R v Lee

Assessment

1. It was determined at the sentence hearing that the pursuit lasted for approximately four minutes. A map showing the route of the pursuit is annexed to the offender's written submissions, MFI 2 on sentence. The pursuit occurred in the early hours of the morning and accordingly it would have been dark. Travers Street is part of the Olympic Highway and traffic including heavy vehicles could be expected on that street at any time of the day or night. Peter Street is part commercial and part residential as is Trail Street. The pursuit occurred in what is usually a busy part of the city of Wagga Wagga. However, given the time of day traffic could have expected to be very light. The offender drove at speeds of 80 to 100 km/h in a 50 km/h zone and at one point lost control of the vehicle with the vehicle doing a 360° turn. There was a passenger in the offender's vehicle. In all of these circumstances the matter is below mid-range but not significantly so.

Criminal History

1. The offender was born in 1991 and accordingly is 32 years of age. His criminal history commences in 2009 with offences of Shoplifting, Common Assault, Larceny, street offences, further matters of dishonesty, and Contravention of an Apprehended Violence Order. In 2011 he was convicted on indictment of Cause Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm and sentenced to a total sentence of 3 years 8 months. He has also been convicted of Aggravated Break enter and Commit serious Indictable Offence. In 2017 he was convicted of further Break enter offences including's the aggravated form of that offence and the offence of robbery. In 2021 he was sentenced on indictment in respect of an aggravated Break enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence.
2. This matter would ordinarily be dealt with to finality in the Local Court, but it is in the District Court on indictment because of the operation of s. 58 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999.
3. The offender has numerous matters including strictly indictable matters on his record. Given the lack of serious driving offences on his record I will deal with the record on the basis it is one that does not entitle him to any particular leniency rather than a record that enlivens s. 21A(2)(d) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
4. However, the offending presently under consideration was committed in breach of parole. Accordingly, the factor of statutory aggravation provided for by s. 21A(2)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act is enlivened.
5. On 17 May 2023 the offender appeared before the Wagga Wagga Local Court and was convicted of the offence of Drive a Vehicle with Illicit Drug Present in Blood or Oral Sample. A fine of $400 and a disqualification of three months was imposed.
6. While still subject to parole and to bail which was imposed in respect of the offending presently under consideration the offender on 3 July 2023 was involved in a traffic incident that resulted him being charged with negligent driving and driving whilst disqualified. A fine of $540 was imposed in respect of negligent driving charge and he was released on a Community Correction Order for 9 months in respect of the charge of Driving Whilst Disqualified. It became apparent from the evidence of the offender at the sentence hearing that on 3 July 2023 he was driving from Wagga Wagga to Berrigan with others in the vehicle with him. The distance between Wagga Wagga and Berrigan is approximately 150 km.
7. Parole has since been revoked with the balance of parole commencing on 3 July 2023.

Subjective Case

1. A volume of written material (of approximately 40 pages) including an affidavit sworn or affirmed by the offender became Exhibit 1 at the sentence hearing. The offender also gave oral evidence.
2. Initially it was the intention of Mr Bernhaut, solicitor for the offender to submit that the offender was assaulted by police at the time of his arrest in respect of the matter presently under consideration, the assault amounting to extra curial punishment. I indicated that in the circumstances I would give the Crown the opportunity to call the police officers involved in the arrest. A decision was then taken by the solicitor for the offender to abandon any submission of extra curial punishment. Accordingly, I ignore the protestation set out towards the end of the agreed facts that the police had "bashed" the offender. I also ignore paragraph 23 of the affidavit of the offender. In any event, I note that the agreed facts, signed by the solicitor for the offender indicate that the offender was arrested in the course of him attempting to flee from police. Further I note those same agreed facts indicate the offender and one of the pursuing police officers fell heavily to the ground during that arrest.
3. Returning to the offender's affidavit he was sentenced on 15 December 2021 and released at the expiration of the non-parole period on 14 September 2022. After being released to parole he came to live in Wagga Wagga because he "wanted to get away from my old life and bad influences in Newcastle".
4. The offender maintained that he was doing well on parole that he had place to live and stable employment. He was attending church regularly and going to Narcotics Anonymous. He was also seeing Dr Ho described as a specialist mental health and addiction Dr. He was also attending drug and alcohol counselling sessions at Pathways Murrumbidgee.
5. While on parole the offender met his partner Ms Lisa Leith, who I note was present in court supporting the offender at the sentence hearing. He also maintained that he was abstinent from alcohol and drugs but with a brief relapse in December 2022 and again at the time of the offending presently under consideration. At the sentence hearing the offender gave evidence to the effect that he had used alcohol and methamphetamine shortly before the offending which now brings him before the court. This is also set out in his affidavit.
6. The offender said that he had only recently received his provisional license, he did not want to lose his license again so when the police pulled him over knowing he had been using alcohol and methamphetamine panicked and drove off. He said he really regretted his decision and that he realised he could have caused harm to himself or his passenger or others. He accepts that it was a "really stupid thing to do".
7. Further, the offender accepts he was granted bail in respect of the offending presently under consideration and he maintained that until 3 July 2023 he was "doing really well". He was refused bail in respect of the driving offences committed on 3 July 2023 and has been in custody since then.
8. At paragraph 17 of the affidavit the offender sets out that it has been "really hard being back in custody". He missed the birth of his first child his partner is struggling to pay bills without the offender's income he was her primary support and breadwinner for the family. He speaks to his partner and his family daily.
9. The offender accepts that parole has been revoked and the balance of parole expires on 14 November 2023. He has apparently been informed by his parole officer that parole will be reconsidered after he has been sentenced in respect of the police pursuit matter. He maintained he does not want to go back to his old life of drugs or alcohol and crime.
10. In his oral evidence at the sentence hearing the offender said that the contents of the affidavit were true and correct. He confirmed that driving away from the police and engaging in the pursuit was stupid and that he panicked. He acknowledged he was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time. He accepted that he had made a "big hole" for himself and put his freedom in jeopardy. He accepted that he should not have been driving and he accepted that he had put his passenger at risk. Noting the contents of the affidavit supported by the oral evidence of the offender I have no difficulty in finding on balance that the offender is remorseful.
11. The evidence continued that he has found it very difficult mentally being in custody not just because a where he is but who he has left behind, in particular his partner and his infant child. He has been abstinent from substances in custody. He has been spending time in custody exercising and keeping fit. He is positive about his future. He will reach out and accept any assistance offered and he understands that he needs to stay connected to his mental health practitioner and Community Corrections. He wants to be a role model for his daughter who is seven weeks old. He said if he realises his mental health is deteriorating he will speak to someone.
12. Part of the subjective material is a lengthy report prepared by Dr Thomas Dornan, which is dated 6 December 2021 and was prepared for the previous sentence matter in Newcastle. The offender had the benefit of a loving and supportive family noting that his father is a medical practitioner and his mother is a retired teacher. At paragraph 11 of Dr Dornan's report it is noted that the offender gave a history of his father never giving up on him no matter what he has done. He describes his parents relationship as being something to aspire to. There was no form of any domestic abuse between his parents and he was never the recipient of any form of abuse by them. He has a positive relationship with his siblings who have entered into well-regarded professions.
13. The report goes on to note (paragraph 15) that the offender gave a history of displaying atypical or inappropriate social behaviours and he struggled with transitions both in childhood and adolescence. He also described experiencing difficulties in staying focused and suffering mood swings. While his early years at school were reportedly positive is experienced school deteriorated considerably in secondary school he struggled academically. He maintained he was bullied at school he began associating with antisocial peer groups in the school environment.
14. The offender left school in year 10 secured a job maintaining and repairing air-conditioning units for refrigerators. Although he liked the job, he was not committed to it and that he wanted to "party with his friends 24/7".
15. At paragraph 23 of the report of Dr Dornan it is noted that the offender was stabbed in 2011 when he was 18 years of age during his first period of custody. He spent a month in the intensive care unit at Westmead Hospital. He reported significant mental health issues following the attack. The offender reported having at least 2 to 3 mild panic attacks per day in custody.
16. The report goes on to note that the offender was aware of the issues contributing to his offending including drug use, negative peer influences and mental health issues. He commenced using alcohol at about the age of 16 and began engaging in recreational binge alcohol use. He maintained a heavy pattern of alcohol use and the offender identified alcohol use is a significant problem. He was first exposed to crystal methamphetamine at 21 and his use of that drug escalated to the point of dependence. He was smoking that substance daily up to his incarceration in respect of the offending for which the report was prepared. He also used cocaine and heroin recreationally. The offender has previously completed the EQUIPS foundation program during the previous periods of custody and he reported that he found the programs helpful. At the time of the preparation of the report the offender indicated he was keen to enter residential rehabilitation.
17. Dr Dornan diagnosed stimulant use disorder, severe in early remission in a controlled environment and alcohol use disorder, severe, in early remission, in a controlled environment. A little later in the report (paragraph 55) Dr Dornan opined that the offender would meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and he would also meet the criteria for major depressive disorder. The doctor was of the opinion that the depressive disorder is secondary to the post-traumatic stress disorder.
18. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was noted at page 16 of the report. In 2023 the issue of the Covid pandemic remains an issue to be considered in sentencing offenders but it would seem that it does not have the weight that it did during the height of the pandemic. Be that as it may lockdowns continue and there is the issue of isolation on admission and transfer to correctional centres. It is also my understanding that face-to-face visits also remain an issue for inmates of correctional centres.
19. Part of the subjective material is a letter from the offender's father, Dr Mark Lee. He is a paediatrician and an emergency physician and his wife (offender's mother) is a retired primary school teacher. He clearly remained supportive of the offender. His letter indicates that the offender was diagnosed as having bipolar disorder, that the offender was unwilling to take any prescribed medication and began to self-medicate with drugs and alcohol. The serious assault on his son while his son was in custody is referenced.
20. Dr Lee (the offender's father) confirms the history given by the offender as to the offender's progress after his release in 2022. He says, "however since his release in September 2022 we have had the privilege to watch Alexander grow and change in a positive direction. We have listened to Alexander talk about his life and show great insight into why his life took the direction that it did." The offender has apparently indicated to his father that he is committed to change.
21. The offender's partner, Miss Leith has provided two letters one dated 11 August 2023 the other 29 September 2023. She too confirms that the offender was attending Narcotics Anonymous and receiving drug and alcohol counselling, that they were both members of the local church group and attending church regularly. She also maintained that the offender is committed to change. In the most recent letter she sets out the financial difficulties she has encountered since the offender has been in custody.
22. Letters from Pathways and Like Mind confirm that the offender has attended a number of counselling and drug and alcohol appointments there are a number of testimonial references contained in the subjective material including that of Prudence Denman who was a work colleague and who was a passenger in the vehicle the offender was driving on 3 July 2023. It appears from the reference that the vehicle being driven by the offender rolled over during the accident. She maintained that conditions were extremely poor with low visibility due to heavy fog and poor road lighting. She maintained that the offender was not negligent to her observations. The fact remains however that the offender pleaded guilty to negligent driving and the vehicle was involved in an incident where it overturned. The offender was also driving whilst disqualified. There is also a reference from Mr Andrew Hogan the head chef at the local franchise of Hog's Breath Cafe where the offender has undertaken voluntary work in the kitchen.

Sentence Assessment Report

1. The Sentence Assessment Report does not really advance the subjective case beyond the considerable volume of written material provided by the solicitor for the offender. The report notes that the offender was employed and was reported to be a reliable employee. The remorse of the offender is acknowledged. The offender indicated to the author of the report his intent to re-engage with treating practitioners in order to improve his mental health and to develop strategies to reduce stress reactions. The offender indicated to the author of the report a willingness to undertake community service.
2. Further, the report notes that the offender was subject to previous periods of parole in 2013, 2017 and 2021. The report goes on to note that the offender breached his parole conditions and all three occasions. However, it also notes that the offender was compliant with supervision in respect of the community based order to which he was subject. He was assessed as being a medium risk of reoffending.
3. Given the offender's criminal history, the breach of parole, the breach of bail, and the fact he drove a vehicle for some distance whilst disqualified from driving I am simply unable to make any positive finding that the offender is unlikely to reoffend. I am fortified in this by the opinion of the author of the report that the offender is at a medium risk of reoffending.
4. Further and essentially for those same reasons at this point in time I am extremely guarded about making a finding that there are good prospects of rehabilitation. It seems the offender has insight and there are some extremely positive and encouraging signs. Much will depend upon the manner in which the offender engages with the various agencies upon his release. The prospects of rehabilitation on the material available are reasonable.

Submissions

1. Written submissions were provided by both parties. The solicitor for the offender sets out the objective factors of the offending. I have earlier in these reasons set out the circumstances of the offending and my assessment of the seriousness of the matter. The criminal history of the offender is acknowledged the mental health conditions of the offender are appropriately emphasised. It is not suggested there is a causal link between the offender's mental condition and the commission of the offending presently under consideration. I accept however that the mental conditions suffered by the offender must be given some meaningful consideration in the process of instinctive synthesis in determining the appropriate sentence. The mental health conditions are an important aspect of the offender's subjective case I accept without hesitation the offender is remorseful. I have made findings as to the prospects of rehabilitation.
2. The submission is made that consideration should be given in passing sentence to hardship suffered by third-party namely the offender's partner and young child. It is submitted that it is open to the court to take into account the financial and logistical hardship occasion to Ms Leith by virtue of the offender's incarceration. It is put that the hardship is highly exceptional. I reject that submission. While I accept there is hardship to the offender's partner, which again is part of the subjective mix, that hardship is not in the category of being truly wholly or highly exceptional. In this regard see the decision of Hopley v R [2008] NSWCCA 105 at [41] per Johnson J.
3. Mr Bernhaut, solicitor for the offender at paragraph 25 of his written submissions puts that parole was revoked because of the offender's commission of a further offence generally including the index offence rather than because of the commission of the Albury offences alone. I note however a breach report dated 24 March 2023 prepared following the commission of the offence presently under consideration recommends no action be taken in respect of the parole to which the offender was then subject. A further breach report dated 7 July 2023 recommends that parole be revoked. The author of that report sets out, "community corrections has made this recommendation because this is Mr Lee's second driving related offence since his release from custody on 14 September 2022. Mr Lee has demonstrated a complete disregard for sanctions previously imposed and has increased his risk to community safety, due to his recent offending causing harm to others." It seems therefore that the offending presently under consideration had some part to play in the revocation of parole.
4. Ultimately, it was submitted on behalf of the offender both in the written submissions and in oral submissions at the sentence hearing that although the threshold within section 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was crossed any sentence would be two years or less and should be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. To my observation, since the High Court handed down the reasons in Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3 that a sentence be served by ICO has become the default submission in virtually all cases where a sentence of imprisonment of two years or less is under consideration.
5. Relevantly, s. 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act provides: Community safety and other considerations (1) Community safety must be the paramount consideration when the sentencing court is deciding whether to make an intensive correction order in relation to an offender. (2) When considering community safety, the sentencing court is to assess whether making the order or serving the sentence by way of full-time detention is more likely to address the offender's risk of reoffending. (3) When deciding whether to make an intensive correction order, the sentencing court must also consider the provisions of section 3A (Purposes of sentencing) and any relevant common law sentencing principles, and may consider any other matters that the court thinks relevant.
6. Section 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was subject to a great deal of litigation in the Court of Criminal Appeal leading up to the decision of the High Court in Stanley v DPP. In that decision the plurality (Gordon, Edelman, Steward, and Gleeson JJ) said (footnotes omitted) at [72]-[77]: 72. There was no dispute before this Court that s 66 imposes specific mandatory considerations upon the decision maker to make, or refuse to make, an ICO. Section 66(1) requires the court to treat community safety as the "paramount consideration". In the context of s 66(2), community safety principally concerns the possible harms to the community that might occur in the future from the risk of reoffending by the offender. The issue is not merely the offender's risk of reoffending, but the narrower risk of reoffending in a manner that may adversely affect community safety. 73. The identification of community safety in s 66(1) as the "paramount" consideration also indicates that s 66 is concerned with an aspect of the sentencing task that requires the sentencing court to have a particular and different focus at the third stage of the three-step process described earlier. When the court is deciding the discrete question whether or not to make an ICO, community safety is the consideration to which other considerations are to be subordinated, although other considerations must or may be taken into account as prescribed by s 66(3). 74. Section 66(2) explains how the sentencing court must engage with the paramount consideration of community safety. For the purpose of addressing community safety, s 66(2) requires the sentencing court to undertake a task of assessing the possible impacts of an ICO or full-time detention on the offender's risk of reoffending. Section 66(2) gives effect to Parliament's recognition that, in some cases, community safety will be better promoted by a term of imprisonment served in the community than by full-time detention. Section 66(2) is premised upon the view that an offender's risk of reoffending may be different depending upon how their sentence of imprisonment is served, and implicitly rejects any assumption that full-time detention of the offender will most effectively promote community safety. Thus, s 66(2) requires the sentencing court to look forward to the future possible impacts of the sentence of imprisonment, depending upon whether the sentence is served by way of full-time detention or by way of intensive correction in the community. 75. The assessment required by s 66(2) is not determinative of whether an ICO may or should be made. To the contrary, as is plain from s 66(3), the assessment is required for the purpose of addressing community safety as the paramount, but not the sole, consideration in deciding whether or not to make an ICO. Thus, the power to make an ICO requires an evaluative exercise that treats community safety as the paramount consideration, with the benefit of the assessment mandated by s 66(2). In that respect, the nature and content of the conditions that might be imposed by an ICO will be important in measuring the risk of reoffending. 76. That said, community safety will usually have a decisive effect on the decision to make, or refuse to make, an ICO, unless the relevant evidence is inconclusive. There may be cases where a court cannot be satisfied whether serving a sentence by way of intensive correction in the community or serving a sentence in full-time custody would be more likely to address reoffending. In those cases, other factors will assume significance and will be determinative. On the other hand, there will be cases where a court concludes that serving the sentence by way of intensive correction in the community is more likely to address reoffending. 77. While aspects of community safety underpin some of the general purposes of sentencing, such as specific and general deterrence and protection of the community from the offender, those aspects will have been considered in deciding whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment (ie, before considering an ICO). Community safety is required to be considered again and in a different manner under s 66 when considering whether to make an ICO. At this third step, community safety in s 66(1) is given its principal content by s 66(2), namely, the safety of the community from harms that might result if the offender reoffends, whether while serving the term of imprisonment that has been imposed or after serving that term of imprisonment.
7. Since Stanley v DPP there have been two decisions in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, namely Zheng v R [2023] NSWCCA 64 and Tonga, Samuel v R [2023] NSWCCA 120.
8. In Zheng v R Gleeson JA (Hamill & Ierace JJ agreeing) said at [281]-[286]: 281. Five points emerge from the joint judgment in Stanley. 282. First, the power to make an ICO requires an evaluative exercise that treats community safety as the paramount consideration, with the benefit of the assessment mandated by s 66(2). The issue is not merely the offender's risk of reoffending, but the narrower risk of reoffending in a manner that may affect community safety: at [72], [75]. 283. Second, s 66(2) is premised upon the view that an offender's risk of reoffending may be different depending upon how their sentence of imprisonment is served, and implicitly rejects any assumption that full-time detention of the offender will most effectively promote community safety: at [74]. 284. Third, the nature and content of the conditions that might be imposed by an ICO will be important in measuring the risk of reoffending: at [75]. 285. Fourth, the consideration of community safety required by s 66(2) is to be undertaken in a forward-looking manner having regard to the offender's risk of reoffending: at [74]. 286. Fifth, while community safety is not the sole consideration in the decision to make, or refuse to make, an ICO, it will usually have a decisive effect unless the evidence is inconclusive: at [76].
9. The matter presently under consideration the offending involves a serious driving offence. That offence was committed while the offender was subject to parole. Further while he was subject to that parole and to bail which was imposed in respect of the offending presently under consideration the offender drove while he was disqualified from driving. The issue of community safety is obvious. In this regard I note that on 3 July 2023 while driving whilst disqualified he was driving some distance and had passengers in the vehicle.
10. While there is no assumption that full-time detention of the offender will most effectively promote community safety in the circumstances of this case noting the repeated breaches of conditional liberty and the nature of the re-offending, I conclude in this matter that full-time detention will most effectively promote community safety.
11. Mr Bernhaut in his written and oral submissions strenuously submitted that an ICO is the most effective sentence to be imposed in this matter. This submission continued that the court could impose a condition that the offender undertake community service. Apart from community service the court could only impose conditions of an ICO that were the same as the parole and bail which the offender has breached. While the offender was a reasonably impressive witness and while I accept he is sincere in his expression to willingly undertake supervision, community service and to continue with his rehabilitation it would seem those expressions were made in the past. The courts forward-looking view must, it seems to me, be informed to some extent by what has occurred in the past so far as the breaches of conditional liberty are concerned.
12. The decision in Tonga, Samuel v R does not it seems take the matter any further. Clearly a decision that a sentence of imprisonment be served by ICO contains an inherent amount of leniency.
13. Community safety is the paramount consideration in the determination as to whether any sentence of imprisonment should be served by an ICO. While the factors set out within s. 66(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act are subordinate to the issue of community safety they remain a relevant consideration in the sentencing process. In particular I note the purposes of punishment are set out in s. 3A of the Act. Police pursuits are inherently dangerous and there remains an element of general deterrence to be addressed in this sentencing exercise.

General remarks

1. It should be obvious from what I have said that I am firmly of the view that it would be inappropriate to order that any sentence to be served by this offender should be served by way of intensive correction order.
2. Mr Bernhaut submitted that if I were against him so far as his primary submission of the sentence being served by way of Intensive Correction Order is concerned, his secondary submission was that any sentence imposed be by way of short fixed term. While that submission had some initial superficial appeal the difficulty with such a course is that despite the support of the offender's partner, offer of employment and supportive family, clearly the offender will require relatively intensive supervision upon release.
3. While I am of the opinion that any sentence should be served by way of full-time detention it is also my very firm view there should be an extremely generous finding a special circumstances. Such a finding is justified and appropriate in the circumstances of this matter because of the issues of partial accumulation in the sentence being served that expires in November and in particular the need for close supervision by the Department of Community Corrections upon the offender's release. I accept that the ratio of the non-parole period to the total sentence that I am about to impose is unusual and would not otherwise be justified.
4. There is also the issue of totality to be addressed. The balance of parole that the offender is serving commenced on 3 July 2023 and is due to expire on 14 November 2023. I will commence the sentence in this matter to commence six weeks after 3 July 2023 to allow for the issue of totality.
5. In passing sentence I will need to pay proper regard to the provisions of sections 3A and 5(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Section 3A sets out the purposes of punishment, namely: (a) to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence, (b) to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences, (c) to protect the community from the offender, (d) to promote the rehabilitation of the offender, (e) to make the offender accountable for his or her actions, (f) to denounce the conduct of the offender, (g) to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.
6. Section 5(1) of the Act provides: 1) A court must not sentence an offender to imprisonment unless it is satisfied, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.
7. In this matter given the offending, the breaches of conditional liberty and the issue of general deterrence clearly there must be a sentence of imprisonment. I did not understand Mr Bernhaut to submit otherwise. His primary submission was directed towards the manner in which any sentence be served.
8. In the circumstances of this case, noting that the maximum penalty is 3 years imprisonment that the appropriate starting point for the sentence is one of 1 year 9 months (21 months). From that is deducted the 25% for the early plea of guilty leaving a total sentence of 15 months with some rounding down in favour of the offender.
9. There will also need to be a period of disqualification from driving imposed. The automatic period is 3 years. I will reduce the disqualification from that automatic period to one of 18 months.

Orders 1. In respect of the matter to which the offender pleaded guilty he is convicted. 2. Consequent upon that conviction the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 6 months with a balance of term on parole of 9 months. 3. The non-parole period is commence on 21 August 2023 and will expire on 20 February 2024. The balance of term is to commence on 21 February 2024 and will expire on 20 November 2024. The offender is to be released to statutory parole at the expiration of the non-parole period. Parole should be conditioned that he be supervised by the Department of Community Corrections and that he obey all reasonable directions of that service as to ongoing treatment and counselling for substance abuse and mental health conditions. 4. The offender is disqualified from driving for a period of 18 months.

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: 11 October 2023