R v Lawrence

1. On 9 February 2022, Elkaim J sentenced the offender, Tiffany Laurena Lee Lawrence, to two years’ imprisonment for the offence of aggravated robbery (CAN 2719/2015), and resentenced her for breaches of a previous good behaviour order: R v Lawrence [2022] ACTSC 19. The maximum sentence of imprisonment for an aggravated robbery was 25 years. The sentence for aggravated robbery was partially suspended from 6 June 2022, on the condition that the offender enter a good behaviour order for a period of 18 months.

2. On 8 July 2025, the offender was convicted and sentenced in the Galambany Circle Sentencing Court in relation to 12 offences committed between April 2023 and 28 February 2024, including: (a) two counts of possessing a knife without reasonable excuse (CAN 3478/2023, CAN 9991/2023); (b) two counts of obtaining property by deception (CAN 6710/2023, CAN 8042/2023); (c) two counts of minor theft (CAN 6711/2023, CAN 8041/2023); (d) four counts of trespass (CAN 8627/2023, CAN 8038/2023, CAN 8039/2023, CAN 8044/2023); (e) one count of failing to appear after a bail undertaking (CAN 9993/2023); and (f) one count of damaging property (CAN 2439/2024).

3. As a result of these convictions, the offender was in breach of the suspended sentence and good behaviour order made by Elkaim J on 9 February 2022. A magistrate committed the offender to the Supreme Court to deal with this breach, pursuant to s 107 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentence Administration Act).

Facts

4. The facts relevant to the sentence imposed by Elkaim J are summarised in his Honour’s reasons at [3]-[4], as follows: 3. On 26 January 2015 the offender and two other persons forced their way into a house in Kambah. There was one person in the house. The offenders made demands of this person including wanting drugs. One of the offenders (not Ms Lawrence) punched the man. They also wanted the keys to his motorcycle. He handed over the keys and said that his wallet was upstairs. The offenders took credit cards from the wallet. 4. The victim may have been involved in drugs but that is not any sort of excuse for the actions of the offenders. Ms Lawrence was armed with the leg of a chair, it is unclear how that came to be in her possession. The resident ran out of the door and called 000. He was grabbed by one of the offenders and another hit him. Neighbours intervened to save the man. This offender had nothing to do with the assault which occurred outside the house.

5. Under s 110 of the Sentence Administration Act, it is necessary to decide whether to impose the suspended sentence or to resentence the offender.

Chronology

6. In order to make the decision required by s 110, it is relevant to have regard to the chronology of events. The chronology includes a description of the charges which put the offender in breach of the good behaviour order. Each of those was dealt with by way of a good behaviour order of a particular length, and some of them included a requirement for supervision. That is indicated in summary form in relation to each of the offences: (a) 26 January 2015: The offender committed the offence of aggravated robbery (CAN 2719/2015). (b) 9 February 2022: The offender was sentenced by Elkaim J on the aggravated robbery charge and on other breach offences. The sentence imposed on the robbery charge was two years’ imprisonment, and the total aggregate sentence was two years and four months. The sentence was suspended after six months. (c) 6 June 2022: The sentence imposed by Elkaim J was suspended subject to a good behaviour order for 18 months. (d) 5 April 2023: The offender possessed a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse (CAN 3478/2023). (e) 23 April 2023: The offender stole property belonging to a security guard in an apartment complex which included a backpack, a Nintendo Switch, a book, a power bank, a wallet and various chargers (CAN 6711/2023). The replacement value of the property was $650. On that day, and on 25 April 2023, she then used a bank card taken from the backpack to obtain $162.65 (CAN 6710/2023). (f) 30 May 2023: The offender trespassed on premises, namely Woolworths in Dickson (CAN 8627/2023). She had previously been subject to a banning order by the occupier of that property as a result of previous conduct there. (g) 16 July 2023: The offender trespassed on premises, namely Woolworths in Dickson (CAN 8038/2023). As noted, she had previously been subject to a banning order. (h) 25 July 2023: The offender again trespassed on premises, namely Woolworths in Dickson (CAN 8044/2023). (i) 25 July 2023: The offender stole property, being a black shoulder bag and a black leather wallet, from within an Asian supermarket (CAN 8041/2021). She then dishonestly obtained certain property by deception by using a stolen debit card at a petrol station. The property obtained included a mobile phone, pre-paid phone credit card, cigarettes and a lighter (CAN 8042/2023). (j) 27 July 2023: The offender again trespassed at Woolworths in Dickson (CAN 8039/2023). (k) 12 September 2023: The offender failed to appear in the Magistrates Court in accordance with her bail undertaking (CAN 9993/2023). (l) 11 October 2023: The offender possessed a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse. This was discovered when she was arrested on a warrant arising from her failure to appear in the Magistrates Court (CAN 9991/2023). (m) 6 December 2023: End of the period of the good behaviour order. (n) 24 February 2024: The offender damaged property at a 7-Eleven store when she falsely claimed that the worker there had her wallet and wanted it returned. (CAN 2439/2024). Because this charge is outside the period of the good behaviour order, its commission does not give rise to a breach of that order. (o) 8 July 2025: The offender was sentenced by a magistrate following a hearing in the Galambany Circle Sentencing Court.

Submissions

7. The submission made on behalf of the offender was that the court should resentence the offender to a further term under a good behaviour order. Counsel submitted that the imposition of any term of full-time imprisonment would not be appropriate.

8. The prosecutor did not demur from those propositions. Subjective circumstances

9. The subjective circumstances of the offender at the time of the original sentence are set out in the reasons of Elkaim J at [10]-[16]. In addition, the following matters relate to the period since then.

10. The offender’s mother died shortly before she was released from custody in 2022. Following that, she returned to her use of heroin, which included daily use. At the time of the offending, she was homeless, living in a tent in various places in proximity to the Dickson Library.

11. At the time of the sentencing before the Circle Sentencing Court, she explained that she had difficulty obtaining a bed in a rehabilitation centre because of the need to have undergone a drying out period prior to entry. The absence of facilities to allow that to occur, and the difficulty in doing so in circumstances where she takes pain relief for her back condition, was described. She expressed to the members of the Circle Sentencing Court a motivation to address her drug use and obtain housing so as to be able to live a more normal life. Since that time, she has been successful in being allocated a form of public housing through the Yerrabi Yurwang organisation, where she is now living.

12. She has ongoing heroin use. Drug therapy so as to avoid that heroin use has not been successful to date. She has a plan to attempt methadone treatment, but at this stage, that is just a plan. She continues to use heroin. Obviously, the ongoing use of heroin creates a risk of further criminal conduct, but at least so far as the records of the Director are concerned, that risk has not manifested itself yet.

Decision

13. I accept that there is no presumption in favour of imposing a sentence that has been suspended. I accept that the sentence was imposed by Elkaim J over three years ago and related to offending which is now over 10 years in the past.

14. The good behaviour order expired approximately 20 months ago, on 6 December 2023.

15. The offending that puts the offender in breach of the good behaviour order commenced in April 2023, almost 11 months after the good behaviour order commenced.

16. Offending of the type disclosed in the breach offences by a person the subject of a suspended sentence would usually require the imposition of that sentence. The offending involved flagrant dishonesty and, even though not particularly serious in the overall scheme of the criminal law, is conduct which needs to be both specifically and generally deterred as the overall corrosive effect upon commerce and social trust needs to be recognised.

17. The offending in the present case was driven by drug addiction and homelessness. The offender asserted a connection between her return to drug use and the death of her mother. The evidence is not sufficient to make that finding on the balance of probabilities. People return to drug use for all sorts of reasons.

18. Having regard to the availability of housing for the appellant and her apparent motivation to address her drug use — even though that has not yet been addressed — this is a case in which the appropriate sentencing disposition involves maintaining the hope of long-term rehabilitation, which would be in the long-term interests of the community.

19. Necessarily, that involves a risk of further offending, but the prospect of that may be deterred by the maintenance of a suspended sentence. Whether or not the offender is both motivated and able to leave behind her long-term drug use and the criminal conduct that is associated with it is something which only time will tell.

20. In relation to supervision being a condition of the good behaviour order associated with the suspension of the sentence, in one sense, a period of supervision would be desirable because the offender has unaddressed illicit drug use which could be addressed during a period of supervision.

21. On the other hand, imposing a supervision condition would be undesirable in that the offender has demonstrated an inability to even turn up to court on time, and I have real doubts about her capacity to comply with any long-term period of supervision.

22. Further, her drug use may put her in breach of a condition of the good behaviour order. It is relevant, in considering this issue, to note that, in relation to the charges dealt with in the Magistrates Court, she has a period of supervision which will continue up until July 2026.

23. In the circumstances, I consider that the appropriate outcome is not to impose a supervision condition, which would set her up to fail. Rather, I will leave her with a good behaviour order with core conditions only, so as to allow her to focus on avoiding further offending conduct in the future and leaving rehabilitation to be dealt with either pursuant to the existing supervision order imposed by the Magistrates Court or by the other services that are available to her from non-government organisations which have, to date, supported her to find housing.

Orders

24. The order of the court is: (1) Pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the good behaviour order arising from the orders of the court made on 9 February 2022 is cancelled and the offender is resentenced on the charge of aggravated robbery (CAN 2719/2015) to a sentence of imprisonment of two years, starting on 26 June 2025 and ending on 25 June 2027, which is suspended forthwith upon entry into an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act for a period of 22 months.

I certify that the preceding twenty-four [24] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: