• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent – attempted aggravated robbery – Sentencing for attempt offences - Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order made – Rehabilitation

Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 46J, 7, 12A, 46K, 80W, 80Y; Table 46K Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Ch 6 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44(9), 310, 318(1) Cases Cited: Cajina v The Queen [2009] ACTCA 2; 3 ACTLR 79 Hall v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 R v Billington [2014] ACTSC 350 R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 R v Gotte [2018] ACTSC 219 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Holt [2020] ACTSC 311 R v Lovelock [2014] ACTSC 229 R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256 R v Richards [2018] ACTSC 339 R v Roux (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 361 R v Sullivan [2019] ACTSC 38 R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387 R v Twerd [2018] ACTSC 153 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Parties: The Queen (Crown) Daniel Mark Lovelock (Offender)

Representation: Counsel E Wren (Crown) K McKee, T Kelliher (Offender)

Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number(s): SCC 233 of 2020 Refshauge AJ:

Introduction

1. In Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 at [89] I spoke of the rehabilitation of persons with a dependency on illicit drugs. I said:

In my view, it can be accepted that drug addiction is such that it can take a number of failed attempts at rehabilitation before it is successful. It is hard work and there is no short cut or quick fix. It can take some time, and some failures, before an offender addict manages to break through the barriers to achieve a more effective rehabilitation. The courts cannot, of course, sit back and allow attempts to be made without end. By the same token, past failures do not automatically deny an offender the opportunity for a further attempt. Ordinarily, there would have to be some rational basis for permitting it.

2. I had come to that view informed by many decades of acting for, prosecuting and then judging persons with a dependence on illegal drugs, as well as chairing and being a member of the board of a drug rehabilitation agency and committees advising government on harm minimisation policy and strategies. It is not an inappropriate lens with which to approach the sentencing of Daniel Mark Lovelock, who has pleaded guilty to an offence of attempted aggravated robbery and of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.

The facts

3. Admitted into evidence without objection or challenge to its contents was the Statement of Facts. From it, I make the following findings.

4. On 10 March 2019, Mr Lovelock walked into a service station at Kambah ACT and got into the driver's seat of a Ford Falcon station wagon parked there. The owner had gone into the shop of the service station to buy a coffee. Unwisely, he left the keys in the ignition and the engine running.

5. Mr Lovelock did not know the owner nor have his permission to drive the motor vehicle, but nevertheless drove it out of the service station. Mr Lovelock's actions were captured on the service station's closed-circuit television system as would be well known. These facts constituted the offence of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.

6. Some time later on the same day, at about 7:30 am, Mr Lovelock drove the motor vehicle into a drive-thru entry to the service window of a Hungry Jack's fast food outlet nearby, also in Kambah. By this time he had procured a hatchet and donned sunglasses, perhaps to try and hide his identity. He was still wearing the cap he had been wearing earlier. At the window, he said to the attendant, ‘Give me the money or I'll hit you.’ He brandished the hatchet at the attendant and threw a green reusable canvas bag at him. The hatchet had not been in the car when Mr Lovelock took it.

7. The attendant had the presence of mind to leave the window and press the hold-up alarm in the manager's officer, located near the drive-thru window. While he was away, Mr Lovelock damaged the window by hitting it four times with the hatchet, causing it to shatter but remain largely in place. He then drove away. It is not clear to what extent the window protected the attendant from the threatened attack with the hatchet.

8. These events, which constituted the attempted aggravated robbery, were all captured clearly on the closed-circuit television system of the outlet. The factor of aggravation in this case was Mr Lovelock’s possession of an offensive weapon.

The proceedings

9. The next day, police conducting routine morning patrols in Wanniassa ACT located the vehicle parked in a car park at the Erindale shops in that suburb. They found Mr Lovelock asleep or unconscious in the driver's seat. He was aroused by police and taken into custody, but was driven to the Canberra Hospital because of the level of his intoxication.

10. While in hospital, Mr Lovelock admitted to driving the vehicle which he said he had only had for a ‘couple of days’, and curiously and naively asserted that he did not know it was stolen. He was released from custody because police, who appeared to have only then known of the dishonest taking of the motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, very properly considered that it would be reasonable to proceed by summons for that offence.

11. Mr Lovelock was released from the Canberra Hospital on the next day and went to the Tuggeranong Police Station to collect some property. Police immediately recognised him as the person who had committed the attempted aggravated robbery at the Kambah Hungry Jack's outlet and arrested him. He appeared in court the next day when bail was refused and he was remanded in custody. There were a number of adjournments until he pleaded not guilty on 5 June 2019.

12. On 10 July 2019, he was granted bail from 16 July 2019 to attend the Wayback Ltd rehabilitation facility in Sydney. He did admit himself to the facility but was discharged on 30 September 2019 due to multiple breaches of the rules of the facility. He did not, as required, return to the Magistrates Court in Canberra, and was later arrested in New South Wales for another offence of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.

13. He was then also convicted of offences of driving whilst disqualified, driving recklessly or furiously or at a dangerous speed or in a dangerous manner, and failing to stop when required by police—a series of offences, the details of which I do not have, but which suggest significant criminal activity on the roads. He had been arrested and was refused bail.

14. On 29 November 2019 he was sentenced in the Blacktown Local Court in New South Wales for these offences to an aggregate period of 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months. When released on parole on 9 April 2020, he appears to have returned to Canberra but did not return to custody. His parole period ended on 10 October 2020, and on 16 October 2020 this matter was listed for hearing. A few days before the hearing, Mr Lovelock indicated that he would plead guilty. As a result, the prosecution did not need to have any witnesses attend on that day.

15. As a result of his plea of guilty, he was committed to this Court for sentence on the ACT charges with a view to being dealt with in the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List of this Court. He was assessed as eligible for a Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List Suitability Assessment (a Suitability Assessment) under s 46J of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act) on that day, and the matter was then listed for sentence in this Court on 4 December 2020. The offences

16. Attempted aggravated robbery is an offence contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code, attracting a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, or a fine of $400,000, or both. As the High Court said in Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at [30]–[31], the maximum penalties provide a yardstick against which to measure the seriousness of an offence. By this yardstick, in the ACT criminal calendar only murder ranks more seriously than aggravated robbery, and the offence aligns with offences such as sabotage, extremely serious drug offences and arson endangering life.

17. Matters which render this crime a more serious version of the offence include planning or premeditation, of which there is some limited evidence in this case. While the taking of the motor vehicle necessary for the offence seems to have been opportunistic, he had to obtain the hatchet. The hatchet was a fearsome weapon which could inflict serious injuries. He also donned sunglasses which were, perhaps, an attempt to hide his identity.

18. On the other hand, the protection afforded by the window of the fast food outlet, which the hatchet did not seem to be able to break, shows the ineptitude of any planning. Mr Lovelock did, however, cause damage, which is also an aggravating feature.

19. The victim was a relatively vulnerable person, being an attendant at a fast food outlet at an early hour in the morning, though I take judicial notice of the likelihood that there were other staff on the premises. Nothing was taken, of course, hence the offence was being charged as an attempt. There was no evidence of how much cash was on the premises. In this day of increasing use of credit and debit cards, it may not have been a large sum. Thus, by the features identified by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at 380; [162], this was a reasonably typical version of what is nevertheless a serious offence.

20. I have no Victim Impact Statement to assess the effect on the victim, who had the presence of mind to move to the manager's office and raise the alarm. I accept the Crown's contention that the attendant would at least have been alarmed at the offence, as indeed did Ms K McKee, counsel for Mr Lovelock, in her helpful submissions. The outlet also, of course, suffered damage to the window. There was no force used on the victim, though force was used on the window, but to little ultimate effect and relatively out of sight, and apparently hearing, of the victim. In this event, the offence was not committed in company.

21. The fact that the robbery offence was not actually committed but only attempted requires attention. In the first place, s 44(9) of the Criminal Code provides that ‘[t]he offence of attempting to commit an offence is punishable as if the offence attempted had been committed.’

22. Ms E Wren for the Crown, in her thoughtful and valuable submissions, drew my attention to the discussion of the issue in Cajina v The Queen [2009] ACTCA 2; 3 ACTLR 79 at 87 [29], where the Court of Appeal adopted the approach articulated by Badgery-Parker J in R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387 at 390. The approach requires the Court to have regard to the fact that the substantive offence was only attempted and not completed. Here, for example, no property was stolen, the nature and value of which is a relevant and sometimes aggravating feature of a robbery offence.

23. Badgery-Parker J held it relevant to ‘consider the chances that the attempt, if not interrupted [or otherwise prevented], would have succeeded’: R v Taouk at 390. Here, the presence of the window and Mr Lovelock’s failure to break it down with the hatchet suggests that the attempt may well not have succeeded. This, his Honour suggests, reduces the objective seriousness of the crime, though I must nevertheless consider the seriousness of that attempt. I do consider that, in this case, the nature of the attempt does reduce the severity of the still serious offence.

24. The other offence, dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, is an offence prohibited by s 318(1) of the Criminal Code which provides for a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, or a fine of $80,000, or both. In this case, the offence involves the deprivation of a vehicle, which is often the most expensive purchase of the owner after his home, if he has one. I did not have any evidence of the value of the vehicle, though it did not appear to be especially valuable, nor less than of a significant value.

25. In a city like Canberra where many people depend on car transport, the loss can be a significant inconvenience: R v Roux (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 361 at [78]. In this case, that inconvenience was clearly exacerbated because the owner had simply stopped by the service station to buy some coffee and was suddenly left without transport to continue his journey. Ms McKee also frankly and appropriately accepted this. It was an aggravating feature that the vehicle was then used in the commission of another offence.

Subjective circumstances

26. Together with the Statement of Facts, I had a Suitability Assessment dated 24 November 2020 prepared by ACT Corrective Services and a Suitability Assessment dated 26 November 2020 from Alcohol and Drug Services. These are most valuable reports. The tender of neither report was subject to objection or challenge. I also had a Letter of Support from Mr Lovelock's parents which was admitted without objection.

27. I make the following findings from this material, though some of the dates or ages are a little unclear.

28. Mr Lovelock was born in Canberra 38 years ago, the second youngest of four siblings. He gave slightly different views of his childhood to the two reporters, but it is clear that his father was a heavy drinker and, at least, verbally abusive, perhaps violent, within the family. Mr Lovelock said that he dealt with this by spending a lot of time away from home in his teenage years, until he left home at about age 16 to avoid the family problems.

29. He then lived in various places, and later with a girlfriend from about age 25 until the relationship ended last year. He has regained a good relationship with his father, who is now supportive and understanding of his struggles with drug dependence. He also has a good relationship with his mother, two elder sisters and younger brother.

30. He attended school until Year 9, then leaving to work with his father in his father’s fencing business. He continued in that work for about 10 years until his daily substance use impeded his capacity for employment. He currently lives with his parents.

31. Mr Lovelock enjoys good physical health, but has suffered from anxiety all his life and has been prescribed Valium as well as antidepressant medication. He recently stopped taking his antidepressant medication suddenly due to the side effects of weight gain and drowsiness. He continues to take Valium. His anxiety can exhibit as panic attacks which appear to occur quite frequently, though I found it difficult to clarify the exact frequency.

32. Mr Lovelock started drinking alcohol and smoking heroin at the relatively young age of 15 years old. His alcohol use escalated to the extent of impairing his decision-making and lowering his inhibitions. He currently drinks up to six full-strength beers at the weekends.

33. His heroin use also increased until age 24. He was using it intravenously on a daily basis leading to him leaving fulltime work. He says that he no longer uses it.

34. He has smoked cigarettes in the past but recently stopped smoking and appears to be succeeding in quitting. He first used cannabis when he was 15 years old also, but did not like it and gave it up, last using about three years ago.

35. His use of methamphetamines started when he was around 26 years old, mainly in the form of ‘Speed’, which he used with his partner as this was her drug of choice. He mainly used at weekends, but has ceased its use.

36. His use of other forms of methamphetamines increased a few years later, at age 28, when he began using about one ‘point’ twice a week, either smoked or injected. More recently this increased to daily use, especially after his relationship broke down, but he says he has also given that up.

37. Mr Lovelock has used cocaine occasionally but has not used for about three years. He has also had a gambling issue, at one time owing $30,000 (now paid).

38. He has attended five residential drug treatment programs since he was 21 years old. Despite leaving the first program because he was not ready for such rehabilitation, he did complete a number of programs but relapsed some months after leaving them. He found that his most recent program was not beneficial and, as noted above at [12], he was discharged.

39. He has, however, committed himself to rehabilitation as attested by his parents, including by avoiding peers from the days when he used drugs. Mr Lovelock is currently prescribed methadone and continues on the program, a sign of his drug dependence and his commitment to rehabilitation. At the time of offending, however, he was clearly affected by illicit drugs, having used heroin prior to committing the offences for which he is being sentenced.

40. Mr Lovelock has a long and problematic criminal history. He has been dealt with by the Courts for 91 offences, committed in the ACT and New South Wales Courts, since 2001. He has also been dealt with for breaching court orders on at least four occasions. While 11 of the offences are traffic offences, including 2 offences of driving with a drug in his oral fluid or blood, and 2 are assault offences, the majority are dishonesty offences. In particular, 12 burglary or attempted burglary offences and 15 theft or attempted theft offences, and 4 offences of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.

41. On 30 June 2014, he was sentenced in this Court to three years imprisonment for the offence of aggravated robbery with an offensive weapon. Although in sentencing, Murrell CJ described Mr Lovelock's conduct as ‘not particularly serious’ (see R v Lovelock [2014] ACTSC 229 at [11]), it was, nevertheless, a serious offence: he used a knife which he waved at a service station attendant, demanding money, but when the attendant did not respond, he walked out the door taking a soft drink with him. He seems to have had some form as an incompetent robber.

Sentencing practice

42. Despite the Crown's reference to R v Henry, which suggested a sentence range of between four and five years for the relatively common version of the offence, the Court of Appeal in Hall v The Queen, Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 at [49] described the guidelines in R v Henry as ‘'not binding’ but ‘persuasive’. As noted by Murrell CJ in R v Lovelock at [13], the current practice in this Court shows that a common sentence for the offence of aggravated robbery is three years.

43. I was also provided with some more recent decisions that seemed to support this to some limited extent. These comparable cases are, of course, not precedents. As Elkaim J explained in R v Gotte [2018] ACTSC 219 at [4], when referring to the offence of aggravated robbery:

In addition I have had regard to cases like R v Twerd [2018] ACTSC 153 and R v Billington [2014] ACTSC 350 as indicating the very stern attitude that must be taken to these offences. Of course each case is to be decided on its own facts. Nevertheless, the above cases provide useful guidance.

44. In that case, Mr Gotte was charged with attempted aggravated robbery, after he entered a bank with a stolen backpack, which he placed on the counter. He handed the teller a note that there was a bomb in it and he should be given cash. After the teller pressed the panic button, Mr Gotte ran away. There was no bomb in the backpack. He surrendered himself to police the next day and showed remorse. He had effectively no criminal history. He had, however, mental health issues. He was sentenced on that charge to 33 months and 15 days imprisonment to be served by an Intensive Correction Order. It was a less serious case than this one, having regard to the objective and subjective circumstances.

45. In R v Richards [2018] ACTSC 339, Mr Richards was also charged with attempted aggravated robbery after he, with a companion, attacked a lone taxi driver. The co-offender punched the taxi driver and Mr Richards threatened him with a knife, demanding his money and phone. The taxi driver refused to comply, and a struggle followed in which the driver was injured, but he disarmed Mr Richards who then ran away with his companion. Mr Richards was 20 years old at the time of the offence, made full admissions to police and entered an early plea. He had a long criminal history, however, he was sentenced for that crime to two years and three months imprisonment.

46. In R v Sullivan [2019] ACTSC 38, Mr Sullivan stole $500 from a fast food outlet after approaching a female member of staff at 9:45 pm. He produced a knife and demanded money. The staff member called the manager and Mr Sullivan waved the knife at him too. The manager then produced cash from the safe and gave it to Mr Sullivan, who then left. He was arrested nearly five weeks later and initially denied committing the robbery. At the time of the offence, he was under the influence of drugs and needed the money to purchase more.

47. Mr Sullivan was 23 years old and had a substantial criminal history of burglary and other dishonesty offences. He was dependant on drugs. He pleaded guilty on his third appearance in court after preparation of the prosecution brief. He was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment to be served by an Intensive Correction Order. The offence seems more serious than Mr Lovelock's offence, but the subjective circumstances are not dissimilar, though with some significant differences.

48. Finally, I was referred to R v Holt [2020] ACTSC 311, where Mr Holt was charged with attempted aggravated robbery after he and another male approached a woman in a car park as she was packing groceries into her car. Mr Holt was armed with a knife and threatened the victim, demanding money. The victim told him to go away and when he continued, hit him but then saw the knife. She backed away and Mr Holt slashed at her car, where upon she ran at him, and Mr Holt and his co-offender ran away.

49. Mr Holt made admissions to police when he was arrested the next day. He was 19 at the time but had what was described as ‘a not insignificant criminal history which commenced over one year ago’. Mr Holt had a lengthy history of emotional and behavioural problems and evidence of some mental health issues. He was dependent on drugs. All these circumstances point to a somewhat less serious case for sentencing Mr Holt. Mr Holt was then sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offence.

50. I am not clear whether these cases show a less severe approach, and a move away from that expressed in R v Henry, R v Hall, R v Barker and R v Lovelock as to sentence.

51. I have discussed sentencing practice in relation to the charge of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent and related offences in R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256 at [54]-[59]. In that case, I held that a sentence of 12 months imprisonment should be imposed.

Consideration

52. Section 7 of the Sentencing Act sets out the purposes for which a sentence may be imposed. It is important for a judicial officer imposing a sentence to have regard to them. In this case, the seriousness of the offence of attempted aggravated robbery requires a sentence that punishes. The risk to safety and peace in the community posed by such offences also requires some element of general deterrence.

53. Given that Mr Lovelock has already committed an attempted aggravated robbery offence, and the offence of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent relatively recently, specific deterrence is an important consideration. The repeated commission of the same offence does ordinarily require a more severe sentence. While I have no specific details of the effect of the offence on the victims, as would be provided by a Victim Impact Statement ordinarily, the Court can appreciate that there will be effects of a general kind and ensure that these are recognised by an appropriate sentence. This also requires Mr Lovelock to be held accountable. The protection of the community is always an important consideration.

54. Mr Lovelock did plead guilty. Although it was a late plea, formally entered on the day of the hearing, it was indicated before the hearing and so provided some utilitarian value saving witnesses, the Court and prosecution time. It was also a limited, but not irrelevant, sign that he accepted responsibility for his offending. The motivation for Mr Lovelock's offending is accepted as his drug use. While that does not mitigate the seriousness of the offence, it is relevant to the kind of sentence that may ultimately be imposed.

55. There has been some delay in the sentencing of Mr Lovelock. This was initially because he was undergoing residential drug rehabilitation. Through his efforts however, he was discharged from the program, committed further offences and was imprisoned in New South Wales. Mr Lovelock cannot, in those circumstances, call the delay in his aid in the sentencing process.

56. Mr Lovelock's longstanding drug dependency commenced at a relatively early age, although the use of the particular drugs started more recently. As noted in R v Henry at 382; [174], this is a relevant matter to consider in sentence. Mr Lovelock has already spent 167 days in custody and this must be taken into account. I have already referred to the relationship between the two offences.

57. That the motor vehicle dishonestly taken was used in the attempted aggravated robbery leads to some commonality of elements, which require some concurrency, Mr Lovelock should be left in no doubt that he cannot commit multiple offences on the same occasion with impunity. I must also have regard to the principle of totality.

Sentence

His Honour then spoke directly to the accused:

58. Mr Lovelock, please stand.

59. I convict you of attempted robbery on 10 March 2020. I sentence you for that offence to three years imprisonment to commence on 24 June 2020, to take into account pre-sentence custody. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to three years and four months imprisonment.

60. I convict you of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent on 10 March 2020. I sentence you to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 23 March 2023, to be concurrent as to 3 months with the sentence for the attempted aggravated robbery. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to 14 months imprisonment.

61. Mr Lovelock, please be seated.

62. I note that this sentence is of a total of three years and nine months imprisonment and ends on 23 March 2024. I also note that Mr Lovelock is not subject to any other sentencing order. Accordingly, he is eligible to be sentenced to a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (a Treatment Order) under s 12A of the Sentencing Act.

63. I have read and considered the reports referred to above (at [26]) and the recommendations made in them, especially that Mr Lovelock is suitable for a Treatment Order. I am satisfied that Mr Lovelock is dependent on illicit drugs. Although he says that he is not currently using illicit drugs, he has been prescribed methadone, which is an opioid available only on prescription in Australia and is prescribed as a replacement for illicit opioids as part of a treatment for dependence on those drugs. He appears also to have been intoxicated sufficiently to require hospitalisation on the day after he committed the offences. He was bailed to attend a residential drug rehabilitation facility while on remand for these offences.

64. I am satisfied that Mr Lovelock will live in the ACT, initially at his parents' home in Belconnen, for the next two years.

65. I have not identified any indication of unsuitability for a Treatment Order, as set out in Table 46K of the Sentencing Act. I note also that Mr Lovelock is motivated to address his use of illicit drugs.

66. I am satisfied, on the basis of this material and these findings, that it is appropriate to make a Treatment Order in respect of Mr Lovelock. I note that Mr Lovelock has been a user of illicit drugs for about 23 years. He has attempted rehabilitation at five residential facilities, only to relapse. Accordingly, it is clear to me that he will require substantial and long-term rehabilitation and support. Accordingly, an order for two years is appropriate.

67. I am satisfied, especially supported by his parents, that Mr Lovelock is motivated to address the dependency he has on illicit drugs. He is also approaching the age when many people dependent on drugs do see a need for reform. Whether through a disillusionment with their current lifestyle or a recognition that, as time passes, there is a loss of opportunity to live a more satisfying life, I cannot say.

68. I note too that, for the reasons set out in the R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 at [91]-[111], the fact that the sentences I have imposed have been backdated to take into account pre-sentence custody, and so will have to be suspended today, does not prevent the making of a Treatment Order.

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order

His Honour then spoke directly to the accused again:

69. Mr Lovelock, please stand again.

70. I make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in respect of you under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) to commence today for a period of two years for the offence of attempted aggravated robbery, the primary offence, for which I have convicted and sentenced you. I extend that order to the offence of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent on 10 March 2020, being an associated offence.

71. I note that I have recorded convictions for the primary offence and associated offence and imposed sentences. These convictions and sentences are hereby incorporated into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order as the custodial part of that order.

72. I suspend the sentences from today until 23 March 2024, being the total of the balance of the sentences for the primary and associated offences from today under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).

73. I require you to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's good behaviour obligations under Ch 6 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period from 9 December 2022 until 23 March 2024, with a probation condition that you accept supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services, or his delegate, for the period of the Good Behaviour Order, or such lesser period as the person supervising you deems appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of that person including, but not limited to, counselling, treatment and urinalysis.

74. For the treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, I require you to comply with the core conditions of the order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for the term of the Order, and complete such treatment program and urinalysis as may be required by a member of the Treatment Order Team from time to time, or as ordered by the Court.

75. I direct you to attend Court at 11:30 am on 11 December 2020.

76. Mr Lovelock, that is the formal legal part of the matter. I am now obliged to explain to you what I have done. I have sentenced you to three years and nine months for this criminality. They were serious offences. They inconvenienced and at least alarmed, if not frightened, people and they are totally unacceptable. You have done this before. You have got to learn that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable in our society.

77. However, having regard to the circumstances put before me and your situation, I accept that you are motivated to address your drug addiction. I have only met you twice now, but I hope I am not wrong. That is going to be hard. It is going to be long. There are going to be setbacks.

78. If you are really committed, as you say you are and your parents have attested to you being, then this Court will assist you, and we have a range of people in the Treatment Order Team and other treatment facilities that will assist in this process and help to support you through that. If you are committed, then the Court will assist you.

79. You will see a lot of me in the next little while. Possibly up to two years, who knows. I will try to encourage you, but if you backslide, I will have to punish you, and at the end of the day, if you really give it up altogether, then you will have to go and spend all or the majority of the balance of the sentence that runs until 23 March 2024.

80. I wish you well.

I certify that the preceding eighty [80] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence his Honour Acting Justice Refshauge

Associate: A Spencer

Date: 2 August 2021