In this matter, both Jerrymee Kelly and Leeton Buchanan appear for sentence. In respect of Mr Kelly, it is in respect of an offence of armed robbery contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, in respect of which the maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment, and there is no relevant standard non-parole period. In addition, Mr Kelly asks the Court to take into account when sentencing for that offence a further offence contained on a Form 1 pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The further offence is that on 12 November 2016 they did damage a police camera contrary to s 195 of the Crimes Act, in respect of which the maximum penalty provided is two years in the Local Court, and in the absence of the more serious matter being before the Court, it would have been a matter dealt with in the Local Court.
Leeton Buchanan is also to be sentenced in respect of an armed robbery, contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, to which the same maximum penalty applies. Mr Kelly was committed for sentence on 18 May 2016 at the Port Macquarie Local Court, and Mr Buchanan was committed for sentence on 5 June 2017 from the Kempsey Local Court. In each case, the offender is entitled to a 25% discount for the utility of the plea alone, as referred to in Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383.
The Agreed Facts are the same in each case, and are as follows:
At about 3.30pm on 12 November 2016, the victims, Peter Kiss and Erzsebet Kiss, were working at the "Dizzy Lizzy Country Store" located at 330 River Street, Greenhill. They had owned the store for about two years as at the time of the offence.
The offenders entered the store, armed with large kitchen knives.
The offender Kelly was wearing a blue/grey hooded jumper, black Adidas tracksuit pants with white stripes on the side, a blue t-shirt, black Nike joggers and had a black and red backpack.
The offender Buchanan was wearing a black hooded jumper, white long-sleeved t-shirt, black chino type pants and red/black/white Nike joggers. He also had a bum bag.
The offenders walked behind the counter, pointing their knives at Mr Kiss.
The offender Kelly demanded money and cigarettes.
At this stage, Ms Kiss was near the doorway leading from the kitchen to the main shop area. The offender Kelly yelled at Ms Kiss, saying, "Come out, come out", while pointing his knife at her. She went out to the counter area where her husband was standing with Buchanan.
The offender Kelly demanded to know where the safe was, to which Ms Kiss informed him that there was no safe. Kelly then demanded the keys to their car.
While this was occurring, Buchanan held a knife to the head of Mr Kiss, who opened the cash register and the cigarette cabinet. The offender Buchanan then took a number of packets of cigarettes and lighters, as well as a quantity of cash from the till.
He placed the cigarettes into his backpack and the cash into his pocket.
The offender Buchanan saw Mr Kiss's Apple iPhone on the counter and took that too.
The offender Kelly directed Ms Kiss to another cash register and demanded she open it. She pressed, "No Sale", which effectively locked the register. She moved away from the register and told the offender Kelly to open it. When he went around to do so, she ran from the store into the street yelling for help.
The two offenders ran from the store.
Two witnesses observed Ms Kiss upset, and saw the offenders running along the footpath of River Street, dropping packets of cigarettes and tobacco as they went.
The offenders continued to run along River Street before stopping a motorist and asking for a lift. The request was refused and they continued to run into a housing estate where they were observed to jump a number of fences.
Police had been contacted by Mr Kiss and were patrolling the area. There was a short pursuit which resulted in both offenders being arrested by police.
The offender Buchanan was found to have the black and red backpack which contained a number of tobacco products as well as a black bum bag with cigarettes and lighters. In his pockets they found $240 cash, as well as more cigarettes, and Mr Kiss's iPhone.
Both offenders were spoken to by police. The offender Buchanan admitted committing the robbery with Kelly, and told police that they had thrown the knives in a paddock while they were running. Police subsequently located one of the knives in a vacant lot, as described by Buchanan.
The value of the property stolen during the robbery was $670 worth of cigarettes and tobacco products, $220 cash, and $650 for the Apple iPhone, giving a total of $1,540. The property was recovered and returned to the victims.
While in custody, the offender Kelly scratched the Perspex lens of a surveillance camera with his handcuffs. The damage to the Perspex lens is estimated to be $200 (Form 1 offence, Kelly).
The offenders were then charged with the offence before the Court.
The seriousness of the offence must be assessed by reference to the guideline judgment of Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111. In that case Spigelman CJ identified the recurring features of a typical robbery for the purposes of a guideline. At 162:
"It appears from the cases that come to this Court, including the present proceedings, that there is a category of case which is sufficiently common for purposes of determining a guideline:
(i) Young offender with no or little criminal history.
(ii) Weapon like a knife capable of killing or inflicting serious injury.
(iii) Limited degree of planning.
(iv) Limited, if any, actual violence, but a real threat thereof.
(v) The victim in a vulnerable position such as a shopkeeper or taxi driver.
(vi) Small amount taken.
(vii) Plea of guilty."
The Court specified a narrow sentencing range within which the Court would expect sentences in such cases to fall, depending on the finding in relation to the seven identified common factors. While I note the sentencing range identified in that matter, I also note that it was determined in the circumstances of a discount for a late plea of 10%, and of course needs to be adjusted where there is a discount of 25%, as here.
In respect of Factor 1: young offender with no or little criminal history, the offender Buchanan was at the time 19 years of age. The offender Kelly was 28 years of age. As to no or little criminal history, each of the offenders has a very extensive juvenile criminal history. In the case of Mr Kelly, he has in addition an extensive adult criminal history. I will refer to their respective histories in due course.
In respect of Factor 2: weapon like a knife capable of killing or inflicting serious injury: the weapon in each case was a large kitchen knife, and clearly capable of killing or inflicting serious injury.
The third factor is the limited degree of planning. The only evidence of planning in the absence of any statement by an offender comes from the fact that they attended the shop carrying knives and immediately embarked on the robbery, indicating that it was clearly pre-planned, and that they had obtained knives for the purposes of carrying out the pre-planned robbery. I note that Leeton Buchanan informed Dr Bench, a forensic psychiatrist, "We were sitting at one of the boy's house…we decided to do that shop. We went and done it straight away." The shop is described as having been a two minute walk away from where they decided to commit the offence. While there is no evidence in respect of Mr Kelly as to pre-planning, and Mr Buchanan did not give evidence on sentence, I accept that explanation as the most likely explanation for the timing of the decision to commit the offence. So I accept that while there was planning, it was only shortly before the commission of the offence, and that constitutes a limited degree of planning.
Factor 4 is limited, if any, actual violence, but a real threat thereof. There was in this matter no actual violence, but a very real threat thereof to each of the victims by the presence of large kitchen knives being wielded by each of the offenders.
Factor 5: the victim is in a vulnerable position such as a shopkeeper or taxi driver. In this case each of the victims was a shopkeeper attending to their usual daily business in their own shop.
Factor 6: small amount taken. In this matter the total amount taken was $1,540 in value. It was recovered and returned to the victims, but that was a fortuitous circumstance arising from their apprehension rather than from the offenders voluntarily returning what they had stolen. It is nonetheless a relatively small amount.
Factor 7: the plea of guilty I have already referred to, entitling each to a 25% discount on sentence.
In my view, in each case, considering those factors, I consider that the offence falls above the ordinary range as referred to in Henry. In addition, there are other relevant factors to each of the offenders. In respect of this matter, not only was there a knife and the victims being vulnerable persons, but the offence was committed in company, further exacerbating the seriousness of the offence.
In respect of Leeton Buchanan, he had been released on parole on 1 November 2016. This offence took place less than two weeks after his release on parole. The commission of a further offence while on conditional liberty is an aggravating circumstance. Mr Kelly was not on conditional liberty at the time, although he had recently been released on the expiry of a sentence which commenced on 24 November 2008, and expired on 31 August 2016. Less than six weeks after he had been released, he committed this further offence. Of note in relation to the past sentence on which he was released is the fact that he had not been released at the first available parole date but in fact remained in custody until the expiry of the entire sentence.
[2]
SUBJECTIVE MATTERS - LEETON BUCHANAN
Leeton Buchanan was 19 years of age at the time of the offence. He is now 20 years of age. The offence in respect of which he was on parole was one of robbery with wounding. Before the Court in respect of subjective matters other than his criminal history is a Pre-Sentence Report under the hand of Bruce Pearce, Community Corrections Officer, dated 17 July 2017, and a report of Dr Christopher Bench, psychiatrist, dated 20 July 2017.
In addition to the commission of the index offence, Mr Buchanan had not complied with numerous other conditions of his parole order, including failure to report, failure to obey reasonable directions, failure to reside at an agreed address, and the relevant parole order was revoked on 1 December 2016.
Mr Buchanan is single and does not have any children. Prior to entering into custody he was residing with an aunt in Kempsey. He was born in Kempsey and taken into the care of the Department of Community Services at approximately four years of age, where he remained until he was approximately 15 years of age, when he ran away from his foster parents and commenced to live with his aunt. He describes his time in foster care as pretty rough, and his childhood as very unhappy. He attended secondary school until Year 9 level, before leaving at 15 years of age. Although he describes himself as a good student, he was apparently frequently in trouble due to misbehaviour.
Since leaving school, he has completed a number of certificate courses in information technology and horticulture. However, he has no employment history, and at the time of entering into custody was in receipt of the Newstart allowance. His criminal history as a juvenile makes it highly likely that any courses completed by him since leaving school have been done while in juvenile custody.
At the time of the offence he indicated to the Pre-Sentence officer that he was under the influence of methylamphetamine. He is said to have commenced both alcohol and cannabis abuse at approximately 15 years of age, and commenced using methylamphetamine as a means of coping with emotional pain experienced when his mother died. His dependency is said to have escalated very quickly, and it was costing him up to $400 per day. He has in the past been diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and medicated in that respect for a period of 18 months in the past.
Community Corrections are concerned by the escalation in violent behaviours of Mr Buchanan in recent years, and opined that he would benefit from undertaking the Violent Offenders Therapeutic Program in custody. As to his attitude to offending, the report indicates:
"Mr Buchanan agreed with the evidence as presented to the Court and stated that he accepted full responsibility for his behaviour. The offender appeared to express a level of qualified remorse when he stated, 'I feel bad…I can't just blame the drug…but you really aren't in control.' He also expressed some empathy for the victims stating, 'I feel bad for the people…they were old'."
He was assessed as being at a high risk of reoffending. He is an indigenous man from the Dunghutti tribe, although he has little acculturation into his Aboriginality. He has two sisters and two brothers and he is the second youngest. He is said to be close to his siblings. His mother died in 2012. He is also said to remain close to his father, but was removed from his parents' care as a child aged four and placed into foster care. He remained in foster care for 11 years. During that time he had minimal contact with his parents, and his father was incarcerated on a number of occasions, although he had the benefit of his mother visiting him in the foster home. At 14 he ran away in order to return to his biological family. He is said to have been subjected to a lot of physical abuse by his foster parents. He grew up in Coffs Harbour, enjoying football, and he has no history of sexual abuse as a child or adolescent.
He obtained the School Certificate while in a juvenile justice centre. He has never worked, and at the time of the offence was in receipt of the Newstart allowance. He was said to have been in a relationship for two years in the past, and more recently in a further relationship over the past six to seven months prior to the report of Dr Bench.
As previously referred to, he has a very extensive history of criminal offending as a juvenile, and has received a number of terms of custody. He has a significant number of past convictions which cover such offences as break and enter, malicious damage, shoplifting, driving charges, armed robbery, aggravated break and enter and affray.
His first offending commenced at approximately the age of 15. His criminal history indicates an extremely poor compliance with past orders and he was regularly called up in relation to sentences that had been imposed. The offence in respect of which he was on parole was one committed by him as a juvenile, although when released on parole he was then serving the balance of the sentence in an adult institution. The New South Wales Department of Corrective Services Convictions, Sentences and Appeals Report indicates that between 2015 and June 2017 he has been dealt with for a number of breaches of prison regulations.
Coinciding with his commencement of criminal offending, he started drinking at the age of 14, and was said to be a daily drinker from the age of 15 to 16, but claims that he only drank on two occasions when out of prison in 2016. He started using cannabis at age 14, according to the psychiatrist's report, and continued to use it up until his incarceration, consuming half an ounce of cannabis on a daily basis. He is said to have had no cannabis for eight months. He started to use amphetamines at the age of 15 and used that on a daily basis for a period of two years, with a habit of 2 grams per day. He commenced using heroin at the age of 15, and informed that he had used a quarter of a gram of heroin daily for a period of two years by smoking it, but had not used any in the last eight months prior to July 2017.
He claimed that he has never engaged in drug use during incarceration, nor had he whilst detained in Juvenile Justice centres. At 15, he entered the youth drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, Junaa Buwal, but failed to complete the program.
His mental health was first noted as a problem at about the age of six when he was placed in foster care. He is said to have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and he was treated with Ritalin for approximately seven years, although he has not had any Ritalin for approximately six years. His next mental health contact was following the death of his mother when he was suffering from anxiety and depression, and suffered from insomnia and hyper vigilance.
Dr Bench's report indicates that while he said he had only drunk alcohol on two occasions during the period he was released on parole, he had smoked cannabis on two separate occasions during the approximate two weeks of conditional liberty, and had relapsed into using amphetamines on his first day out of prison; his last use of amphetamine being at approximately 7am on 12 November 2016. He relapsed into the use of heroin approximately one week after his release from prison, but had only used it on two or three occasions prior to the offending.
As to why he had committed the offence, he stated, "To get money for drugs…I wasn't thinking at the time…I hadn't slept for days…my brain wasn't functioning properly." As to how he felt about the offences, he said that he felt stupid and bad and sorry for the people, and acknowledged that it would have a significant negative impact upon the victims, who may have been traumatised by the offending. Dr Bench expresses the view that the offender seemed to express genuine remorse for the harm that he might have caused the shop owners. He is currently working while in custody, making beds, and during his recent period of custody there is said to have been a single disciplinary infraction. Dr Bench diagnosed him as suffering from polysubstance dependence, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder.
It is of serious concern that having been released on parole he so rapidly returned to the abuse of a variety of prohibited drugs, and in significant quantities. In view of the plea of guilty, and the content of the Pre-Sentence Report, and Dr Bench's report, I accept that the offender is generally remorseful. I also accept the assessment of Mr Pearce, Community Corrections officer, that the offender is at a high risk of reoffending, particularly having regard to his past history of offending since approximately the age of 15 years, having been convicted of what can only be described as an astonishing number of offences in approximately a five year period.
[3]
SUBJECTIVE MATTERS - JERRYMEE KELLY
Before the Court is the offender's criminal history, a psychological report from Vanessa Edwige, dated 1 August 2017, a letter from Melissa Moran, dated 17 July 2017, being a cousin of the offender, a report by Dr Kasinathan and Professor Greenberg dated 28 July 2005, prepared for the purposes of being sentenced for previous offences, a report by Dr Gordon Hyde, dated 17 December 2012, being a Mental Health Review Tribunal report, and Justice Health notes covering the period of 24 May 2016 to 11 August 2016, and medical notes between 20 September 2016 and 27 October 2016. The medical reports are under the hands of Dr Peter Fletcher on 20 September 2016, Dr Peter Ross on 21 October 2016, and clinical notes from a nurse consultant, David Livingstone.
As previously referred to, the offender has a significant history of offending as a juvenile, including for offences such as be carried in a conveyance taken without consent, more than three people use violence to cause fear, goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen, assault officer in the execution of duty, steal from the person, break and enter building, destroy or damage property, armed with intent to commit indictable offence, resist or hinder police, have custody of an offensive implement in a public place, robbery armed with an offensive weapon, and in relation to some of the types of offences I have just mentioned there is more than one entry on his record as a juvenile.
As an adult he has been before the courts in respect of offences of robbery armed with an offensive weapon, take and drive conveyance without consent of owner, intentionally cause fire and be reckless as to its spread, robbery in company, assault with intent to rob armed with offensive weapon, and possess prohibited drug, and in relation to a number of those types of offences, more than one conviction. The longest sentence imposed appears to be a sentence for robbery armed with an offensive weapon dealt with in the Court of Criminal Appeal in December 2010, in respect of which he received a sentence of five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and six months.
I note, however, that at the same time as he was dealt with for that offence, he was dealt with for a number of similar offences, receiving significant periods of imprisonment. The longest sentence in fact appears to be one imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the same occasion for robbery armed with an offensive weapon, in relation to which he received a term of imprisonment of six years, with a three year six months non-parole period. At the time he was dealt with by the Court of Criminal Appeal on a Crown appeal, a number of the sentences were not entirely concurrent with each other.
His criminal history demonstrates that he was in juvenile detention on 20 December 2014, transferring later into adult custody, which continued through to his being granted parole on 14 September 2008. Unfortunately, only six weeks later, he returned to custody on 24 November 2008, and has remained in custody until the entirety of the sentences that had been imposed expired on 31 August 2016. That is a period of approximately eight years, with no subsequent period of parole. As a result of his arrest in respect of this offence he has been in custody since 12 November 2016, and only in respect of this matter.
Of serious concern to the Court in respect of each of the offenders is that their criminal histories appear to indicate that they are either becoming or are institutionalised, as is evident from the rapid return to offending when released, whether on conditional release in the case of Mr Buchanan, or on the expiry of the sentence in relation to Mr Kelly. The gap between freedom in the community and reoffending is short in both cases.
Mr Kelly is an Aboriginal person from Kempsey. He is the second oldest of six children. He resided with both his biological parents until the age of 12, after which they separated. He attended Kempsey Public School where he had significant behavioural issues leading to multiple suspensions and eventually expulsion in Year 7. From the age of six years he gravitated to life on the street, which was not a safe place, and he grew up rough without a home, having to fend for himself.
I accept from the material before me that the offender has had an extremely traumatic childhood and adolescence, and I note that in the past there were documented suicide attempts and ongoing self‑harm. He apparently started smoking cannabis at the age of six, and began to drink alcohol regularly from the age of eight years. He began using heroin by injection at 11 years of age and commenced the use of methylamphetamine, or "ice", in 2016, which he both injected and smoked. He is said to have ceased alcohol consumption eight years ago as he had seen the effects of alcohol on his father. The reports before me indicate that he has a history of significant mental health issues and had no contact with psychiatric services prior to his detention as a juvenile. He has been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia of paranoid type, polysubstance dependence, conduct disorder and ADHD. He is said to suffer from auditory hallucinations and he has over the years been prescribed a number of antipsychotics and mood stabilisers, but his mental health remains unstable.
He was admitted to Nexus, being the Newcastle Adolescent Unit in April 2005 due to deterioration and increased suicidality. In 2012, he was transferred to Long Bay Hospital due to his command auditory hallucination that placed himself and others in danger. He was then hearing voices instructing him to kill himself and others, and requested the staff put him in a restraining belt to prevent him hurting himself. He has had a number of admissions to James Fletcher Hospital, the psychiatric inpatient ward, since 2005 due to psychotic symptoms and command auditory hallucinations.
Before leaving home at the age of 12, he suffered from being exposed to parental substance abuse and violence in the home. I note that his cousin, Ms Moran, has confirmed in her letter to the Court much of his past history, which is also evident from the various reports that are before the Court. He is said to have not been hearing voices for the last five years, and to not currently be suffering from suicidal thoughts. This he has attributed to the support he has received from the Personality and Behavioural Disorder Services at Long Bay, who see him once per month and provide him with strategies to manage. He suffers from anxiety, which has been a problem since his childhood. Ms Edwige opines that:
"Mr Kelly presents as a man who was institutionalised as he struggles with the demands of life. Mr Kelly finds it difficult to be around people when he is released from custody. He feels nervous all the time and would prefer to 'come back home' to gaol. It is my opinion at the time of the offence Mr Kelly was a 'mentally ill person' as defined in the Mental Health Act. I base this opinion on the fact that Mr Kelly has a long reported history of mental illness, and has been non-compliant with medication to reduce symptoms of psychosis."
I note that Ms Moran indicates in her letter that the offender, having been released at the conclusion of his sentence, was only provided with sufficient medication for the following two days. He apparently did not know what medication he was on, and it was necessary for her to consult with Grafton Correctional Centre but she was unable to obtain the relevant information, so she then arranged for the offender to consult Dr Mark Smith at the Durri AMS in Kempsey, where he was prescribed with a different medication to that which he had previously been prescribed while in custody. She confirmed his difficult childhood, but continues to indicate her support for the offender, stating:
"I feel that Jerrymee needs a sentence which sees him under supervision for a long time and supported to enter a rehab or other facility to help his drug issues, to help him adapt back into society."
The material before the Court in relation to each of the offenders, although to differing degrees - that is more so in respect of Mr Kelly - indicates that the principles referred to in Bugmy should be taken into account in determining the sentence in respect of each of the offenders in reducing their individual moral culpability, which of course reduces to some extent the significance of general deterrence as a factor in determining the sentence.
In respect of Mr Kelly I accept that his mental illness would have impacted on his decision making and behaviour. There does not appear to be any evidence of remorse or contrition in respect of Mr Kelly, although that may be a consequence of his mental illness. In my view, taking into account all the material in respect of Mr Kelly, even in the absence of a Pre-Sentence Report it can be seen from his history that he is at a high risk of reoffending. As to rehabilitation, in each case it can be seen that the prospect of rehabilitation must be entirely dependent on each of the offenders terminating the use of prohibited drugs and receiving appropriate treatment and counselling to assist them in that regard.
Should they continue to abuse prohibited drugs, in my view it is inevitable, not only by the fact of that consumption being an offence, but it is inevitable that it will lead each of them to further significant offending, although Mr Kelly has not given any reason for why he committed the offence, unlike Mr Buchanan. I do however accept that the high likelihood is that he was also committing the offence for exactly the same reason as Mr Buchanan: that is to obtain money for the purpose of purchasing prohibited drugs for his own use.
In respect of Mr Buchanan, I note that the commission of offences while on parole is a significant aggravating circumstance. Parole is a privilege and abuse of that privilege calls for a hard punishment (R v McVittie [2002] NSWCCA 344; R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28 at 42). Offences committed while on parole demonstrate that the rehabilitation which parole is designed to assist has failed and the Court cannot proceed on the same expectation of rehabilitation that is open in other circumstances. Greg James J in R v Huynh [2003] NSWCCA 239 stated that:
"…It is a consequence of having enjoyed conditional liberty upon an undertaking to be of good behaviour that if you breach that undertaking you aggravate your culpability for the offence you commit which constitutes the breach, you surrender the prospect of liberty which you have enjoyed conditionally upon your not committing a breach and you must expect to serve in custody the sentence from the custodial nature of which you had been liberated conditionally."
In R v Moffatt [1990] 20 NSWLR 114 it was held that the offender should not only suffer the revocation of his parole and the consequent need to serve out the balance of the original sentence, but should also suffer a significant punishment for the later offence to mark the gravity of his conduct in abusing his parole.
I recognise that the sentencing discretion includes the ability to make the sentences imposed in respect of Mr Buchanan in this matter concurrent, partially concurrent with, or wholly cumulative on the sentence which the offender was serving as a consequence of the revocation of parole for the reasons referred to by Simpson J in Callahan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58.
In this matter I intend to backdate the sentence in relation to Mr Buchanan so that it will commence six months after the revoked parole period, from 12 November 2016.
In respect of each of the offenders, for the purpose of sentencing, I have regard to s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, and the aggravating and mitigating factors as are contained in s 21A(2) and (3). I accept in relation to each of the offenders that a finding of special circumstances is appropriate and justifies the departure from the statutory relationship between the parole period and the non-parole period, and in addition, in respect of Mr Buchanan, to take account of the period of imprisonment that I have just referred to of six months of revoked parole, in each case to provide a more substantial period of parole that would otherwise be the case to assist in their treatment and rehabilitation and return to the community in circumstances where, as I have indicated, I believe that each has become institutionalised.
However, having said that, the seriousness of the offence as well as the need for both general and specific deterrence, although reduced, must meet the fundamental purpose of punishment: that is, for the protection of society. I am satisfied pursuant to s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in respect of each of the offenders, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.
I note in respect of each of the offenders, considering their past history, and particularly that of Mr Kelly, that I am not confident that either will be released immediately on the expiration of the non-parole period I intend to impose, because that will depend on the assessment by the authorities of their performance while in custody, and I note that Mr Kelly in the past has clearly failed in that regard. While I hope they will be released, I cannot order their release because of the terms of the sentences I intend to impose. Therefore, it will be entirely up to them individually to ensure that when first eligible to be released on parole the authorities are of the opinion that it is appropriate to do so. That will depend entirely on their conduct while serving the imposed sentence.
First of all, in respect of Leeton Buchanan, he is convicted in respect of the offence of armed robbery. The sentence is a non-parole period of two years and three months. Noting that I have previously said it would start six months after his arrest in relation to this matter, and would be partly concurrent with his revoked parole period, it will commence on 12 May 2017, and he will be first eligible for parole on 11 August 2019. The balance of term is one year and nine months, giving a total sentence of four years which expires on 11 May 2021. I leave the terms of his parole conditions to be determined by the appropriate authority.
In respect of Jerrymee Kelly, he is convicted in respect of the offence of armed robbery, and in sentencing him for that offence I note that I take account of the offence contained on the Form 1 of damage property. His sentence will commence from the date of his arrest on 12 November 2016. The non-parole period is two years and nine months, and the balance of term is one year and nine months. The non-parole period will expire on 11 August 2019. The total sentence is of course four years and six months, and will expire on 11 May 2021.
[4]
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: 16 February 2018