff who were sweeping the bar area behind the counter and the main area of the restaurant. He made his way back through the restaurant by crouching down below the bar. He left the restaurant through the front doors. Before leaving he stole SG's wallet from inside the backpack and left the backpack on the floor in the front area of the premises. Later the same night the offender used the Commonwealth bank card from the wallet at a convenience store in George Street, Haymarket, to purchase items to the value of $44. He was depicted on closed circuit television. In doing so he was seen wearing the same clothing he wore in the restaurant. SG received a text message from the bank notifying her of the transaction. She blocked her card on line. He was charged with this matter on 25 April 2019 when police attended the MRRC pursuant to the s 25 order. Again he declined to be interviewed.
The next sequence of offences concern premises at Burwood known as "Super Noodle" and "Schnitz". The first of those offences is for sentence and the latter to be taken into account. The Super Noodle event is charged under H69414011, sequence 13, larceny, the Form 1 offence H69414011, sequence 9, larceny. Super Noodle is a shop located within the food court of Burwood Westfield. On Friday 30 November 2018 about 1pm the offender entered the kitchen area of Super Noodle and stole a handbag belonging to an employee, ML. The handbag was later recovered by a security guard in a rear staff only area of the shopping centre and was returned to ML however the following items were missing: a piece of Pandora jewellery worth about $1000, a pair of reading glasses worth about $200, and about $2000 cash. The offender was identified from closed circuit television footage.
The Schnitz premises are a food kiosk within the food court at Burwood Westfield. SP is an employee at that store. About 3pm on 17 December 2018 the offender walked into the rear of the store and stole her handbag from a cupboard area. The handbag was a brown Laura Jones handbag; it contained a navy blue Collette brand wallet worth about $30 containing her University of Wollongong ID card, a Commonwealth Bank Visa card, about $50 cash, an Opal card, keys and a Bupa health insurance card. He was identified from closed circuit television footage.
The offence for sentence in H73127083 sequence 6 is a charge of larceny at the Living Room Café at St Ives on 8 December 2018. This café is located inside the St Ives shopping village. The victim, a HY, worked at the café with his wife, DQ and other staff. About 4.40pm on 8 December 2018 the staff members were in the front area of the café cleaning and preparing to close at 5pm. The offender entered the café from the rear outside seating area, walked through the café and into an internal office. He there stole about $34,235 in cash from a handbag belonging to DQ. The money represented about two weeks of cash takings from the café that DQ had not yet taken to the bank.
The offender was identified after a DNA profile from a drink bottle he had left behind was matched to his DNA. He was also identified from CCTV footage from the café. His face was there depicted. He was wearing clothing, some of which was worn in other offences upon which he engaged in this period.
Sequence H69195460/ 1, larceny, was committed at the Asian grocery on 10 December 2018. The business was located in Rowe Street, Eastwood. It was open from 6am till 11pm daily, the owner, HSC. The shop next door was the Oliver Brown café. About 11pm on 10 December 2018 the offender walked into the Asian grocery while HSC was sweeping outside the store. HSC returned inside the store accompanied by a second witness, Ms Lee, and saw the offender reach into the till and steal about $900 cash which he placed into his pocket. HSC and Ms Lee approached the offender and asked him to show them his bag. He replied "I didn't" and tried to walk toward the front door but his pathway was blocked by Ms Lee. HSC then had the following exchange. She told him to give back her money. He said he didn't take it. The offender showed HSC the inside of his bag which had a pair of scissors. She repeated her demand for the money to be returned noting that it was in his pocket. He said there was no money there. She told him to open it but he said "don't touch me". He then walked out of the shop. Ms Lee tried to grab him but was not strong enough. The offender walked up the street to the Korean BBQ and jumped over a wall. The interaction extended for about two minutes. The matter was reported to police and the offender was subsequently identified in the investigation from CCTV footage from the business next door. His face was visible and he was wearing clothing similar to that worn during other offences. He was arrested in relation to the Asian grocery matter on 19 February 2019. While he was in custody he declined the opportunity in a recorded interview with police and was charged on 22 February 2019.
The next offences are concerned with the Roaming Bird chicken shop on the 10th and 11 December 2018. The Form 1 offence, sequence 9, of H72965681 is of entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence, larceny. This was on the first occasion. Sequence 8 in the same series was entering with intent to commit an indictable offence on 11 December 2018. Sequence 9 in the same series is of committing the s 114 offence with a prior conviction, contrary to s 115 Crimes Act.
Roaming Bird is a chicken shop in West Ryde. The victim, NR is the owner and operator of the business. CCTV footage from Roaming Bird show that about 11pm on 10 December 2018 the offender entered through the open doorway of the shop, crouched down slightly, and approached the display counter. He approached the doorway which led through to a separate room and appeared to listen to the movements of staff in the adjoining room. He then walked over to the cash register, reached over from the customer's side and opened the cash drawer. He reached into the drawer and tried to reach for some cash notes when a staff member came through the door from the adjoining room. The offender pulled his hand away without taking anything and left the shop leaving the cash drawer open. That was the Form 1 offence.
NR was unaware of this incident until he checked the CCTV footage after the second incident. About 8pm the following day on 11 December 2018 NR closed the shop by removing all items from the display cabinet. He turned off the display lights and closed the front door. He did not lock the door. He went into the room at the rear of the shop. About 8.25pm the offender entered the shop and walked straight up to the counter, reached over and opened the drawer of the cash register. He began to move his hand towards the cash in the drawer but was interrupted when NR walked out of the room from the kitchen doorway. The offender quickly removed his hand from the drawer. NR felt immediate concern because the shop was closed and the offender was acting suspiciously. The offender mumbled something which NR did not hear. NR feared for his safety and grabbed a kitchen utensil and threw it towards the offender in an attempt to scare him and make him leave. The offender ran out of the store without taking anything. Once again he was identified from CCTV footage on both occasions.
For sentence is offence H72965681, sequence 1, larceny at Du Massage at Gladesville on 11 December 2018. This is located in a shop in Gladesville. The victim HXP is employed as a receptionist and to look after administration. On Tuesday 11 December 2018 she was working at the shop. She left her handbag inside a closed but unlocked drawer behind the front counter. Shortly after 11.30am she took her purse and mobile phone from her handbag and went upstairs to buy lunch. She spent about 10 minutes upstairs. The front counter was unattended during this time. CCTV footage from the shop shows that while she was gone the offender entered the shop through the open doors, walked around to the side of the front counter, took the victim's bag from the drawer and then left the shop with the bag. The handbag contained a silver coloured solar powered watch, glasses, three Opal cards, a notebook, an umbrella, a Chinese Jade good luck charm, and a pink power band for a mobile phone. HXP returned about 10 minutes later and found the handbag missing. The offender was once again identified from CCTV footage by his facial presentation and the clothing that he was wearing.
For sentence is H69414011, sequence 11, larceny, at Kikki K, at Drummoyne on 11 December 2018. This is located in the Birkenhead Point Shopping Centre. On Tuesday 11 December 2018 about 5.30pm CJ, an employee, was in the process of packing up the store as part of the closing procedure. She counted the daily takings of about $700 cash. She placed the money in a safe under the counter and locked it. She placed the key in a cabinet nearby which was unlocked. She walked away. CCTV footage showed the offender had been loitering outside the shop for about 15 minutes. A few moments after CJ walked away the offender entered the store and went behind the register. He used the key to open the safe and stole all of the cash of about $700. He then left. He was identified again from CCTV.
For sentence are H72965681/ 6 and 7, entering a building with intent to commit larceny, and committing that offence with a prior conviction. This was at the Bencino Café on 12 December 2018. There are Form 1 offences to be taken into account. There is the larceny at the Bencino Café, sequence 3 of H72965681 and three offences in sequence H71932242 respectively sequence 4, 6 and 7 at Darling's Bistro on 17 October 2018, of entering with intent to commit an indictable offence and two offences of larceny, one upon a victim MC and one upon the victim RS.
He had been seen in the café incident on 12 December 2018. The café is located in Meadowbank. The victim, JG, was employed as a barista. There is a staff room at the rear of the building which is accessible via a rear laneway. The room is typically left open in order to ventilate the café. On that day about 8.13am the offender entered the rear of the building via the rear laneway and stole JG's backpack from the staff room. He exited the laneway a short time later. This contained JG's passports, sunglasses, headphones, and some clothing. The total value of the backpack and contents was about $600. The offender was identified on CCTV footage from the rear laneway in which his face was visible. He was wearing certain similar items of clothing for those worn in other offences. He was charged with this matter on 19 February 2019, again declined to be interviewed.
The Form 1 offences were at the Darling's Bistro; this is located in Rozelle. The victims were employed in the business. On 17 October 2018 they both were working at the bistro, they left their bags in the dry storeroom at the rear of the premises. About 11.23 the offender walked to the external stairwell of the building, entered the building, and went into the store where he stole MC and RS's bags and then immediately left the premises with them. MC's bag was a Samsonite backpack, with a UK passport, house keys, and work keys for two businesses, some work shirts, deodorant and aftershave. RS's bag was a Calvin Klein backpack with her wallet, at least three bank cards, a US driver's licence, Opal card, gym card, a make-up bag with make-up worth about $250. There were Ray-Ban sunglasses worth about $100, a book and an umbrella. Again this incident was captured on CCTV from which the offender was identified.
The next offences were at Lemon Grove Shopping Centre, Chatswood and the Bulgogi Korean Restaurant, at Strathfield. These were on 12 December and 14 December 2018 respectively. For sentence is H71852315 sequence 4, stealing from within the premises and then breaking out afterward. This involved the theft of $40 cash belonging to Ms F at 88 Foot Massage. The Form 1 offence relevant to that charge contains the Lemon Grove matters, so described, sequences H71852315/3 and 5 respectively, intentionally or recklessly damaging property, a vase at 88 Foot Massage, and breaking and entering and committing a serious indictable offence namely damaging property, the front door of the premises at Welcome Health Chiropractic. The Bulgogi matters are sequences H69414011/ 2 and 16 respectively, larceny and entering a building with intent to commit larceny.
Lemon Grove Shopping Centre is located in Chatswood Mall. The shops relevant to the matter are shops 25 and 30, both part of TCM Wellness Centre; shop 25 is called 88 Foot Massage. Shop 26 is a chiropractic business called Welcome Health Chiropractic. On Wednesday 12 December 2018, about 6.30pm, the offender entered 88 Foot Massage at shop 25 through the open front door while an employee, SZD, was at the front counter with his back turned. The offender walked straight to the rear of the store. About 10 minutes later SZD turned off the lights, pulled down the front roll-a-door, locked the shop door and left. The offender was locked inside. The only way in and out of the shop is through the front door. The offender spent about 20 minutes inside the shop. He could be seen on CCTV footage attempting to force his way out of the roll-a-door and by throwing items at the front glass windows. In doing so he destroyed a vase belonging to the business which was later found smashed near the front window. The vase was worth about $100. That is the sequence 3 offence of damaging property on the Form 1. A television screen was also found on the ground along with a knife and a screwdriver. The offender also went through the front reception desk leaving the desk messy and with the drawers open. Inside the store he stole $40 from a wallet belonging to an employee, QF, which had been at the back of the store. He then created a hole in the ceiling in shop 25 and climbed through into the ceiling space and into shop 26, Welcome Health Chiropractic, which was also closed at the time. The hole in the ceiling area left a lot of dust on the ground at 88 Foot Massage. Photographs of the scene of 88 Foot Massage are shown below. That was sequence 4, committing the serious indictable offence, larceny and breaking out.
He entered shop 26, Welcome Health Chiropractic, by breaking a large hole into the ceiling at the rear of the store which left a lot of dust on the floor inside. He there searched through desks at the front of the shop for several minutes. He did not steal any money from the till. He then broke through the locked and closed glass doors by using his hands and foot to force the door open which broke the door handle and the lock at the bottom of the door. The repair cost was $750 and the repair to the ceiling was $720. Photographs are included, for sequence 5, breaking and entering, committing serious indictable offence, and damaging property, a Form 1 offence.
He then walked to shop 30, TCM Wellness Centre, owned by SW. SW walked out of one of the consulting rooms and found the offender in room 5 cleaning himself with one of the Centre's towels. The offender was quite dirty and covered in white marks. SW asked how he could help him and what was he doing there. The offender replied, "I just want to clean myself". Another employee came over and asked what the offender was doing. The offender replied, "I didn't take anything, what are you asking for". The offender began to walk away toward the front of the store still cleaning himself with a towel. SW said, "This is my towel". The offender put the towel down and walked away toward Victoria Avenue Mall.
Shortly afterwards SW discovered the damage to the door at shop 26 and discovered the damage to the doors. Police were called to the centre the following day. He was identified from CCTV footage and from a fingerprint on the television frame at 88 Foot Massage.
I believe that where there is reference in the agreed summary of facts to 88 Health Massage it should read 88 Foot Massage.
The offender was identified from CCTV footage and the fingerprint as I said on the television frame. He was charged with the Lemon Grove matters on 6 June 2019. There was an exchange after a caution where he said that he did not know where Chatswood is. He said that he remembered a massage parlour; the police confirmed that it was 88 Foot Massage. He was asked whether he could explain how his fingerprint got inside the store. He said, "I had a massage there I think". He declined to participate in an electronically recorded interview.
The Form 1 Bulgogi matters involved the following facts. Mr EC is an employee of the Bulgogi Korean Restaurant in Strathfield. On Saturday 15 December 2018, about 11pm, while EC and other staff were working at the restaurant when the offender entered the rear room of the restaurant via an open door, crouched down below and moved through the room to the other side where he stole EC's bag and then left. He was in the premises for about two minutes. The bag contained EC's Korean passport, an Opal card, and a black wallet, $100 in cash, a Commonwealth bank card and cigarettes. EC's wallet was subsequently returned to him on 24 December 2018 because it had been handed in to security at Strathfield Plaza. The $100 cash and the passport, the Opal card and the Commonwealth bank card were not recovered. This was an event captured on CCTV footage from which the offender was identified.
I then go to the Beijing Impressions premises at Ashfield on 18 December 2018. For sentence are sequences H69414011/14 and 15, respectively entering with intent to commit an indictable offence and committing that offence, having a previous conviction. There is a Form 1 offence, in the same series as sequence 2 of larceny.
Beijing Impressions is a restaurant on Hercules Street, Ashfield. QS was employed as a cleaner. On the morning of 18 December 2018 QS was at the restaurant conducting cleaning duties. The front doors were locked but the door to the balcony was open. There is no public access from the balcony but it is possible to climb over onto the balcony from the unit complex next door. About 9am the offender climbed over the balcony railings and entered the restaurant, he moved about inside, he crouched down behind the counter with the cash register. He looked inside two drawers of the counter area and took two sets of keys and attempted to open the cash register. He then stole QS's handbag from the cupboard opposite the toilet. She walked into the male toilets and encountered the offender who appeared to be hiding just inside. She asked him if he wanted to go to the toilet, and he said "yes" and closed the door of the toilet. QS walked toward the front door to give him privacy. She then noticed an unopened cash box on the bench near the till. She went to check the cupboard where she had left her handbag and found the bag was gone. While she was doing this the offender left the restaurant via the balcony. After finding that he had gone QS ran out in the alleyway, between the restaurant and the neighbouring unit complex, and tried to block the offender from passing her by grabbing his left arm tightly. He kept trying to leave by walking past her. She yelled, "Don't go, don't go". He responded, "Don't touch me" and ran away out of the alleyway. She later found her handbag on the floor in the male toilets although some of the items were missing. After the offender's arrest the police returned to QS her glasses, dentures, the card holder containing several identification cards.
Offences were committed by the offender at the point of his arrest on 18 December 2018. These are the offences before me by way of s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986. H69414011, sequences 3 and 5 are for sentence namely assaulting a police officer causing actual bodily harm and possessing methylamphetamine. Form 1 offences are sequence 4 and 6, resisting an officer in the execution of duty and goods in custody, the Korean identity card.
The resist officer in the execution of duty, sequence 4, occurred in the following circumstances. The police were called in relation to the incident at the Beijing Impressions restaurant. Several police attended. Sergeant Rayment drove to the area and noticed the offender on Norton Street which runs behind Ashfield Mall. As he drove toward the offender he ran into the driveway of a house. The sergeant left the vehicle and found the offender in the rear yard of a property. He approached the offender and as he did so the offender tried to jump the fence into the neighbouring property but was unsuccessful. The offender took a few steps towards the sergeant who pushed the offender back. The offender ran to a different part of the yard, Sergeant Rayment followed him and the offender swung his bag at Sergeant Rayment before a struggle ensued, during which the offender said a number of times "I haven't done anything, I was just going for a walk". Sergeant Rayment told him he was under arrest, told him to stop struggling, told him he was not going anywhere. The offender continued to struggle violently. Two other officers arrived and they attempted to restrain the offender instructing him loudly to get on the ground and stop resisting. The offender fought back but after some time police were able to get him onto the ground and handcuff him. One of the police, Senior Constable Atkinson, suffered a graze to his head, his elbow and right shin in his attempts to restrain the offender. These required basic first aid.
The assault upon the police officer occasioning actual bodily harm occurred when the sergeant was attempting to handcuff the offender he bit the sergeant on the right wrist causing a break in the skin with a small amount of bleeding, bruising and swelling. Sergeant Rayment was assisted by another officer in washing the bite mark using water from a nearby tap. The bite mark was photographed shortly after the incident; there is a photograph of the injury caused. The sergeant later attended the Ashfield Medical Centre where the injury was cleaned and he was given a tetanus shot and a blood test.
The offender was found in possession of a Korean identity card, subject to the goods in custody offence and in possession of a small resealable bag containing 0.28 grams of methylamphetamine. He was taken to a police station, he declined to participate in an interview and he was charged in relation to the Beijing Impressions restaurant incident.

THE OFFENDER

The offender did not give evidence and there were no documents tendered on his behalf. His case was presented upon the basis that the offending involved individual offences for the most part of modest significance which usually would have been disposed of in the Local Court were they not so numerous or against such an intensive history of offending.
His unfortunate history speaks loudly of the risk of institutionalisation which the Court must consider at this stage of his relative youth lest, at his stage of his relative youth, he is denuded of any prospects for a better life without the criminal justice processes which he has had to face until the present time. He will this year reach his 23rd birthday. His antecedents are extensive for someone of his age. I have examined them closely, including to assess whether or not he will be an eligible convicted offender for the purposes of the Drug Court.
Because of his youth, and the extensive criminal history extending to 20 pages, it is appropriate that I look at all of the matters that have had him before the courts.
These begin November 2016 when he was imprisoned for larceny in the Local Court at Central. There were two offences and each one of them attracted imprisonment of one year with a non-parole period of six months concurrent.
The next sequence of offences was of larceny. Upon eight of them he was convicted in his absence and in due course was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months. In September 2015 in a Children's Court he was found to have committed larceny in his absence; it does not appear to have been resurrected but in January 2016 in the Central Local Court for another three offences of larceny he had sentences of one year with a non-parole period of six months all concurrent. I note that these were all in due course dealt with on the one occasion.
The next series dealt with in the Central Local Court are offences of larceny, three of them, again a sentence of imprisonment of one year with a non-parole period of six months concurrent with the other offences; then another two offences of larceny attracting the same penalty at the same court. In April 2016 in the Local Court at Liverpool there were five offences of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception and one of larceny. These attracted sentences of six months imprisonment, all concurrent. Over the page there are another five offences of dishonestly obtaining advantage by deception and one of larceny, again with concurrent sentences of imprisonment of six months. There are further offences dealt with on 21 January 2016 at the Central Local Court, of intimidation attracting imprisonment of three months and larceny attracting imprisonment of a year with a non-parole period of six months. On 5 October 2016 in the Downing Centre District Court he was charged with robbery in company. He was sentenced to two years and six months from 31 May 2016 including a non-parole period of 12 months. On 9 November 2016 in the Local Court at Burwood he was imprisoned for six months for larceny. On 21 June 2016 at Burwood for larceny he was imprisoned for six months. On 9 November 2016 for larceny at Burwood he was imprisoned for six months. For two other offences for larceny, imprisoned for six months concurrent; in February 2018 for larceny he was sentenced to three months; on 22 February 2018 for dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception imprisonment for three months. On 6 February 2018 at Blacktown for being on the railway lines, s 10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was applied. Resisting an officer, he was imprisoned for three months. Entering a restricted area, s 10A was applied once again. For possessing a prohibited drug he was imprisoned for six months.
On 11 May 2018 in the Sutherland Local Court he faced charges of larceny, dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception, break, enter and steal, all of which attracted imprisonment. Some of those offences were taken into account. November 2018 for larceny, convicted in his absence, later sentenced to imprisonment for seven months for that offence. May 2019 for larceny imprisoned for 24 months, including a non-parole period of 12 months. May 2019 common assault imprisoned, and for failing to leave premises when excluded, s 10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was applied. In May 2019 for break, enter and steal he was imprisoned. In February 2020 two counts of larceny he was imprisoned. At the same time for another charge of larceny he was imprisoned. At the same time for two offences of larceny, one of breaking and entering he was imprisoned. Another charge of larceny he was imprisoned. A further charge of larceny he was imprisoned, and another he was imprisoned.
There is a breach of parole report which ultimately led to revocation, as I announced earlier, because he failed to comply with conditions of parole, although it could not be doubted that he would have lost his freedom as a result of misconduct with which the Court is concerned
A sentence assessment report is before me written on 27 October 2020. He is single without dependants. He will reside with his mother and will have her ongoing support when he is released. He completed year 10 in juvenile detention. He has no employment history. He will survive on government benefits if he is allowed to go back into the community which he will ultimately when he has completed the custodial component of today's sentence. His extensive history was noted. His misconduct is attributed to his substantial substance abuse. He admits having been in a cycle of addiction and criminal behaviour from his early teenage years. He has struggled with addiction. He can remain drug free whilst incarcerated but invariably relapses once back in the community. He does not want to relapse or re-offend but finds it easier to commit crime so he can be re-incarcerated to get himself clean.
He represented that he believes he is institutionalised and may benefit from re-integration back into the community with a high level of support. He wants to enter the compulsory drug treatment program. His drug history includes cannabis at the outset which increased over time. He has attended drug rehabilitation but clearly without too much success unless in custody. He speaks of the offences being opportunistic which clearly they were. Their purpose was to obtain money so that he could purchase methylamphetamine. He spoke of having a low mood at the time of the offences. He feels that he suffers symptoms of depression, but it is not clear whether these are the product of his drug use or some underlying undiagnosed psychological condition.
He was prescribed medication by psychology staff at the Shortland Correctional Centre in July 2020 and he appears to have been compliant with that regime. He demonstrated insight. He acknowledged the circumstances of the victims of his crimes. He is attributed with feeling bad, "I'm sorry for them". He is willing to undertake interventions. He is willing to undertake community service. His supervision was unsatisfactory. He has a medium to high risk of re-offending. There is a discussion of a plan that might be required once he goes back into the community.

CONSIDERATION

The offences are each of them below mid-range I accept.
Although the offence against the sergeant occasioning actual bodily harm is below mid-range, the penalty to which he is exposed, by that misconduct, pushes him to near the jurisdictional limit available to the Court to which I have applied the 25% discount.
I have not heard from him and the circumspection urged by Smart AJ in R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 and more recently by Wilson J in Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 is appropriate to be brought to account. That said he appeared to me to be someone who recognises his weaknesses, he wants to address the underlying cause of his misconduct, namely drug use, but recognises at the same time that he needs to spend some time in gaol in custody before he will be eligible for an extended period on parole, and recognises, indeed through his counsel, has sought an order from the Court pursuant to s 18B Drug Court Act 1988.
For one so young, at the age of 23, with such an extensive array of offences all of the purposes of sentencing in s 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 are engaged. There must be punishment. There must be general and specific deterrence. There must be recognition of harm to the community and to the victims of these crimes, and this misconduct must be denounced.
There are special circumstances against the risk of institutionalisation, and the need for a longer period on parole to be re-integrated back into society to allow him to manage his rehabilitation from drug misuse, other than in the controlled setting of the gaol.
Moreover because of his past sentences that are partly concurrent with what I am about to impose today and to ensure that s 44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 considerations are not overlooked, and to ensure that he does have an extended period on parole, there will be a reduction in the ratio specified in that section in the aggregate sentence I impose today.

SENTENCES

This brings me to the imposition of sentence.
Once again when I am called upon to perfect this judgement I will employ the table that I have prepared and to which I have referred at the beginning of this judgement. As I noted before it appears at the end of the judgement with particulars of the offences, the references identifying them in the court records, the penalties and the indicative sentences.
I shall announce the indicative sentences that I have selected. I confirm that I have taken into account the relevant Form 1 offences when assessing the sentence for the particular offences to which they relate. I have applied the 25% discount strictly to the determination of the indicative sentences; some of them are expressed in years, months and days.
There are 17 charges and I shall refer to them in order.

The first the offence charged in H424818692, sequence 2, of entering the Pink Lotus Massage with intent to steal. The indicative sentence is 3 years taking into account the Form 1 offences;
For sequence H424818692/3 enter with intent with a prior conviction, 2 years, 9 months and 23 days;
For sequence H424818962/4, common assault, imprisonment 9 month;
For H69414011, sequence 13, larceny and taking into account the Form 1 offences, 1 year 9 months;
H69414011/11 larceny, the sentence is 1 year, 3 months and 22 days;
H69414011/14, enter with intent, taking into account the Form 1, 2 years, 1 month and 14 days;
H69414011/15 enter, with a previous conviction, 2 years, 9 months, 23 days;
H69414011/5 possessing prohibited drug, 6 months, 23 days;
H69414011/3 assaulting a police officer causing actual bodily harm, the sentence is 1 year, 1 month and 14 days;
H73127083/6 larceny $34,235, the sentence is 2 years and 23 days;
H69195460/1 larceny of $900, 1 year, 3 months and 22 days;
H72965681/8 enter with intent, a subsequent offence with Form 1 offences taken into account, imprisonment for 3 years;
H72965681/9 enter with intent, prior conviction, sentenced to 2 years, 9 months and 23 days;
H72965681/1 larceny, 1 year, 3 months and 22 days;
H72965681/6 with Form 1 offences taken into account, 3 years;
H72965681/7 enter with intent with previous conviction, 2 years, 9 months, 23 days;
H71852315/4 larceny, taking into account Form 1 offences, 2 years 7 months and 15 days.

I shall impose an aggregate sentence. The sentence begins on 1 January 2020. I specify a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months to expire on 30 September 2023. The head sentence of 6 years and 6 months shall expire on 30 June 2026. I shall make available that document to the parties so that they can have it for their information.
Pursuant to s 5A, containing the definition of "eligible convicted offender" Drug Court Act 1998, it seems to me that the offender is an eligible convicted offender.
I should announce that I convict him of each of these offences upon which I am imposing sentence.
The unexpired non-parole period of the sentence, to which he is now subject, exceeds 18 months, and the unexpired total sentence, to which he is subject, does not extend to six years. He is not a person as I perceive matters who falls within subs 5A(2) Drug Court Act 1998. Pursuant to s 18B Drug Court Act 1998, I am satisfied that there are grounds upon which the Drug Court might find the offender to be an eligible convicted offender, and accordingly I refer him to the Drug Court for a determination on whether he should be the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order.

THE TABLE

The table below has the particulars of each offence, the sentences found to be appropriate, and the files by which they are recorded in the court. Court File Reference H Sequence For Sentence or Form 1 Maximum Penalties & Indicative Sentences Form One Offence Taken into Account 2019/114105 H424818692 2 10 years imprisonment 1 002 20/10/2018 - West Ryde - entered garage of Pink Lotus Massage with intent to steal Sentence (2nd or subsequent offence following sequence 3) Form 1 taken into account S 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900 [3 years imprisonment] 3 10 years imprisonment 2 003 20/10/2018 - West Ryde - entered garage of Pink Lotus Massage with intent to steal after previous conviction on 11/05/2018 of break enter and steal at Sutherland Local Court Sentence [2 years 9 months 23 days imprisonment] S 115 Crimes Act 1900 4 2 years imprisonment 3 004 20/10/2018 - West Ryde - assault of HLZ Sentence [9 months imprisonment] S 61 Crimes Act 1900 2019/120339 H71173766 2 002 16/12/2018 - Haymarket - obtained property to the value of $44.80 by deception using the bank card of SG Form 1 10 years imprisonment Attach to Court File 19/114105-002 S 192E(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 3 003 16/12/2018 - Chippendale - stole a wallet & bank card from SG Form 1 5 years imprisonment S 117 Crimes Act 1900 4 10 years imprisonment 004 16/12/2018 - Chippendale - entered Fogo Restaurant with intent to steal Form 1 (2nd or subsequent offence) S 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900 2018/389554 H69414011 13 5 years imprisonment 4 011 30/11/2018 - Burwood - stole handbag with $2,000 cash, Pandora jewellery of $1,000 value, reading glasses of $200 value from ML Sentence [1 year 9 months imprisonment] Form 1 taken into account S117 Crimes Act 1900 9 007 17/12/2018 - Burwood - stole a wallet with $50 cash, 2 bank cards, identification cards, an opal card, & keys from SP Form 1 5 years imprisonment Attach to Court file 18/389554-011 S 117 Crimes Act 1900 11 5 years imprisonment 5 009 11/12/2018 - Drummoyne - stole $700 cash from Kikki K (business) Sentence [1 year 3 months 22 days imprisonment] S 117 Crimes Act 1900 16 10 years imprisonment 014 14/12/2018 - Strathfield - entered the building of Beijing Impressions Restaurant with intent to steal Form 1 (2nd or subsequent offence) Attach to Court file 19/189659-004 S 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900 12 010 14/12/2018 - Strathfield - stole a wallet, Korean passport, $100 cash, a bank card, an Opal card & cigarettes from EC Form 1 5 years imprisonment S 117 Crimes Act 1900 14 5 years imprisonment 6 012 18/12/2018 - Ashfield - entered Beijing Impressions Restaurant with intent to steal Sentence [2 years 1 month 14 days imprisonment] Form 1 taken into account S 117 Crimes Act 1900 15 10 years imprisonment 7 013 18/12/2018 - Ashfield - entered Beijing Impressions Restaurant with intent to steal after previous conviction on 11/05/2018 at Sutherland Local Court of break enter and steal Sentence [2 years 9 months 23 days imprisonment] S 115 Crimes Act 1900 4 5 years imprisonment 004 18/12/2018 - Ashfield - resisted Sergeant John Rayment in execution of his duty Form 1 (2 years imprisonment in the Local Court) Attach to Court file 18/389554-003 S 58 Crimes Act 1900 6 006 18/12/2018 - Ashfield - goods in custody - Korean identity document. Form 1 12 months imprisonment and a fine of 10 penalty units S 527C(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 5 2 years imprisonment 8 005 18 December 2018 - Ashfield - possess 0.08 grams of crystal methylamphetamine S 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 [6 months 23 days imprisonment] S 10(1) Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 2 002 18-12-2018 - Ashfield - stole a handbag with a health card, Medicare card, Opal card, dentures, glasses, and a lunch box & card holder from QS Form 1 5 years imprisonment Attach to Court file 18/389554-012 S 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900 3 7 years imprisonment 9 003 18 December 2018 - Ashfield - assault Sergeant John Rayment in the execution of duty occasion actual bodily harm S 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 3 years standard non parole period Form 1 taken into account S 60(2) Crimes Act 1900 (2 years imprisonment in Local Court. [1 years 1 month 14 days imprisonment] 2019/81466 H73127083 6 5 years imprisonment 10 006 8 December 2018 - St Ives - stole $34,235 cash from HY & DQ Sentence [2 years 23 days imprisonment] S 117 Crimes Act 1900 2019/76821 H69195460 1 5 years imprisonment 11 001 10/12/2018 - Eastwood - stole $900 cash from HSC [1 years 3 months 22 days imprisonment] S 117 Crimes Act 1900 2019/70480 H72965681 8 10 years imprisonment 12 008 11/12/2018 - Gladesville and West Ryde - entered Roaming Bird shop with intent to steal Sentence (2nd or subsequent offence) Form 1 taken into account S 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900 [3 years imprisonment] 9 10 years imprisonment 13 009 11/12/2018 - Gladesville and West Ryde - entered Roaming Bird shop with intent to steal after conviction of break enter and steal at Sutherland Local Court on 11/05/2018 Sentence [2 years 9 months 23 days imprisonment] S 115 Crimes Act 1900 4 10 years imprisonment 004 10/12/2018 - West Ryde - entered the Roaming Bird shop with intent to steal Form 1 (2nd or subsequent offence) Attach to Court file 19/70480-008 S 114(1) (d) Crimes Act 1900 1 5 years imprisonment 14 001 11/12/2018 - Gladesville - stole a handbag and contents from HXP Sentence [1 year 3 months 22 days imprisonment] S 117 Crimes Act 1900 3 003 11/12/2018 - Meadowbank - stole backpack containing a passport, sunglasses, headphones, and clothing, of $600 value from JG Form 1 5 years imprisonment Attach to Court file 19/70480-006 S 117 Crimes Act 1900 6 10 years imprisonment 15 006 11/12/2018 - Meadowbank & West Ryde - entered Bencino Café with intent to steal Sentence (2nd or subsequent offence) Form 1 taken into account S 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900 [3 years imprisonment] 7 10 years imprisonment 16 007 11 December 2018 - Meadowbank & West Ryde - entered the Bencino Café with intent to steal after conviction of break enter and steal at Sutherland Local Court on 11 May 2018 Sentence [2 years 9 months 23 days imprisonment] S 115 Crimes Act 1900 2019/192608 H71932242 4 10 years imprisonment 003 17/0/2018 - Rozelle - entered Darlings Bistro with intent to steal Form 1 (2nd or subsequent offence) Attach to Court file 19/70480-006 S 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900 6 005 17/10/2018 - Rozelle - stole a Samsonite backpack and contents from MC Form 1 5 years imprisonment S 117 Crimes Act 1900 7 006 17/10/2018 - Rozelle - stole a Calvin Klein backpack and contents from RS Form 1 5 years imprisonment S 117 Crimes Act 1900 2019/189659 H71852315 4 14 years imprisonment 17 004 12/12/2018 - Chatswood - stole $40 cash from QAF in the shop of 88 Foot Massage and broke out Sentence [2 years 7 months 23 days imprisonment] Form 1 taken into account S 112(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 3 003 12/12/2018 - Chatswood - intentional damage to a vase of 88 Footage Massage Form 1 5 years imprisonment Attach to Court file 19/189659-004 S 195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 5 005 12/12/2018 - Chatswood - break and enter of Welcome Health Chiropractic and damage to the door and lock Form 1 14 years imprisonment Attach to Court file 19/189659-004 S 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900

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: 02 February 2021

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (4)

Cited By (1)