1. The conviction for the offence of attempted aggravated robbery on 7 April 2006 be confirmed.

2. The breach of the good behaviour order made on 4 July 2012 is proved.

3. The good behaviour order made on 4 July 2012 be cancelled.

4. Conrad James Loulanting appear in the Supreme Court of the ACT on 3 June 2015 at 9:30 am to be sentenced for the offence of attempted aggravated robbery.

5. Conrad James Loulanting be released on bail on 1 December 2014 to appear in the Supreme Court of the ACT on 3 June 2015 at 9:30 am, with the following conditions:

a. That he Conrad James Loulanting accept supervision by the Director-General, or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him, including those concerning where he resides, his employment, and treatment and counselling for substance abuse, mental health and anger management;

b. That he abstain from the use of illicit drugs and alcohol;

c. That he submit, as and when required, to breath analysis and urinalysis;

d. That report to the officer-in-charge of Tuggeranong Police Station every Wednesday and Saturday between the hours of 8:00 am and 8:00 pm;

e. That he continue counselling with the Service Assisting Male Survivors of Sexual Assault and consent to the officers of that agency providing information about his counselling to the person supervising him;

f. That he continue counselling with Directions ACT and consent to the officers of that agency giving information about his counselling to the persons supervising him;

g. That he commence and remain in employment with ConneKt ProjeKts, and consent to the owners of that business providing details of his employment and behaviour to the persons supervising him;

h. That he seek admission to an anger management course as approved by the person supervising him and, if admitted, continue in that course, and consent to the officers conducting the course providing information about his progress to the person supervising him.

i. That he comply with any personal protection order that has been issued on the application of [redacted]; and

j. That he appear in the Supreme Court of the ACT on 17 February 2015 at 9.30 am for a progress report.

CRIMINAL LAW - Judgement and Punishment - Re-sentencing following breach of GBO - Breach constituted by commission of further offence

Bail Act 1992 (ACT)

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 86, 110

Guy v Anderson [2013] ACTSC 5

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; (2011) 243 CLR 506

R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118; (1999) 106 A Crim R 314

R v Locke and Paterson [1973] 6 SASR 298

R v Loulanting (Unreported, ACTSC, Madgwick J, 14 August 2002

R v Loulanting (Unreported, ACTSC, Crispin J, 16 April 2007

R v Loulanting (Unreported, ACTSC, Refshauge J, 4 July 2012

R v Marston (1993) 60 SASR 320

R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517

R v Valentini [1980] FCA 133; (1980) 2 A Crim R 170

Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59

Mirko Bagaric, "Suspended Sentences and Preventative Sentences, Illusory Evils and Disproportionate Punishments" [1999] UNSWLawJl 6; (1999) 22 UNSW LJ 535

David A Bright and Kristie A Martine, "Does Coerced Treatment of Substance-Using Offenders Lead to Improvements in Substance Use and Recidivism? A Review of Treatment Efficacy Literature" (2013) 48 Australian Psychologist 69

1. The purpose of a suspended sentence of imprisonment is to recognise the seriousness of the offending which an offender has committed, but to provide an opportunity to ameliorate the severity of punishment where there are significant mitigating factors and to give an offender the opportunity to show that he or she can avoid further offending with the encouragement that the suspension means that a "sword of Damocles hanging over his [or her] head and that only continued good behaviour and observance of the bond can prevent ... incarceration under the suspended sentence": R v Locke and Paterson [1973] 6 SASR 298 at 301-2.

2. The courts have said that a suspended sentence is, nevertheless, a sentence of imprisonment which does include general deterrence and retribution. See R v Valentini [1980] FCA 133; (1980) 2 A Crim R 170 at 175. The sentence has, however, been heavily criticised by academic lawyers. For example, see Mirko Bagaric, "Suspended Sentences and Preventative Sentences, Illusory Evils and Disproportionate Punishments" [1999] UNSWLawJl 6; (1999) 22 UNSW LJ 535. In some jurisdictions, such as Victoria, the suspended sentence has been abolished in favour of other, often more intensive, alternatives.

3. It has also been said that, unless a breach of a suspended sentence is treated seriously, the sentencing option itself will be brought into disrepute. See R v Marston (1993) 60 SASR 320 at 322; Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 at [99]- [101].

4. On 16 April 2007, James Conrad Loulanting was convicted of the offence of attempting an aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, which was suspended and a good behaviour order made with conditions for three years. He had served fifty-five days in custody before being sentenced.

5. On 29 May 2012, however, he pleaded guilty to two counts of common assault committed on 18 January 2009, when the good behaviour order imposed was still in force, even though the order had, by the time of that plea of guilty, expired.

6. It is relevant that the offence was committed more than halfway through the period of the suspended sentence and he pleaded guilty more than five years after the original sentence, during which five years he had committed only those two offences and one offence of breaching a bail undertaking in July 2011.

7. On 4 July 2012, however, I cancelled the good behaviour order, as I was required to do under s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), because of the breach constituted by him committing these two assault offences. Instead of imposing the sentence that had been suspended, I re-sentenced Mr Loulanting for the breach of the good behaviour order.

8. Having regard to the time that had elapsed since the breach the order having ceased to be enforced in the meantime, I re-sentenced Mr Loulanting to three years' imprisonment, but suspended it forthwith and made a good behaviour order with conditions for eighteen months.

9. On 1 November 2013, Mr Loulanting assaulted a man in circumstances to which I will later refer. This was almost exactly after fifteen months of the eighteen month good behaviour order had been completed.

10. He appeared in Court on 2 November 2013 and was granted bail to appear on 12 November 2013. He failed to appear. He was arrested and charged with failing to appear for bail after giving a bail undertaking to the Court.

11. He appeared in Court on 18 November 2013 and was bailed to appear on 2 December 2013. Again, he failed to appear and was later arrested and charged with failing to appear after giving a bail undertaking.

12. On 14 May 2014, he was sentenced in the Magistrates Court for the offence of common assault and the two offences of failing to appear on his bail undertaking. He was also sentenced for offences of being an unlicensed driver and crossing as a pedestrian when the pedestrian lights were not green.

13. The convictions for those latter two offences do not breach the core conditions of the good behaviour order (s 86(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act), for the penalty for them is only a fine.

14. For those further offences he was sentenced to a period of four months' imprisonment to be served by periodic detention, a sentence of three months' imprisonment, suspended for two years and to be subject to a good behaviour order and fined a total of $498.

15. Subsequently, he was arrested for an assault on his then former partner and trespass on premises. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for four months for the assault and that activated the question of the suspended sentence for three months. That was then imposed and he was fined for the trespass. The sentences of imprisonment commenced on 1 July 2014 and are to end on 1 December 2014.

16. Mr Loulanting was born in 1986. He is of Samoan heritage and was one of five children born to his family.

17. Madgwick J, when sentencing Mr Loulanting in August 2002 (R v Loulanting (Unreported, ACTSC, Madgwick J, 14 August 2002), stated that "at the age of nine he was declared a child in need of care because of parental beatings." His Honour continued

He lived in New Zealand for three years with his grandparents which he liked. There was apparently structure in the family life there and some proper discipline. He was expelled from high school in Year 7 on his return to the Australian Capital Territory and his subsequent family history is upset and confused.

18. His father was a strict disciplinarian and once broke Loulanting's arm when beating him with a stick. He has, however, made peace with his father.

19. His childhood was normal and I assume that this comment in the Pre-Sentence Report referred broadly to the period in which he lived with his grandparents. He was, however, sexually abused as a child aged about seven or eight. He told the author of the report prepared by the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS) that the abuse "changed [him]", and "made [him] violent."

20. He left home when he was twelve, as he was scared of his father, and lived on the streets for some time, until [redacted].

21. It appears that Mr Loulanting has not had any counselling or treatment for the effects of the abuse until recently, when he made contact with the Service Assisting Male Survivors of Sexual Assault (SAMSSA) of the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre.

22. He was referred by his probation officer and has been assessed as meeting the services criteria for ongoing counselling from the service, where he will be welcome as long as he requires its support.

In the view of the support worker of child welfare authority specialising in the problems of persons from a Pacific Islander background he may have something of a warrior mentality. He ... is an outstanding athlete, perhaps, it seems, even better than his brother ... and looks as if he could have a suitable career in football. He is a big strong young man.

24. Unfortunately, those predictions do not appear to have eventuated.

25. Mr Loulanting told the author of the most recent CADAS Report that he comes from a close family of five brothers and one sister, all of whom are employed and married. It is said in the Pre-Sentence Report dated 6 May 2014, however, that Mr Loulanting has only contact with his siblings, on average, monthly. His parents continue to live in New Zealand.

26. Mr Loulanting has had some insignificant relationships, but has more recently had a relationship with a woman for about four years. He described the relationship, in an earlier Pre-Sentence Report, as loving and supportive while it subsisted and noted that they have two children aged four years and nineteen months.

27. The initial Pre-Sentence Report stated that Mr Loulanting's partner described him as a loving and devoted partner and that she continued to support him but, more recently, it appears they have separated and, on 3 July 2014, his partner was granted an interim Domestic Violence Order. I also note that she was the subject of the assault offence which more recently occurred and resulted in the seven months' imprisonment.

28. He has, however, since seen his children in the Alexander Maconachie Centre and his former partner is happy for him to continue to have contact with the children if supervised by his sister.

29. Mr Loulanting has generally been employed throughout his adult life in labouring positions but, in the last three months prior to his incarceration, has only had casual employment. The Pre-Sentence Report dated 21 July 2014 states that he has been dismissed from his employment, though it appears that he has been in custody since 1 July 2014, which may explain that position.

30. A report from his employer in February 2012 described him as "an exemplary employee" who "has demonstrated a high level of commitment to the business". It was further said that he had "never allowed his personal life to affect his work and has always conducted himself in a businesslike manner".

31. He has undertaken a course in wall and floor tiling at the Canberra Institute of Technology. He has a current offer of employment with a firm which installs timber flooring. It is prepared to employ him on very strict conditions.

32. Mr Loulanting has had a troubled drug history commencing when he was twelve. He has used methamphetamines, cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine, and amphetamines. He regularly smokes tobacco.

33. He completed a residential rehabilitation program in 2006 at Canberra Recovery Services, which he found useful to address his alcohol abuse. His current use of alcohol was, he said, limited to Friday nights, when he would typically consume thirty-six standard drinks.

34. On entry to the Alexander Maconachie Centre on 2 July 2014, a drug screening resulted in him testing positive for amphetamines, benzodiazepines and cannabis.

35. He has also had some community counselling for drug abuse in 2013 with Directions ACT, but said he did not find it helpful. He has, however, more recently sought assistance from Directions ACT again and participated in a session on 13 November 2014, where, I was informed, he "engaged and participated well throughout the session". He has a further appointment available to him.

36. Mr Loulanting has an undistinguished criminal history. He has been found guilty of thirty offences. Worryingly, the majority of these offences are offences of violence, including two offences of aggravated burglary with intent to assault, an offence of attempted aggravated robbery and a number of assaults occasioning actual bodily harm. He has also breached court orders on six occasions.

37. As I noted above (at [14]), he was most recently sentenced to a period of seven months' imprisonment. His earlier period of periodic detention was cancelled on 8 July 2014 and he served the balance of his periodic detention by full-time imprisonment.

38. I did have, also, some mental health reports which are relevant. The first was a relatively old report, dated 2 March 2012, prepared by Dr Graham George. More recently, Dr Anthony Barker prepared a report dated 30 July 2014. Dr Barker had a copy of Dr George's report available to him.

39. Both psychiatrists diagnosed Mr Loulanting as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his experiences of child abuse. This, Dr George reported, had never been addressed and Dr George suggested that he had turned to illicit drugs and alcohol abuse to escape his emotional pain.

40. While he told Dr George that he had ceased using illicit drugs, he does not seem to have done so. He also continues to drink and, on occasions, to engage in binge drinking.

41. Dr Barker further diagnosed Mr Loulanting as having an anti-social personality disorder and a history of amphetamine-induced psychotic behaviour disorder. This meant, he reported, that Mr Loulanting was at a high risk of impulsive irrational behaviour, including risk of self-harm and violence to others while intoxicated, but that this risk could extend to some weeks if he suffers further psychotic episodes secondary to substance abuse.

42. The author of the Pre-Sentence Report considered that Mr Loulanting had a limited capacity to comply with community based orders. The author also noted that Mr Loulanting has failed to take advantage of external services and assistance available to him in the community to address his unresolved issues.

43. This has some resonance for me for, when I sentenced him in 2012 (see R v Loulanting (Unreported, ACTSC, Refshauge J, 4 July 2012)), I referred to the efforts he had been making to address his various challenges that contributed to his criminal behaviour. I was told that he had, at the time, been engaged in counselling for his post-traumatic stress disorder and had a mental health plan.

44. Since then, however, he has attempted self-harm and was admitted to the Mental Health Assessment Unit (MHAU) at The Canberra Hospital, where he was reviewed on 26 October 2012, when he described feelings of paranoia following amphetamine use. This was less than four months after I dealt with him.

45. He was, again, admitted to the MHAU from 25 to 27 November 2013, again, as a result of significant amphetamine use. The discharge diagnosis was, "drug induced psychosis" and "methamphetamine abuse".

It seems to me that Mr Loulanting - whether through fear of the imposition of the sentence that was suspended or whether genuinely deciding that the time has now come for him to grow up and to behave in a responsible manner in the community has taken hold of his life and addressed the issues that were troubling him leading to what can only be described as a very unhappy and troubled early life, including considerable appearances in the courts for a number of very serious offences. He seems, therefore, to have turned his life around and taken advantage of the time in between his court appearances to put his life back in order.

47. That was clearly too optimistic an assessment. I cannot, of course, punish Mr Loulanting for not being able to maintain the commitment I assessed but, if it leads back to criminality, then more serious consequences are inevitable.

48. Dr Barker saw an urgent need for Mr Loulanting to address his use of illicit drugs. He considered that he should engage in drug and alcohol counselling and recommended consideration be given to mandated treatment. Indeed, Mr Loulanting's lawyers filed in court a copy of an article David A Bright and Kristie A Martine, "Does Coerced Treatment of Substance-Using Offenders Lead to Improvements in Substance Use and Recidivism? A Review of Treatment Efficacy Literature" (2013) 48 Australian Psychologist 69.

49. The article analysed literature on the subject and concluded that there was some evidence of the effectiveness of mandated treatment for drug use at the post-conviction stage. This appeared to be in respect of criminal justice outcomes rather than substance abuse outcomes. Indeed, the authors conclude about this stage of intervention:

Considered together, the evidence related to drug court style interventions points clearly towards gains in the criminal justice domain, however, there is little compelling evidence of a benefit for participants with regard to substance use.

50. Overall, the conclusions of the authors were somewhat restricted. They concluded,

The use of coerced treatment entails an obligation to provide evidence of its effectiveness. Unfortunately, the field falls far short of accumulating a coherent set of methodologically robust studies attesting to the efficacy of coerced treatment programs. The current reviewers illustrates that there remains significant gaps in the research literature around not only the efficacy of coerced treatment programs but also program features factors related to participation and retention and the cost effectiveness of such programs.

51. While mandated treatment can be appropriate, there are signs that Mr Loulanting is now accepting more genuinely that he requires to make an effort himself and that this is a time when he is making some of those efforts.

52. He has completed the First Steps to Anger Management Program while in the Alexander Maconachie Centre. This seems to me to be important for the violence seems, from the Statements of Facts that I had, to be linked not only to substance abuse but also to lack of anger control to which Dr Barker had earlier referred.

53. Mr Loulanting has proposed that I make a deferred sentence order. Two options were offered. One proposal involves him attending a residential rehabilitation program at the Calvary Riverina Drug and Alcohol Centre in Wagga Wagga. It is sometimes known as Peppers. It is conducted by the sisters of the Little Company of Mary and provides three separate services:

(a) Withdrawal from alcohol and illicit drugs - twenty-four hours for ten days.

(b) Day Program - Eight week rehabilitation service, operating Monday to Friday, from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.

(c) Residential Rehabilitation - Six weeks to six months rehabilitation service. This service has three phases. Each phase is designed to meet client's needs and I outline them below.

Phase 1 - Six weeks. Clients are unable to leave the centre without the supervision of staff. They attend educational and therapy groups throughout the day. Phase 1 is the court treatment program of the agency comprising group work as well as individual counselling and case management. Clients are also required to cook and complete daily chores as part of living skills. Clients must apply and be accepted by clinical staff to move to the next phase.

Phase 2 - Six weeks. Clients continue with group work, counselling and case management. Clients are also required to do either two days of voluntary work or study per week. This provides clients with the opportunity to practice skills learned in the first six weeks in a more realistic life setting. It also begins the process of reintegrating back into the community. Phase 2 is for between six to ten weeks. Clients cannot move to Phase 3 without applying for, and being accepted into, Phase 2 by the clinical staff.

Phase 3 - Twelve weeks. Clients transition into a house next to the service and begin integration back into the community while receiving continuous support from the clinical team. Clients have the option of beginning casual or part time work or increasing their volunteer work. Phase 3 clients act as responsible role models for all Phase 1 and 2 clients. The content of the program then covers a wide range of therapeutic materials, such as:

• Conflict Resolution which involves learning information and developing skills on how to resolve conflict in a peaceful, healthy way without resorting to the use of drugs or alcohol;
• Anger Management that includes information tools and developing skills to better manage their anger in future situations, as well as identifying triggers for anger and identifying their red flags or high risk situation and then developing a plan to put anger management techniques into place.
• Relapse Prevention which includes learning about high risk situations, identifying triggers and cravings, challenging negative thinking, developing plans and using strategies to manage cravings more effectively and developing plans to prevent relapsing and utilising strategies to avoid or minimise the risk of relapsing.

• Self-Esteem involving learning about how to challenge and change negative thinking about oneself into positive and healthy thinking. How to manage difficult emotions, such as guilt and shame that may lead to relapse if not dealt with appropriately, as well as how to maintain a balanced and positive lifestyle and the importance of self-care.

54. The alternative to that proposal was that I was asked to release Mr Loulanting into the community with the following elements:

• continued drug and alcohol rehabilitation with Directions ACT;

• employment with the company ConneKt ProjeKts; and

55. A comprehensive pre-release plan was in evidence. It showed that he had applied for social housing on 5 November 2014 and that, in the meantime, he could stay with his sister. It also referred to the other matters to which I have referred above.

56. The option of employment was set out in an email from the owners and operators of ConneKt ProjeKts and the conditions under which they are prepared to employ him. They were strict and, indeed, went well beyond what an ordinary employment arrangement would include.

As we are very religious people we expect Mr Loulanting to attend church with us every Sunday without fail. We also expect missionaries to visit Mr Loulanting at least once a week and partake in scripture studies. Mr Loulanting can only associate with us, his employers or family members and he's not to associate with his usual friends or anyone outside of the church members or family. He is not to drink alcohol or take any type of drugs beside those prescribed by doctors. He is not to go out to night clubs or parties. He is to arrive on time at work and only leave when he is given permission to leave. He is to be punctual and honest in all that he does.

We care very much for James as we want him to achieve goals and be successful in his life and I truly believe that this is the only way but if Mr Loulanting does not comply with any of these demands or conditions then I recommend that he go straight back into full-time custody.

59. The Crown opposed the making of a deferred sentence order and submitted that I should infer, from the evidence that Mr Loulanting gave and his preference for the community option rather than the residential rehabilitation option and from the Pre-Sentence Report, that he is not truly committed to residential rehabilitation and that he simply wants to be out of custody.

60. This lack of commitment was said to be evidenced also in his demonstrated lack of insight. It was submitted that Crispin J had given Mr Loulanting an opportunity 2007, (R v Loulanting (Unreported, ACTSC, Crispin J, 16 April 2007)) but that he had not really availed himself of it. He has now spent five months in custody when he is not using illicit drugs or alcohol, but he had not addressed the issues that contributed to his substance abuse.

61. While acknowledging that the proposed terms of employment were strict, it was submitted that there was no way in which they could be enforced. The employers had no obligation to report any breaches by him.

62. The Crown further submitted that the original offence was a very serious one and involving not only being in company, but also the use of a knife and the breaches of the various orders were themselves serious. Mr Loulanting had been given many opportunities and had not taken them.

63. I accept that Mr Loulanting has been convicted of a very serious offence. He has been given an opportunity to show that he can be trusted in the community, but has failed on two occasions to comply with the conditions of the good behaviour order made following the suspension of the sentence of imprisonment imposed. He has, in addition, committed further offences of violence. While this did not breach the good behaviour order that I made, it did breach a good behaviour order made by the Magistrates Court.

64. The breach of the good behaviour orders on both occasions was constituted by him committing further offences. This is, perhaps, the more serious of breaches, since it is in the prevention of further offending that is the most significant of the outcomes that the imposition of sentencing is intended to achieve.

65. Nevertheless, the offending is at a lower level of seriousness compared to the original offending and this reduces to a limited extent the level of gravity of the breach. See the approach to breaches of good behaviour orders that I set out in Guy v Anderson [2013] ACTSC 5 at [82]- [91].

66. I also note that Mr Loulanting has served full-time imprisonment before, including for an earlier breach of a good behaviour order, as well as for the failure to undertake periodic detention, and for an earlier offence in Victoria as well as the most recent offences. These were as a result of offences of violence which are of the same kind as those originally committed although, as I have indicated, are less serious.

67. Mr Loulanting spent fifty-five days in custody prior to his original sentence.

68. The circumstances must, however, be put into a proper context. The original offence was committed on 7 April 2006, more than eight and a half years ago. That delay, despite what has happened in the meantime, is of relevant consideration. See R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 at 519-20. It is also relevant that there have, since then, been significant periods where Mr Loulanting was not committing offences.

69. More recently, however, his criminality has been spiralling out of control. It may rightly be inferred that some of this is attributable to the unaddressed childhood problems for which he has now sought, and is receiving, assistance through SAMSSA.

70. The recent period of imprisonment is one which has clearly helped Mr Loulanting focus his mind on how he might address his life.

71. Courts are rightly sceptical of claims that the corner has been turned and that an offender "seen the light". See the helpful comments of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118; (1999) 106 A Crim R 314 at 319; [35].

72. If, however, it can be done with safeguards, the deferred sentence order is exactly the mechanism the legislature has given the courts to see if such claims are genuine. It allows the court to give an offender an opportunity to put in place the wishes that he had to the reform which, as French CJ has said in Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; (2011) 243 CLR 506 at 536; [32], is the surest protection for the community.

73. In this case, Mr Loulanting has engaged for the first time with counselling for the consequences of his experience of child sexual abuse and the SAMSSA report is cautiously positive. He has also engaged well with Directions ACT, in contrast to the earlier reported experience. Indeed, Directions ACT said, in their report to the Court, that he had engaged well and participated actively.

74. There is no doubt that Mr Loulanting must be punished for his further breach of the good behaviour order and I must take into account his history. I consider, however, that there was enough that shows his claims to be now addressing his criminal behaviour and the causes and contributions to it are not merely claims but have been sufficiently implemented to justify acceptance of some genuine reality to his wish to reform.

75. I rely, in particular, on the completion of the anger management course, the report from SAMSSA and the report from Directions ACT.

76. I accept that there is a risk; there is always a risk, and sentencing is not an exercise in risk-free disposition. Even were I to impose the sentence that was suspended when the original offence was dealt with, there is no guarantee that Mr Loulanting would not leave prison at the end of the term of imprisonment in any better shape than he is now, especially with the limited nature and number of courses and employment opportunities in the Alexander Maconachie Centre.

77. In my view, Mr Loulanting has made out a case for the option of a deferred sentence order. The next, and more difficult, question is whether it should be an order served in the community or at the Calvary Riverina Drug and Alcohol Centre. The question is finely balanced.

78. In the end, however, I consider that the opportunity to continue with contact with his children and the counselling with SAMSSA, together with the employment, is more likely to embed in him pro-social behaviours at this stage. I am satisfied that he should be given the opportunity to show that he can continue his reform in the community.

1. I confirm the conviction for the offence of attempted aggravated robbery on 7 April 2006.

2. I note that you have been convicted of assault and two counts of failing to appear, in accordance with your bail undertaking, and that these breached the good behaviour order that I made on the 4 July 2012.

4. I have decided not to sentence you for this offence this time. I note that you are not serving, nor liable to serve, a term of imprisonment for an offence other than the offence for which I am sentencing you as from 1 December 2014.

5. I have considered the Pre-Sentence Reports about you and the other evidence on sentencing including the report from the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service and the pre-release plan. I consider that you should be given an opportunity to address your criminal behaviour and the mental health and substance abuse issues which have contributed to that behaviour before I sentence you for this offence.

6. I am satisfied that I may release you on bail under the Bail Act 1992. Accordingly, I order that you appear before me at 9:30 am on 3 June 2014 to be sentenced for the offence of attempted aggravated robbery. I release you on bail from 2 May 2014, to appear on that date and impose the following conditions on the bail:

(a) That you accept supervision by the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions including those concerning where you reside, your employment and treatment and counselling for substance abuse, mental health and anger management;

(b) That you abstain from the use of illicit drugs and alcohol;

(c) That you submit as and when required to breath analysis and urinalysis;

(d) That you report to the officer-in-charge of Tuggeranong Police Station every Wednesday and Saturday between the hours of 8:00 am and 8:00 pm;

(e) That you continue counselling with the Service Assisting Male Survivors of Sexual Assault and consent to the officers of that agency providing information about your counselling to the person supervising you;

(f) That you continue counselling with Directions ACT and consent to the officers of that agency giving information about your counselling to the persons supervising you;

(g) That you commence and remain in employment with ConneKt ProjeKts and consent to the owners of that business providing details of your employment and behaviour to the persons supervising you;

(h) That you seek admission to an anger management course as approved by the persons supervising you and if admitted continue in that course and consent to the officers conducting the course providing information about your progress to the person supervising you;

(i) That you appear before me at 9:30 am on 17 February 2015 for a progress report; and

(j) That you comply with any personal protection order that has been issued on the application of [redacted].

7. I indicate if you do not comply with this order and the bail conditions you should be sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period.

8. I indicate that if you comply with this order and the bail conditions I consider that you should be sentenced to imprisonment for three years which will be either served by periodic detention or suspended with a good behaviour order, including a community service condition.

(a) If you breach the conditions of the bail or the order, you are liable to be arrested and brought before the Court. I may review the deferred sentence order at any time. In addition to me reviewing the deferred sentence order on my own initiative, the Director-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions or yourself may apply to the Court to have the order reviewed.

(b) On a review of a deferred sentence order, I may -

• (i) take no action; or
• (ii) warn you about the need to comply with the conditions of the deferred sentence order and your bail; or
• (iii) amend the deferred sentence orders conditions; or
• (iv) cancel the order.

(c) If your bail is revoked, the deferred sentence order is automatically cancelled.

80. [His Honour then spoke directly to Mr Loulanting]

81. Mr Loulanting, you are on a knife edge at the moment. You really are. It is a long time since you committed the attempted aggravated robbery. It was a really nasty offence and Crispin J was generous in allowing you an opportunity to be in the community and not serve a term of imprisonment for three years which would be, in itself, fairly lenient for that offence. You have blown it on a number of occasions. I accept that there are reasons for that and you have shown that there are significant periods when you can behave yourself and not get out of control.

82. You have had attempts to come to terms with it before. I know from experience both before I was a judge and as a judge that it is really difficult to manage those things. Drugs catch you and get you by the guts and it is really difficult to overcome those.

83. The trauma, I can only imagine, of your childhood sexual abuse and the difficulties that that has caused to you, but there comes a time when you really need to take control of your own future, and there are people who can assist you. It appears that SAMSSA is doing that well and hopefully Directions ACT will continue to do that well.

84. You have agreed to an incredibly strict regime for your employers. If they are really your friends they will impose that strict regime on you and hopefully give you a structure that will allow you to put this completely unacceptable behaviour behind you.

85. The way in which you treat your former partner is completely unacceptable and continued activities such as that will lead you going back to gaol. But it is better for the community if you can get your life in order. It is, at the moment, only a claim, but you have taken sufficient steps off your own bat, in my view, to justify me giving you a chance to do that.

86. There will still be some punishment to the end. You do not breach these orders scot-free, but you do not have to go back to gaol if you can really show me that you will take this opportunity genuinely but with support, and the support is of SAMSSA, Directions ACT, anger management and Corrections, which will supervise you and your employers. It is going to be tough. It is not going to be easy.

87. If there are problems, the most important thing is not to go out and commit crime but to talk to your lawyers and come back before me and we will see what we can do. I do not guarantee that that will not mean you will not go back to gaol; that is always a possibility, but I suspect for a strong young man like you gaol is not all that fearsome - it is undesirable - but it is not all that fearsome. But, really, if you want to be a father to your children, if you want to have any contact with them in the future, then you need to get your life in order.

88. I think you are making some efforts and I am prepared to support that even though quite properly and understandably the Crown said I am wasting my time. You prove that they are wrong. You deliver to me what I have given you an opportunity to do and I will support you the best I can. But if you do not do that, if you spit in my eye, you will be back in gaol before your feet touch the ground.

I certify that the preceding eighty-eight [88] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge.