R v Mackenzie-Wilson

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Tamataia Mackenzie-Wilson stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a number of charges. He was originally charged with 13 offences. He stands for sentence for two substantive offences but each of them appears to be a “rolled up” charge. In connection with the offence known as Sequence 15, he asks me to take into account on a Form 1 offences known as Sequence 14 and Sequence 18. In respect of the second substantive crime known as Sequence 19, although it contains a number of different crimes rolled up, he asks me to take into account on a second Form 1 the crime known as Sequence 21.

2. The offender became involved in a money laundering business, being conducted by Bao Long Truong-Phan who set up the business and left Australia for Vietnam on 2 November 2022. He has not returned to Australia and by staying beyond the seas, seeks to evade the consequences of his offending in this country. The current offender had the misfortune of meeting Truong-Phan and interacting with him in Sydney prior to his going to Vietnam and involving himself in Truong-Phan’s business. Truong-Phan was in the business of taking money from organised crime gangs involved in the illegal drug trade and turning it in to cryptocurrency which could be returned to the organised crime gangs and enable them to deal with the matter in the ether, that is, in the internet rather than having cash remain in Australia. The amount of cash dealt with in Truong-Phan’s business was very, very large. Particulars given by the Crown in respect of Sequence 14, one of the crimes on the first Form 1 to which I have referred, state the cash involved was $3,196,850. The current offender dealt with almost $3,000,000 himself. The amount particularised by the Crown regarding Sequence 14 probably represents only part of the overall cash dealt with by the principal Truong-Phan.

3. The two substantive offences to which the offender has pleaded guilty are offences contrary to s 193BA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for each offence is 15 years imprisonment. There is no standard non‑parole period.

4. For the Form 1 matters attached to Sequence 15, Sequence 14 is an offence of participating in a criminal group or contributing to criminal activity, an offence contrary to s 93T(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. The other two matters on the two Forms 1 are offences contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, and carry a maximum term of the imprisonment of three years. For none of the additional crimes is there a standard non-parole period.

Background

5. The offender was born in 1991. At the time of offending, he was aged 30 or 31 years. He is currently 33 years old. The scheme which brought Truong‑Phan’s activities to the attention of the police caused the police to set up a covert operation known as Strike Force Enyo. Strike Force Enyo ascertained that Truong-Phan was, in fact, money laundering by converting cash into cryptocurrency. The strike force covertly entangled Truong-Phan in one of their schemes to try to contain crime.

6. The police, using an online covert operator and undercover officers, persuaded Truong-Phan to use them to transfer Australian cash into US dollar Tether. USD Tether is a cryptocurrency, but it is known as a “stablecoin”. It has the same value as a US dollar. It is effectively a digital version of a US dollar and is not affected by the volatility to which the other cryptocurrencies are subject.

7. The agreed facts concerning the offending are 45 pages long and are too long to cite in any great detail. The offender has given evidence which I have no reason to doubt at all. Truong-Phan might be described as a party person who, when in Sydney, liked to attend functions, social events and the like gatherings. It is in that fashion that the current offender met Truong-Phan and they struck up a friendship. The offender is a personable young man and would strike up friendships quite easily.

8. He eventually confided to Truong‑Phan that he was suffering financial difficulties. I shall speak about those again when I come to consider the offender’s personal circumstances. However, Truong-Phan offered him a way of making money easily. Initially the offender resisted the suggestions made to him by Truong-Phan, but essentially, under financial duress, agreed to participate in the principal’s scheme and he very quickly realised that what he was involved in was unlawful.

9. Rather than reciting most of the agreed facts, I shall try to summarise the offending by relying upon the synopsis provided to me by learned counsel for the offender, Mr Tuckey.

Sequence 15

10. Sequence 15 now contains three exchanges. In total, the exchanges amount to $872,120. The three transactions involved occurred on 1 December 2022, 14 December 2022 and 20 January 2023. In addition to having money delivered to him or his picking up money, the offender would also count the money. It would then often be counted by the UCO to whom he delivered it.

11. On 1 December 2022, the offender carried a large Coles reusable shopping bag containing $411,750 to meet with an undercover operative at Maroubra. The money was counted out by the UCO in the presence of the offender and the exchange was then confirmed by a group chat on Threema in which the offender was participating. As a general proposition, the offender had been provided by others with the money before he went to exchange that money with the undercover operative.

12. The second exchange occurred on 14 December 2022. On this occasion the amount was $221,830. On 13 December 2022, at 4.49pm, the offender was advised by a group chat on Threema that there was to be a trade on the following day. On that day, the offender carried a black “General Pants” bag containing the money and met with the UCO at Coogee. Again, the money was counted by the UCO and the exchange was confirmed in the Threema chat by the offender.

13. The third exchange occurred on 20 January 2023. The amount involved was $238,540. On 19 January 2023, at 2.52pm, the offender was advised that there was to be a trade. The trade clearly was for the following day. On that day, the offender had received the money and carried it in a blue backpack branded with the name “Evocca College” and met up with a UCO, again at Coogee. Again, the money was counted by the UCO in the presence of the offender, and the exchange was confirmed in the Threema group chat in which the offender was participating.

Sequence 18 (Form 1 to Sequence 15)

14. The next crime is known as Sequence 18, and is the matter contained on the first Form 1. The amount in question on 1 February 2023 was $60,390.

15. On this occasion, the offender was directed by Seneca, the name of a Roman philosopher adopted by Truong-Phan, at 10.02am on 1 February 2023, that there would be a trade processing a “61K drop today.” The direction by Truong-Phan required the offender to confirm the exact amount of money once it had been collected, counted and prepared for delivery. Preparation for delivery usually involved sorting bundles of cash, for example, one might accumulate say, fifty $100 notes or fifty $20 notes, often wrapping them in elastic bands and then in Glad Wrap or the like, so that they could be easily handled. It is clear that the offender did what Truong-Phan directed him to do. He then carried a white and green Woolworths plastic shopping bag containing the money and met with a UCO at Centennial Park. The money was then counted by the UCO in the presence of the offender and when everyone was satisfied with the amount, the exchange was confirmed in the Threema group chat in which the offender was participating.

Sequence 14 (Form 1 in Sequence 15)

16. The other matter on the Form 1 attached to Sequence 15 is participation in a criminal group or contributing to a criminal activity. That encompasses the offender’s offending between 29 November 2022 and 31 May 2023. It really does not add any further detail to the crimes that the offender committed but it does record that the offender participated in Truong-Phan’s criminal organisation and must be recognised in the sentence to be passed upon the offender.

Sequence 19

17. The next substantive group of offences is known as Sequence 19. The first exchange in this group of crimes occurred on 6 February 2023. The amount involved in this first exchange was $178,140. However, one must realise that the total amount of money involved in the Sequence 19 offences was $1,695,970. That is an awful lot of money. Again, the offender was directed by Seneca. On 15 February 2023 at 9.44pm, he was told that there would be a job tomorrow.

18. The offender was told to collect the money and count it, and he was to confirm the final amount involved in the trade. It would appear that the offender did so. He carried a tan‑coloured bag with a green symbol on it, containing the money, and met with a UCO at Centennial Park. The money was then counted by the UCO in the presence of the offender and the exchange was confirmed on the Threema group chat in which the offender was participating.

19. The next exchange occurred on 9 February 2023. The amount involved was $136,100. Mr Tuckey kindly drew my attention to the agreed facts which indicate how the offender obtained the money.

20. On 9 February 2023, the offender, who was then living in New South Head Road at Double Bay, entered a silver Toyota Corolla which had been rented from the GoGet rental company. It was parked on Bellevue Street, Double Bay. He then drove to Moira Crescent at Randwick, and parked outside No. 3. He then alighted from the vehicle and walked to a café at 220 Clovelly Road, Randwick.

21. Whilst he was at the café, a lady known as Marjorie Griffith walked to the car that the offender had been driving, opened the front door and placed an orange box on the front seat. The Crown alleges, and the offender admits by his plea, that the box contained $136,100 in cash. Having made her deposit, Ms Griffith closed the door and walked to another vehicle which was rented from another car rental company. She then drove away.

22. After that had happened, the offender walked back to his car, entered it and then drove back to his residence. Presumably, he took with him from the car when he alighted, the orange box which had been deposited in his car by Ms Griffith.

23. At about noon on 9 February 2023, the UCO drove into Centennial Park and parked in front of the Centennial Homestead Restaurant. There, the offender met with the UCO. He walked to the UCO’s car carrying a green and white cooler bag. He opened the front passenger door and sat in the front passenger seat. He told the UCO that he had “14 stacks” with him, meaning 14 parcels of cash. The UCO took the bag from the offender and counted the money and in due course the exchange was confirmed in the Threema group chat in which the offender was participating.

Sequence 21 (Form 1 in Sequence 19)

24. The next exchange was on 17 February 2023. That matter is on the Form 1 attached to Sequence 19. On 16 February 2023, the offender was again directed by Seneca at 3.27pm that there would be a trade carried out on the following day. On that day he delivered cash to a UCO who was sitting in his car. The money involved was $68,370.

Sequence 19 (cont.)

25. The next substantive exchange in Sequence 19 occurred on 23 February 2023. He was directed by Seneca on 22 February 2023 at 3.39pm that there would be a trade on the following day. On 23 February 2023, the offender carried a white and green cooler bag containing the money and met the UCO at Centennial Park. Again, the process was that the UCO counted the money in the presence of the offender and the exchange was then confirmed on the Threema group chat.

26. The next exchange was on 22 March 2023. The amount of money involved was $260,270. Again, the offender was directed by Seneca on the preceding day at 9.34pm in a group chat, in which he said that there would be an exchange on the following day. On 22 March 2023. the offender carried a white bag with black handles containing the money to meet the UCO, again, in Centennial Park. Again, the money was counted by the UCO in the presence of the offender, and the exchange was confirmed in the Threema group chat.

27. The next exchange occurred on 28 March 2023. The amount of money involved was $326,700. Again, the offender attended Centennial Park, on this occasion driving a white Toyota Corolla. He carried a black and yellow Rebel bag containing the cash. However, within the black and yellow Rebel bag, the cash was, in fact, inside a Coles bag. After the exchange the offender returned to the white Toyota Corolla and drove away.

28. The next exchange occurred on 1 May 2023. The amount involved was $302,000. Again, the agreed facts tell me how the offender came be in possession of the cash in order to carry out the trade.

29. At 12.15pm, on 1 May 2023, Marjorie Griffith left her home in Blackwell carrying a green and black duffle bag and a yellow plastic shopping bag. She entered her blue Toyota Landcruiser and drove to an address in Winifred Avenue at Umina Beach. She went into the house and then loaded unknown items into the boot of her car. She then sat in the driver’s seat of her car and started driving to Sydney. At about 1.54pm, Ms Griffith arrived at Bellevue Hill and parked outside 81 Victoria Street. At about the same time, this offender parked in the driveway of 86 Victoria Street, Bellevue Hill, in a GoGet hire car. Ms Griffith got out and stood at the back of her car. She walked down the street, before walking back to her car and driving away.

30. The Crown submits that Griffith placed the black bag in an unknown location on the street. A few minutes later, this offender drove his car down the road and stopped outside 81 Victoria Street. He got out of his car and walked over to a polystyrene box propped against a tree outside No. 81. He then returned to his car carrying a black bag, which he placed into the boot of his car. He then returned to the driver’s seat and drove to his house. He then walked into his house, carrying a black David Jones branded black bag. Later in the day, at 2.47pm, the offender drove into Centennial Park in his GoGet hire car. He met up with the UCO and handed him the David Jones bag containing the $302,000 in cash.

31. The next exchange occurred on 31 May 2023. The amount involved was $249,300. The offender participated in a chat group. At 7.34am, he acknowledged messages by the UCO and indicated a meeting at 12.30pm. At 12.18pm, he asked what the estimated time of arrival was for another. At 12.31pm, an offender known as Mohammed Sarwar, who was 31 years old at the time, indicated that Channy, the name used by the offender in the group chats, had told him of the parking spot.

32. On this occasion, Sarwar attended the park and handed the new UCO the cash in a Coles shopping bag. That was not the only occasion on which the offender recruited someone else to work with him or for him. Unfortunately, the offender used his younger brother, Fraser Mackenzie-Hoff to deliver bags of cash to a UCO at Centennial Park on two occasions. For his offending, Mackenzie-Hoff has been dealt with in the Local Court and was partially successful in appeal to this Court in having the length of a CCO which was imposed upon him, reduced, and having a requirement that he perform community service deleted.

33. I mention that because it was the subject of cross-examination of the offender in this Court. I am persuaded that the offender is truly remorseful and contrite for recruiting his younger brother into Truong-Phan’s scheme. Those are the facts for which the offender stands for sentence.

34. It can be seen that he was trusted to receive or pick up cash, trusted not to take any of it, trusted in counting it, trusted in following instructions to deliver it. He has frankly admitted that he was paid a commission by Truong-Phan, a half percentage of the money which he handed over. That appears to me, and to counsel, to amount to about $15,000. The offender last performed any work for Truong-Phan on 31 May 2023. He was not arrested until 20 October 2023, almost five months later.

35. He gave up working for Truong-Phan because he found regular work with a Mr Mir, who conducts a business constructing windows. That is legitimate work. The offender found that work sufficient to support himself and to pay his rent. During the period that the offender was working in Truong-Phan’s money laundering operation, he did not perform any other work, other than his preferred but irregular work as both an actor and a model. I shall have more to say about that when I consider the offender’s personal circumstances.

Personal Circumstances

36. I turn now to the personal circumstances of the offender. They are comprehensively dealt with in the evidence before me. The offender was born in Calgary, in the province of Alberta, in Canada. His mother is a Cook Islander. His biological father is Jamaican. It would appear that the relationship between his birth parents was a short one. Shortly before he turned two, his mother returned to the Cook Islands. The offender was essentially brought up by his mother and his stepfather Mr Henry Hoff. He has five half‑siblings that he shares with his mother, and one step‑sibling he shares with his biological father. His youngest sibling born to his mother died in 2012. In speaking with a psychologist, Dr Emily Kwok, on 4 November 2024, the offender expressed some dissatisfaction in growing up under his stepfather but he now realises with increasing maturity that his stepfather, who may have been strict, was doing the right thing by him and led to his having a good upbringing.

37. The offender completed his primary and secondary education in the Cook Islands. In his late secondary schooling, he was sent to New Zealand to a boarding school but there was strife for him at that school, and he was bullied by a classmate. After one year at that school, his mother intervened and he returned to the Cook Islands and completed his secondary education there. The offender told Dr Kwok that he “ended up doing pretty well” in his final secondary examinations. He then obtained work in the Cook Islands. The offender has always been interested in acting. He has, since he completed his schooling, done some work as both an actor and a model.

38. The offender gave this history of his work in the Cook Islands. After completing his education, his first job was as a news anchor on a television station. He also wrote pieces of journalism for the Cook Islands Herald. He was later recruited to work as a multimedia producer for an airline which operated in the Cook Islands and was owned by an uncle. He had started some acting when he was, in fact, a child and continued trying to do that when he was in the Cook Islands. He then went to New Zealand and initially worked as a charity fund raiser. He also did some door-to-door marketing for Telecom in New Zealand.

39. He needed to return to the Cook Islands after his youngest brother died in 2013. He then returned to New Zealand and worked as a sale advisor or cashier for JR Duty Free New Zealand. Between November 2015 and April 2017, he worked as a communications specialist for a company called Spark, and he also helped with a friend’s business. The offender told Dr Kwok that he “struggled” when working for Spark because his acting required him to take time off work which his employer did not like him doing. He did do, however, some acting work in New Zealand.

40. He then moved to Australia. He worked as an associate consultant in a labour hire business between May 2017 and June 2017. Between 2017 and 2022, his employment included being a business sales consultant, a client manager, a commercial motor claims officer and a project manager. He also helped with a friend’s business. He admitted that there were gaps in his employment when he was acting and also during the COVID-19 pandemic.

41. The offender has experimented with illicit drugs, but he would not be alone in doing that. However, it appears that he does not have, or did not have, at any stage, any real addiction. Other than for some skin problems, he has enjoyed good health. Dr Kwok also took a history of the offender’s relationships, but they are not currently relevant to the matters before me.

42. Part of the offender’s employment history concerns what he was doing during the COVID-19 period. He was running a juice store for a friend before the lockdown commenced. The lockdown was very hard for him. He was forced to close the shop that he was running for his friend, lost his work and ran out of money. It was in those circumstances that he met up with Truong-Phan and, because of his lack of money, was induced to enter into Truong-Phan’s offered work, which was clearly unlawful. In that regard, Dr Kwok took this history:

“Mr MacKenzie-Wilson reported he became involved in dealing with proceeds of crime after a friend saw him having ‘a lot of problems with my life’. When asked to elaborate he said, ‘[My friend and I] gravitated to each other a lot.. He saw I was financially struggling’. The friend allegedly told Mr MacKenzie-Wilson that he ‘was in the import/export business’ and obtained money from ‘Asian markets overseas’. Mr MacKenzie-Wilson claimed he refused to join his friend ‘for a few months’ before he then agreed to participate. He said he recognised ‘very quickly’ that it ‘wasn’t that simple’ and ‘it was quite nefarious’. He expressed that ‘[being involved in the criminal activity] was very stressful’ because it was out of character for him.

When Mr MacKenzie-Wilson was asked why he continued to participate in the original activities despite the alleged stress, he responded that he was financially ‘desperate’, and he ‘justified that there are all these people doing it’. He elaborated, ‘I was behind in rent...I wanted to be able to not have problems with money anymore, I told myself that I can take this pressure...I could get out of a lot of the trouble I’ve been dealing with for a long time’.”

43. The offender went on to tell Dr Kwok that he stopped the work in money laundering after he gained employment at the window manufacturing company that I mentioned yesterday. For getting out of the illicit activity the offender is to be commended, but the fact remains that he had participated in the money laundering activity for the best part of six months.

44. The offender expressed his shame at having been engaged in this criminal activity. He feels guilt and is clearly remorseful. His guilt, of course, is compounded by his having involved his brother in the money laundering activity, as a result of which, his brother also has been penalised by the law. I accept entirely that the offender is genuinely remorseful.

45. He understands that the money laundering was for illicit drug dealing and, having spent now seven months and two days in custody, will realise that our gaols are full of people whose lives have been ruined by the illicit drug trade because they become involved in drug trafficking, by becoming addicted and then commit crimes to maintain their addiction, either by participating in the drug trade itself or, for example, committing crimes to obtain money with which to buy drugs. Our gaols are full of people who commit armed robbery, breaking, entering and stealing, or home invasions, or just crimes of violence to obtain valuables and cash so that they can buy more drugs to satisfy their addiction. One only has to walk around a gaol to realise that they are full of persons that have come undone because of drug addiction. Drug trafficking can only be successful if the money can be successfully laundered.

46. Dr Kwok formed the view that the offender was, at the time she interviewed him, not suffering from any mental disorder or cognitive impairment. It is patently clear to me that that is the case. He does not require any specialist treatment. Dr Kwok assessed the offender’s risk of reoffending as low, and that he shared in the Sentencing Assessment Report (‘SAR’) dated 17 February 2025, made by Mr Michael O’Donnell. He, like Dr Kwok, assessed a low risk of reoffending. There is a consistency between the SAR and Dr Kwok’s various assessments. The offender was certified as fit and able to do community service work.

47. It is clear that the offender is supported by his mother and his stepfather and the members of the community to whom he is close. I totally accept that the risk of reoffending is particularly low, and that means, of course, the corollary that the prospects of rehabilitation are very good. I have rarely seen a such a strong subjective case on behalf of a person standing for sentence. As I have already mentioned, the offender has spent seven months and two days in custody prior to being released on bail. He has observed the terms of his bail, which to an extent, have been onerous, and nevertheless he has persisted in observing the conditions placed upon him. It has been submitted on his behalf that the terms of his parole are particularly harsh, I would not say that they were awfully harsh, but they are of middle range severity.

48. However, the strength of the offender’s subjective case cannot lead to one overlooking very important facts about the offending. The offending persisted over six months. The offender very quickly realised that what he was doing was wrong, to use the word that the offender used when speaking with Dr Kwok, that what he was doing was ‘nefarious’.

49. Nevertheless, he persisted with what he was doing because he was making money, which enabled him to pay his rent and, in particular, his arrears of rent and allowed him to persist without having any other regular employment, so that he could exist with pursuing, when he could, his desired career in acting and modelling. How much actual acting and modelling work he had during the period of six months is not clear, but he had some, because he did not seek other work apart from the criminal work in which he was engaged during the six-month period. That arises from the cross-examination of the offender by the learned Crown prosecutor, who pointed out that he could have done casual work particularly at night, such as being a waiter or working behind the bar of a hotel or club as a barman or drinks waiter.

50. The period of six months led to the offender being involved in a large number of transactions. The salient factor, of course, is that the transactions amounted to over $3 million, which is a large sum of money and points to the gravity of many of the transactions in which he participated. He clearly was trusted by those higher in the hierarchy of Truong-Phan’s activities to collect and receive large sums of money, to count them, to package them, and to then drop them off or to arrange for somebody else to drop them off, such as his brother, or the offender Mohammed Sarwar. He clearly worked in collaboration with persons such as Marjorie Griffith, from whom he collected money from time to time. He clearly knew and communicated with the principal Bao Long Truong-Phan.

51. The extent of the offender’s dealing indicates that the crimes that he committed are of much greater moment than the crimes that I dealt with last week in respect of three other offenders who were engaged in another branch of the principal’s money laundering activities, in particular, in 2022 rather than in 2023.

Consideration

52. As I pointed out yesterday, the crimes involved in Sequence 15 involved money worth $872,120. In respect of Sequence 15, I start with a theoretical head sentence of two and a half years. I discount that by 25% for the offender’s plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity. That reduces that theoretical head sentence to one year and ten months.

53. In respect of Sequence 19, I again point out that the money involved was $1,695,970. I start off with a theoretical head sentence of imprisonment for four years. I reduce that by 25% to account for the offender’s early guilty plea. That reduces the head sentence to three years.

54. I intend to impose an aggregate sentence. In respect of Sequence 15, the indicative sentence is, of course, one year and ten months. In respect of Sequence 19, the indicative sentence will, in fact, be three years. In fixing those indicative sentences, I have taken into account the matters on the two Forms 1 which I discussed previously. The total of the indicative sentences is four years and ten months. Doing the best I can, I intend to impose an aggregate sentence of three years and four months.

55. Were I to apply the statutory nexus between the head sentence and the non-parole period, the non-parole period would be two years and six months. I accept that this is a case in which there are special circumstances. I shall deal with them shortly. However, I have formed a view that, bearing in mind the special circumstances, the appropriate non-parole period is one year and nine months. As I have said earlier, the offender has spent seven months and two days in custody already, so the sentence will be backdated to 14 December 2024.

Special Circumstances

56. The offender, when giving evidence, pointed out that his experience of imprisonment at Parklea was, to put it bluntly, frightening. He said he never had experienced such a place of death, violence and terror. He, as a prisoner, behaved very well.

57. Certain Corrective Services documents are in Exhibit 2 and are items 1 and 2 in that exhibit. A note made by Corrective Services on 9 November 2023 says this:

“MacKenzie-Wilson has commenced employment in PKA Kitchen on 8 November 2023. Author has verbally inducted MacKenzie-Wilson regarding all PKA Kitchen policies and procedures...to which he has verbalised an understanding of all expectations.”

58. A note made 20 days later, on 20 November 2023 says this:

“MacKenzie-Wilson continues to work in the PKA Kitchen and has quickly become a valued member of the team. He brings a very positive and highly energetic attitude to work and he has learned several duties and aspects of daily operations very quickly. He is polite and respectful to both officers and his fellow inmates and takes minimal days off.”

59. A note made a month later on 29 December 2023 says this:

“MacKenzie-Wilson continues to work in the PKA Kitchen and remains a highly valued employee. He has maintained a highly positive and energetic attitude, and is well liked among his fellow inmates. He completes all tasks without complaint and takes minimal days off.”

60. A note made on 7 February 2024 says this:

“MacKenzie-Wilson remains an essential and highly valued employee of the PKA Kitchen. His extensive tenure here has been one of a highly positive nature, and his consistent effort has ensured that there has been minimal to nil problems regarding all areas of daily operations. He is always polite and respectful towards all those around and is always willing to assist with additional tasks, while simultaneously only taking days off to attend visits or legal appointments.”

61. The final note made that is before me on this issue was made on 2 May 2024. It says this:

“MacKenzie-Wilson is [an] essential worker currently in the PKA Kitchen. His attitude towards his employment, fellow employees and officers has remained positive, upbeat and respectful throughout the entirety of his time here at PCC. His consistent effort has ensured that there have been minimal issues in several aspects of daily operations in the PKA Kitchen for an extended period, and he remains well-respected and liked amongst his fellow inmates/employees. He only takes days off when he absolutely has to. Otherwise works seven days a week and is always willing to assist with additional tasks.”

62. The offender’s time in custody was obviously well used and appreciated by Corrective Services. However, the fact remains is that he is still a young man and he obviously is not inured to the circumstances that obtains in gaol, and he will find a further period of incarceration onerous. Those are my reasons for finding special circumstances.

Consideration (cont.)

63. Now, I also bear in mind in the sentence which I shall soon pass that I have taken into account his excellent character deposed to by so many in testimonials before me, but a reputation, of course, marred by this very serious offending. I also take into account the fact that there was a delay of nearly six months between his stopping his offending and his arrest, and that the terms of his bail that was granted last year have been onerous.

64. Now, does anyone want any further reasons from the sentence to be passed?

TUCKEY: No, your Honour.

GUL: No, your Honour.

Sentence

65. HIS HONOUR: Tamataia MacKenzie, for each of the crimes which you have admitted, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of one year and nine months commencing on 14 December 2024 and expiring on 13 September 2026. I impose a further period of imprisonment of one year and seven months to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring on 13 April 2028. The total sentence is therefore, three years and four months, comprising the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence.

66. I have found special circumstances. You are eligible to be considered for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period. That is an aggregate sentence. The indicative sentences are these: in respect of Sequence 15, one year and six months, including the matters on the Form 1 attached to it (sequences 14 and 18), and after a discount of 25% for your early guilty plea. In respect of Sequence 19, two years and seven months, including the matter on the Form 1 (Sequence 21), and after a 25% discount for your early guilty plea.

67. Any other orders sought?

GUL: No, your Honour.

TUCKEY: No.

**********