R v Hudson [2019] ACTSC 110

Offender sentenced to a total of 4 years and 2 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 months.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment and Punishment - Sentence - Use a carriage service to harass - Make demand accompanied by threat - Threat to inflict grievous bodily harm - Blackmail - Arson - Recklessly inflict actual bodily harm - Family violence - Lengthy criminal history - Additional offences whilst in custody - Continued association with antisocial peers - Whether the offender has a good prospect of rehabilitation - Whether reparation order should be made

Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) s 82

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 23, 31, 32(2), 381

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2)

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 19, 33

R v Brown [2017] ACTSC 284

R v Dunn [2019] ACTSC 75

R v Raeyers [2014] ACTSC 134

R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114

1. The offender is to be sentenced for the following seven indictable offences:

(a) Between 1 August 2018 and 18 October 2018, he used a carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being harassing towards Kaitlin Lees. This offence is contrary to s 474.17(1) of Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and carries a maximum penalty of 3 years' imprisonment.

(b) Between 1 August 2018 and 18 October 2018, he used carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being harassing towards Mitchell Jolly.

(c) On 16 October 2018, he made a demand of Mr Jolly accompanied by a threat to endanger Mr Jolly, contrary to s 32(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.

(d) On 16 October 2018, he threatened Vernessa Lees that he would inflict grievous bodily harm on Mr Jolly, contrary to s 31 of the Crimes Act. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment.

(e) On 18 October 2018, he blackmailed Mr Jolly by making an unwarranted demand with menace for $5000, contrary to s 342 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code (ACT)). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.

(f) On 25 November 2018, he committed an arson affecting Cell 15, Sentence Unit 1, AMC, contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code (ACT). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.

(g) On 25 November 2018, he recklessly inflicted actual bodily harm on Derek Rucinski, contrary to s 23 of the Crimes Act. This offence carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.

2. In addition, the offender is to be sentenced for the following four transferred summary offences:

(a) On 25 November 2018, he resisted/obstructed a public official (Derek Rucinski and other corrections officers) contrary to s 361(1) of the Criminal Code (ACT). This offence carries a maximum penalty two years' imprisonment.

(b) On 25 November 2018, he possessed an offensive weapon with intent to commit actual or threatened violence (makeshift razor), contrary to s 381 of the Crimes Act. This offence carries a maximum penalty of one year's imprisonment.

(c) On 25 November 2018, as a detainee, he possessed a prohibited thing, contrary to s 82 of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT). There were two such offences, each of which involved one makeshift razor. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment.

3. In relation to each offence, a fine may be imposed in addition to, or in lieu of, a sentence of imprisonment.

4. The Court is also asked to consider the breach of good behaviour order associated with a suspended sentence of four months' imprisonment that was imposed by the Magistrates Court on 11 October 2018, for the offence of possessing an offensive weapon with intent that had occurred on 11 January 2018.

5. In relation to the offences committed on 25 November 2018, pleas of guilty were entered in the Magistrates Court on the third mention date, 14 February 2019, before a brief of evidence had been provided. Although the Crown case was strong, there was significant utilitarian value to the pleas and I will allow a discount of up to 20 per cent on the sentences that would otherwise have been imposed.

6. In relation to the offences committed between August and October 2018, pleas of guilty were entered in the Magistrates Court on the eighth mention date, 22 February 2019, before a brief of evidence had been provided. I am aware that different plea discount provisions apply to Territory and Commonwealth offences and that there is some controversy about whether the utilitarian value of pleas should be considered in relation to Commonwealth offences. In this case, regardless of whether the discount for the Commonwealth offences is to be determined by reference to willingness to facilitate the course of justice or utilitarian value, the discount for all the offences should be up to a maximum of 20 per cent. There was significant utilitarian value to the pleas, despite the number of court appearances that preceded them.

7. The offender has been in custody since his arrest on 19 October 2018.

Facts relating to the offence of 11 January 2018

8. On the evening of 11 January 2018, police were called to a workshop adjoining the Toyworld carpark in Fyshwick. When they arrived, they observed the offender singing loudly. As police approached, he picked up a 55-centimetre machete in his right hand, raised it to shoulder height, and advanced quickly towards the police, swearing at them. Although police directed him to drop the machete, he continued until he was about 2.5 metres from them. He then dropped the machete and ran back into the workshop. He was behaving suspiciously. Police yelled at him to get on the ground but he failed to do so. He was warned that he would be tasered, and when he failed to comply with police instructions, a taser was deployed. After arresting the offender, police observed a number of empty packets of medication and empty alcohol containers. The offender was not interviewed because of his apparent intoxication.

9. In a pre-sentence report that was tendered to the Magistrates Court, the offender admitted that he had misused prescription medication prior to the offences. He accepted full responsibility for the offences. He advised that he had previously engaged with negative associates but claimed that he was currently avoiding those individuals. However, he did say that he had recently been associating with cocaine users.

10. He was assessed as at medium risk of general re-offending. The authors of the pre-sentence report stated that the risk would be reduced if the offender engaged in interventions to address his misuse of prescription medication, mental health problems, and decision-making.

11. On 11 October 2018, Special Magistrate Hunter sentenced the offender to 4 months' imprisonment, which was immediately suspended upon him entering into a good behaviour order for 12 months, conditioned on him accepting the supervision of the Director-General of Corrective Services.

12. Within a week, the offender committed the offences of 16 and 18 October 2018.

Facts relating to the family violence offences

Offence 1 - use carriage service to harass Ms Lees

13. In April 2015, the offender commenced a relationship with Kaitlin Lees. The relationship ended in June 2018, at about the time when the offender became a member of the Canberra chapter of the Nomads Outlaw Motorcycle Gang (Nomads). Soon thereafter, Ms Lees commenced a relationship with Mitchell Jolly.

14. In August 2018, the offender confronted Ms Lees about her new relationship and the identity of her new partner. About a week later, he began to send her text messages about her new partner. He also telephoned her. He threatened her that if she did not disclose her new partner's name, he would shoot Bundy, their jointly owned dog, as well as two other dogs that Ms Lees owned. On one occasion, when Ms Lees was at home in bed and her utility vehicle was parked in the driveway, the offender called her and said "your ute looks nice in your driveway. It would be a pity if it went up in flames".

15. Through September and into early October, the offender's text messages and Telephone calls continued. Ms Lees did not answer the telephone calls and replied to some of the text messages by telling the offender to leave her alone. In one text message, the offender said "tell me who he is or I'm going to put Bundy down" and he later wrote "you might as well organise cremating Bundy".

16. On 6 October 2018, when Ms Lees was in Murrumbateman with Mr Jolly, the offender called Ms Lees and told her that he was "on [his] way up to Murrumbateman". Ms Lees' mother, Mrs Vernessa Lees, showed Ms Lees a screenshot of the offender's Facebook profile, which referred to Mr Jolly and stated, "I need this cunt's number and address now". The offender continued to call Ms Lees until the early hours of the following morning, demanding to know why Mr Jolly was not answering his calls.

17. Ms Lees changed her telephone number because the offender's communications caused her great anxiety.

Offence 2 - Use carriage service to harass Mr Jolly

18. On 6 October 2018, the offender attempted to communicate with Mr Jolly by telephone and by messages and calls on the Facebook Messenger application. A Facebook message from the offender to Mr Jolly stated, "we need to have a chat. I'm on my way to yours now".

19. On 7 October 2017, Mrs Lees was advised by the offender that the Nomads President was involved and that Mr Jolly had until 2 PM to contact the offender because "shit was going to go down".

20. On 16 October 2018, at about 7:15 PM, Mr Jolly received a telephone call from the offender who said, "so you've answered your phone, finally going to have a chat". He told Mr Jolly that he knew people in Murrumbateman, that Mr Jolly had five minutes in which to make a decision about whether to have a chat, and that if Mr Jolly did not agree then the offender would arrange for people to kick in Mr Jolly's door in Murrumbateman. Mr Jolly hung up, but the offender continued to try to contact him by telephone throughout the night.

Offence 3 - Demand accompanied by threat to endanger Mr Jolly

21. At about 7:30 PM on 16 October 2018, the offender telephoned Mr Jolly (item 4 in Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2) and said that:

(a) he wanted to speak to Mr Jolly in person about Ms Lees and he was not prepared to discuss matters on the telephone;

(b) because of the offender's membership of a certain group, he had certain rights;

(c) he did not care that there was a two year old in Mr Jolly's house;

(d) he was near Ms Lees' house and had someone near Mr Jolly's house in Murrumbateman;

(e) he could see Ms Lees' ute at the front of her house and she should move it before he had time to walk up to it;

(f) if Mr Jolly did not agree to meet him, he would hit Mr Jolly and Ms Lees;

(g) Mr Jolly was at the top of his "shit list";

(h) he was emotional and angry, he did bad and stupid things when he was emotional and angry, and for that reason others higher up the food chain were "getting pissed off"; and

(i) he would be coming for Mr Jolly and he wouldn't be coming alone.

Offence 4 - Threaten Vernessa Lees that he would inflict grievous bodily harm on Mr Jolly

22. After making the telephone call to Mr Jolly, the offender drove to Mrs Lees' home. He told her that things had escalated and he asked for Mr Jolly. He said "I was told that [Mr Jolly] was here. I've got a gun in the car. I'm going to put a bullet in him if he is here".

23. Based on several earlier observations, Mrs Lees believed that the offender possessed a .22 rifle.

24. On 18 October 2018, Mr Jolly received a telephone call from a male called "Abdul" who asked the offender to meet him. Mr Jolly agreed to do so. He met "Abdul" at Greenway. The offender was also present.

25. The offender demanded that Mr Jolly pay $5000 to him by the end of the week. Abdul left, leaving the offender alone with Mr Jolly. James Butt, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Canberra chapter of the Nomads arrived. The offender and Mr Butt began to question Mr Jolly about his relationship with Ms Lees. During the incident, the offender spoke to Ms Lees and Mrs Lees by telephone, telling them that he needed $5000.

26. The offender told Mr Jolly that he wanted Mr Jolly to pay him $5000 by the following day and that paying the money would be the end of it, although he was still deciding whether Mr Jolly should receive a beating. The payment of $5000 was for "whoring out my missus". The offender used his mobile telephone to photograph Mr Jolly's driving license and gave Mr Jolly his mobile telephone number.

27. During the meeting, Mr Jolly felt very uneasy and unsafe.

28. On 19 October 2018, the offender was arrested at his Kambah residence. He appeared before the Magistrates Court and was remanded in custody.

Facts relating to the offences of 25 November 2018

Transferred offences 3 and 4 - detainee possessing prohibited thing

29. In November 2018, the offender was scheduled to move from the cell in which he was located, Cell 15. He did not want to move to a location where he thought that he may be at risk from members of rival motorcycle gangs. He was recorded on prison telephone calls saying that if he was moved he would "start punching on" and "kick off".

30. On 25 November 2018, the scheduled date for the move, Corrections Officer Rucinski attended the offender's cell and saw that he was holding two makeshift razors, one in each hand. The offender refused to drop the razors when asked to do so.

31. Officer Rucinski called for backup assistance. Backup officers attended, wearing protective riot gear and carrying shields. Officer Rucinski was not wearing protective riot attire.

32. The offender set fire to the top and bottom bunk beds in his cell and started a fire on the cell floor.

33. A fire hose was deployed through the cell door hatch in an attempt to extinguish the fires.

34. The offender's entire cellblock was locked down because of the fires and the offender's associated conduct.

35. The total cost of repairing the fire damage was $24,224.

Transferred offence 1 - obstruct public official

36. When officers attempted to deploy a fire hose through the cell door hatch, the offender positioned his back against the hatch and blocked the hose. He remained in position despite several directions to move.

Transferred offence 2 - Possess offensive weapon with intent

37. When officers opened the offender's cell door to extract him, the offender pushed his way past the officers who were wearing protective attire and carrying shields, and approached Officer Rucinski in an aggressive manner, holding one of the sharp makeshift razors in his right hand.

Offence 7 - Recklessly inflict actual bodily harm

38. Officer Rucinski tried to grab the offender but the offender was a large man and his momentum in coming towards the officer caused the officer to fall to the ground.

39. The other officers were able to restrain the offender, although he continued to struggle and resist them.

40. Officer Rucinski suffered a torn left bicep and required surgery to reattach the muscle.

41. One corrections officer hurt his knee during the incident and another suffered smoke inhalation requiring hospital treatment. ACT Fire and Rescue attended to check and clear the offender's cell.

42. Victim impact statements were provided. If anything, the substance of the statements is restrained. The statements reflect the minimum level of impact that one would expect to flow from offences of this type. The offences have caused the victims anxiety and fear of particular situations that mirror or remind them of the offences committed against them.

43. The family violence offences and associated offences bear the hallmarks of many serious family violence matters. At the time of the offences, the offender remained angry and distraught over the breakup of his relationship with Ms Lees. He was jealous, felt a sense of entitlement in relation to Ms Lees, and wanted to control her new relationship. He behaved in a volatile and irrational manner, elevating the danger and threat of danger perceived by the victims. In addition, the offender called his Nomads associates in aid, which would have considerably enhanced the fear felt by the victims.

44. The harassment of Ms Lees was of high objective seriousness. It extended over a period of more than two months. It involved repeated threats to kill pets of great sentimental value to Ms Lees, implied threats to Ms Lees' new partner (for whom she, no doubt, felt responsible) and a threat to damage her vehicle by arson. Ms Lees was aware of the offender's membership of the Nomads, and the offences occurred in the context of this knowledge.

45. The harassment of Mr Jolly was of moderate objective seriousness. There were communications on two days. It occurred in the context of prior serious threats towards Mr Jolly's partner, of which he would have been aware.

46. The demand made of Mr Jolly on 16 October was a serious matter, although it was made by telephone rather than in person. The offender made a direct threat of violence towards Mr Jolly, implied that he had the support and backup of the Nomads to carry out the threat, and spoke in an emotionally unstable and irrational manner, which added to the threat. The offender suggested that a colleague was close to Mr Jolly's residence, and that the offender knew that Mr Jolly had a two-year-old child at the residence but was indifferent to the presence of the child. The call lasted six minutes and threats were made throughout.

47. Although the threat made to Mrs Lees was directed at another person, it was of high objective seriousness. It was made in person at her home, and it was a threat to kill by the use of a firearm, in circumstances where Mrs Lees believed that the offender had access to a firearm, adding to her fear.

48. The attempt to blackmail Mr Jolly was of high objective seriousness. It was made in person and in company, including in the company of the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Canberra chapter of the Nomads. Inevitably, it caused Mr Jolly to feel very uneasy and unsafe.

49. The offence of recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm was a very serious matter , having regard both to the conduct occasioning the harm and to the level of actual bodily harm that was occasioned.

50. The conduct occurred in the prison environment and was directed towards an officer who was merely attempting to perform his duty. In a general sense, the type of conduct was premeditated. Prior to 25 November, the offender had decided to "punch on" and "kick-off" if there was an attempt to move him from his cell. The offender approached the officer aggressively, holding a weapon, and his momentum caused the officer to fall heavily in the course of trying to defend himself.

51. The officer sustained an injury of a relatively serious nature, having regard to the spectrum of injuries that comprise actual bodily harm.

52. The associated offence of possess offensive weapon with intent was a serious matter; the weapon was capable of causing significant injury and the offender not only possessed it with general intent, but appeared to be about to use it.

53. The offence of arson was a serious matter. It occurred within the prison environment. It was a gratuitous act that was, no doubt, by way of a protest. It occurred in the immediate presence of officers who were attempting to perform their duty. It resulted in a lockdown of the entire cellblock and resulted in substantial financial damage. The incident involved inconvenience to ACT Fire and Rescue and associated unnecessary expense to the public.

54. The offences of possession of prohibited things were standard offences of their type, but are to be viewed in the context of the offender's criminal history (see below).

55. At the time of the offences, the offender was 24 and 25 years old. He is now 26 years old.

56. He has a long criminal record, especially for a man of his age. There are numerous relevant convictions, including:

(a) having custody of a knife or similar matters (2010 in NSW, 2017 and 2018 in the ACT);

(b) dishonesty (2013 in Queensland);

(c) damaging property (2011 and 2012 in the ACT);

(d) obstructing a public official (2013, 2015 and 2017 in the ACT); and

(e) violence (assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2013 and common assault in 2015, both in the ACT).

57. Despite the number of his convictions, he has not been convicted of very serious offences, the most serious (by reference to the sentence imposed) being the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

58. In November 2017, the offender successfully completed a raft of intensive correction orders. He has served periods of fulltime imprisonment, including the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, from which he was released in February 2014. However, he has not served any extended period in custody.

59. When all new offences occurred, the offender was on conditional liberty because he was on a good behaviour order associated with the suspended sentence for the offence of possessing an offensive weapon with intent, committed on 11 January 2018. As mentioned above, very soon after he was placed on the good behaviour order, he committed further offences including offences that were similar to the January 2018 matter, in that they involved the possession and use of makeshift razors.

60. In evidence, the offender described his criminal history as "disgusting".

61. As a result of the offences committed on 25 November 2018, the offender spent one month in the management unit at the prison, where he was, in effect, deprived of outside exercise. As a result of five other prison disciplinary actions (including at least one for assault and one for having a makeshift razor in his cell, which occurred in March 2019), the offender has spent significant additional time in the management unit or otherwise deprived of privileges.

62. The offender was raised in Canberra. He has a brother with whom he remains in contact and three half-siblings. One of his half-brothers died when he was 14, which was very traumatic for the offender.

63. The offender left school when he was about 13 years old but later completed Year 10.

64. The offender has a good employment history. Prior to being incarcerated, the offender operated a wrecking yard and transport/tow truck business. When he returns to the community, he hopes to continue the transport business.

65. Currently, the offender is undertaking a bridging course that will likely see him admitted to the University of Southern Queensland to undertake a science degree. His academic record is testament to his high level of intelligence.

66. The offender said that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. He receives medication for this condition. He said that his post-traumatic stress relates to incidents in his childhood, when he was in the care of his mother, a heroin addict.

67. In the past, the offender has been diagnosed with personality disorder and emotional dysfunction, and has abused prescribed pain relief medications. In his teenage years, he engaged in binge drinking. He has used illicit substances but there is no suggestion of a current substance abuse problem.

68. In prison, the offender has engaged with therapeutic interventions, which, according to a reporting social worker, have enabled him to develop a strong understanding of his behavioural patterns, identify antisocial behaviours and attitudes, and develop strategies to cope with those behaviours. The reporting social worker said that, in counselling sessions, the offender has expressed genuine remorse and regret for his past behaviour, and has demonstrated a strong shift in attitude by taking greater responsibility for his own actions.

69. In other respects, the offender has spent his time in custody productively. He has undertaken numerous courses, as identified in Exhibit B. He has acted as a mentor for other inmates, helping them with their educational studies, including in the areas of literacy and numeracy.

70. A pre-sentence report prepared for the October 2018 proceedings reported that the offender had told the authors that he had been avoiding his negative associates. The authors of the presentence report prepared in April 2019 for these proceedings said that the offender had reported to them that he no longer had close ties with any antisocial associates in the community.

71. In evidence, the offender disputed that he had made that statement. He said that he had told the authors of the pre-sentence report the true position: that he remained in contact with James Butt, who was associated with the Nomads (although the offender disagreed with the proposition that Mr Butt was a "senior member" of the Nomads). In addition, the offender acknowledged that he remained in contact with Aaron Graham (an associate of the Nomads) and Aaron Peden (a member of the Nomads). Prison visiting and call records confirm that the offender remains in frequent contact with Mr Butt and has had some contact with Messrs Graham and Peden.

72. The offender gave evidence that he now accepts that the relationship with Ms Lees is over.

73. The offender wrote a letter of apology for the prison offences in which he expressed remorse for his conduct on 25 November. He said that his post-traumatic stress disorder was a contributing factor, and that, at the time, he had not been receiving properly treatment for his condition.

74. The authors of the recent pre-sentence report assessed the offender as being at medium risk of general re-offending; his criminogenic risks were related to misuse of prescription medication and illicit substances, mental health, and poor decision-making skills. Of course, the accuracy of that assessment depended on the veracity of the information provided by the offender to the reporters.

75. The offender is an intelligent and articulate man with a volatile temper. Unfortunately, his upbringing was dysfunctional. He has a long history of possessing weapons (generally knives and similar weapons) and engaging in other criminal activity. He remains closely connected with the Nomads through his continuing relationships with Mr Butt and others. He has limited respect for the law and authority generally. Although he is well capable of obtaining a tertiary qualification and attaining a respected position in the community, it is not clear that he is committed to doing so; it may well be that he prefers to remain an outsider, giving vent to his penchant for violence. While his protestations of reform born of insight cannot be dismissed, they should be assessed with a degree of scepticism.

76. n relation to the offence of arson, I was referred to a number of comparable cases, including R v Raeyers [2014] ACTSC 134, R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114 (as to the relevant principles when sentencing for arson matters), R v Brown [2017] ACTSC 284, and R v Dunn [2019] ACTSC 75.

77. In relation to the ACT offences, insofar as they are known and relevant, I am required to consider the matters referred to in s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). I believe that the relevant matters have been referred to above.

78. In relation to the Commonwealth offences, I am required to consider that the matters set out in s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Again, I believe that the relevant matters have been referred to above.

79. In relation to all matters, personal deterrence is an important sentencing purpose. General deterrence is also a prominent sentencing purpose, particularly in relation to the family violence offences.

80. Although I am sceptical about the offender's commitment to rehabilitation, I am not prepared to dismiss the prospect; it is a matter best assessed by the parole authority when the time comes.

81. The sentences must deliver appropriate punishment, and speak to the purposes of accountability, denunciation, and recognition of harm.

82. Having regard to the objective seriousness of the matters and relevant sentencing purposes, I am satisfied that a sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate penalty.

83. As to the suspended sentence, I am satisfied that the new offences constitute breaches of the good behaviour order. Pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the good behaviour order is cancelled and I impose the original sentence of four months' imprisonment, to commence on 19 October 2018 and expire on 18 February 2019.

84. In relation to the new offences, I impose the following sentences:

(a) Offence 1 - harassment of Ms Lees - 10 months' imprisonment, reduced by 20 per cent to 8 months' imprisonment, from 19 May 2019 to 18 January 2020;

(b) Offence 2 - harassment of Mr Jolly - five months' imprisonment, reduced by 20 per cent to four months' imprisonment, from 19 December 2018 to 18 April 2019;

(c) Offence 3 - demand of Mr Jolly and accompanying threat - six months' imprisonment, reduced by 20 per cent to four months imprisonment, from 19 January 2019 to 19 May 2019;

(d) Offence 4 - threaten Mrs Lees - five months' imprisonment, reduced by 20 per cent to four months' imprisonment, from 19 March 2019 to 18 July 2019;

(e) Offence 5 - blackmail Mr Jolly - 15 months' imprisonment, reduced by 20 per cent to 12 months' imprisonment, from 19 July 2019 to 18 July 2020;

(f) Offence 6 - arson - 27 months' imprisonment, reduced by 20 per cent to 21 months' imprisonment, from 19 March 2021 to 18 December 2022;

(g) Offence 7 - recklessly inflict actual bodily harm - 21 months' imprisonment, reduced by 20 per cent to 17 months' imprisonment, from 19 September 2020 to 18 February 2022;

(h) Transferred offence 1 - obstruct public official - six months' imprisonment, reduced by 20 per cent to four months' imprisonment, from 19 June 2020 to 18 October 2020;

(i) Transferred offence 2 - possess offensive weapon with intent - eight months' imprisonment, reduced by 20 per cent to six months' imprisonment, from 19 August 2020 to 18 February 2021;

(j) Transferred offences 3 and 4 - detainee possessing prohibited thing - in each case, 4 months' imprisonment, reduced to 3 months' imprisonment, from 19 May 2020 to 18 August 2020.

85. The total sentence is four years and two months' imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 33 months; the non-parole period will run from 19 October 2018 to 18 July 2021, at which stage the offender will be eligible for parole.

86. Reparation of $24,224 was sought under s 19 of the Sentencing Act. As the offender will be in custody for several years and, as far as I am aware, he has no available assets, I decline to make a reparation order.

I certify that the preceding eighty-six [86] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell.