Each of the offenders stands to be sentenced having pleaded guilty to the following offence. That on 8 November 2019 in Clarendon they each broke and entered the dwelling house of Jackson McJennet located at 216 Hawkesbury Valley Way and committed the serious indictable offence of intimidation in circumstances of special aggravation, namely, that they each knew there were persons present within the dwelling house and that they were also armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a gel-ball calibre repeating air pistol.
That is an offence under s 112 subs (3) of the Crimes Act and has a maximum penalty of twenty-five years imprisonment and there is an applicable standard non-parole period of seven years.
[2]
The Facts
The Facts are agreed and the following is taken from them. The victims in this matter are Wyatt Farrelly; Cassandra Wells, Jackson McJennet; Jayden Pepper and Chad Cotter.
On 7 November 2019 Mr Farrelly, Ms Wells and Mr McJennet were at the Hawkesbury Races for Mr McJennet's birthday celebration and they spent most of the day there, drinking and placing bets. After the races finished they went to the Clarendon Tavern where they continued drinking. Around midnight they were joined by Mr Pepper who had come from having dinner and drinks at the Clarendon Tavern. At one point Ms Wells recalled seeing the offender, Mr Mills, talking to his fiancé, and remembered Mr Mills appearing angry. Ms Wells knew Mr Mills as she used to work with his fiancé. At around 1.30am they left and went to Mr McJennet's house which was not very far away. At the house were Mr Farrelly, Mr McJennet, Ms Wells, Mr Pepper and Mr Cotter. Another person, Erin Hooton also resided at this house however she was already in her room asleep. The group continued to drink at Mr McJennet's house.
At around 3.40am there was a knock on the back screen door. This was the two offenders, both of whom were dressed in black clothes, were wearing gloves and had face covers on. One of the offenders was carrying a gel-ball calibre repeating air pistol. This firearm was painted black, as it originally is black and dark green with an orange trigger. Mr Farrelly went to open the door, not really paying much attention as he did. Mr McJennet had left this area and went to put his phone on charge. As soon as Mr Farrelly opened the door he was struck in the head by one of the offenders and there was a small scuffle which resulted in Mr Farrelly falling to the floor. Once he was lying on the ground Mr Farrelly felt the firearm placed on the back of his head.
While Mr Farrelly was on the ground he heard the two offenders continually yelling random threats and demands; continually yelling for people to "Get on the ground" and asking, "Where's the money?". Mr McJennet meanwhile hid under the bed in his bedroom as soon as he saw the offenders enter and the presence of a firearm. Mr McJennet could hear the offenders asking people for his whereabouts and heard them when they entered his room and started looking through his room. He remained under the bed for the entire time that the offenders were in the house, not emerging even once the police had arrived.
The two offenders started asking others in the house, "Where's Jackson? Where's Jackson?" a reference to Mr McJennet and at this point Ms Hooton was awake as she was getting ready for work. She saw the offenders and the firearm. She assumed the gun was fake and that they were just mucking around. She asked what was going on and Mr Smiroldo said to her, "I'll shoot you," although he did not point the firearm at her at that time. Ms Hooton told the offenders that she did not know where Mr McJennet was and she walked off to Mr McJennet's room.
Ms Wells also believed the gun looked plastic but did not want to take the chance that it was not. She walked over to the taller of the offenders, being Mr Mills. She said, "What do you want? We can't give you anything." Mills replied, "I just want my money and my drugs." She walked into one of the bedrooms with Mr Mills and saw him grab a metal tin and scatter the contents onto the floor. She heard him say, "See this what he cuts his shit with, this is bi-carb soda, get out." Mr Smiroldo at this point was holding the gun. As Mr Mills was speaking Ms Wells recognised his voice and realised that he was Brad Mills whom she had seen earlier that night.
Mr Pepper said to the two offenders, "We don't know where he is." Mr Mills walked over to Mr Pepper and slapped him across the face and Ms Wells said, "Just stop, he was just talking to you." Ms Wells sat down with Mr Cotter at the kitchen table; they noticed a neighbour, Belinda Douglas was outside with her dog. One of the offenders asked her to go and have a look. Ms Wells went outside the door and spoke to Ms Douglas while the two offenders were still in the kitchen. Ms Douglas asked if Mr McJennet was there. Ms Wells told Ms Douglas that it was okay it was just a joke and Ms Wells went back inside.
Ms Hooton had started to get cranky with the offenders. At one point she said, "Fuck off, I wouldn't come to your house at this time of morning." She started walking through the kitchen to the front door. The two offenders followed her to that door. Ms Hooton said to them, "Look man I don't know what is going on here but I have to go to work." Ms Hooton left the house and was not stopped from doing so by either of the offenders.
After this Mr Farrelly said that he needed to use the bathroom and he left for the bathroom and was not stopped by either of the offenders. Once inside he locked himself in and called triple-0, telling the dispatcher that the house had been broken into and that they were being held hostage by two gunmen. Meanwhile outside the bathroom the two offenders kept asking, "Where's the money, where's Jackson?" Mr Mills at one point said, "Just relax, everything is fine, I just want my money." He also said, "If anyone asks you don't say anything it's a false alarm."
At about 4.15am police arrived at the location, and this was about five minutes after Mr Farrelly had made the call to triple-0. The police entered the location and immediately placed both offenders under arrest. They still had their gloves on and face coverings. The firearm was located in Mr Smiroldo's back pocket. Both offenders complied with police directions. They were both arrested and taken back to the police station where they were given the opportunity to participate in an interview. Both entered the interview room, however once doing so exercised their right not to be interviewed. There were some forensic procedures taken in relation to Mr Mills.
Police later analysed the firearm that was seized from Mr Smiroldo. The analysis revealed it to be a gel-ball calibre repeating air pistol and it was determined to be an air-gun and therefore a pistol under the relevant provisions of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW).
[3]
Objective seriousness
Turning then to my assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence. There was clearly some planning in the commission of the offence given the fact that both offenders dressed in black clothes, wore gloves and face coverings and the presence of the air-gun. There were a number of persons inside the house. While some appeared not to have been overly scared by the presence of the offenders and the firearm, and the threat that they made, clearly some of those present were scared. The firearm was a gel‑blaster, so not what is thought of as a conventional firearm, although clearly not all of those at the premises knew that.
The serious indictable offence referred to in the charge is one of intimidation which carries itself a term of five years imprisonment but the type of break and enter offence that the offenders committed can involve the commission of more serious offences than that.
There was some unsophistication in the way the offence was committed, in that one person was allowed to leave the premises. Mr Mills spoke to the occupants, clearly aware he would be identified by some of them. One occupant was allowed to go to the bathroom providing an opportunity for the police to be called. The offence was committed at one of the victim's homes and was committed in the early hours of the morning and in company. There was little ransacking of the premises. The offenders were clearly acting in company pursuant to a joint criminal enterprise. I assess the objective seriousness of the offence as well below the mid range level of objective seriousness but not at the very bottom of the range.
The Crown did not rely on any specific aggravating factors under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) in order to avoid double-counting those factors, bearing in mind the approach to be taken to the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence.
[4]
Mr Smiroldo
I turn then to the subjective case for Mr Smiroldo. The offender, Mr Smiroldo's date of birth is 9 May 1997 so he is currently twenty-three years of age and was twenty-two as at the time of the offence. He is therefore what is often termed a "young adult offender" and the principles associated with sentencing a young adult offender have some application here. Those principles are that it is generally more appropriate to give greater weight to rehabilitation and treatment than to denunciation and general deterrence when exercising the sentencing discretion. See the summary of relevant principles in Bullock v R [2016] NSWCCA 131.
Mr Smiroldo is a person who appears before me with a very limited prior criminal record and that entitles him to leniency in this sentence. The only offence on his record is that he was in possession of a prohibited weapon the week before the commission of the offence. He gave evidence that the weapon was a pair of knuckle-dusters that he had found, he said, at the back of a hotel. He was dealt with for that offence in the Local Court on 7 August this year and received a six month Community Corrections Order.
[5]
Documentary material
There is a Sentencing Assessment Report before me dated 27 October 2020 and a psychological report by Ms De Santa Brigida dated 26 October 2020. There are also before me: a document confirming that in the past he has been considered a hard-working employee and a letter from one of his brothers and from his son's grandmother which provide further background to the offender. The offender, Mr Smiroldo, also gave evidence before me.
[6]
Family background
In terms of his family background, the Sentencing Assessment Report records that he maintains the ongoing support of his immediate family and friends. In that regard he was supported by his parents and siblings during the sentence hearing last Friday and a number of members of his immediate family are present again today. He told the author of that report that as at the time of the offence he was keeping mixed company but has now ceased contact with anti-social associates. The offender described to the psychologist a good relationship with his parents and siblings and it appears that he had a pro-social upbringing. The offender reported to the psychologist that he has a five year old son from an earlier relationship and he still has contact with his son. The letters from his brother and his son's grandmother indicate that he has taken his responsibilities as a father seriously and has endeavoured to be a good father to his son.
[7]
Education and employment history
In terms of his education and employment history, the offender, Mr Smiroldo, told the psychologist that he had completed year ten at school but that he had been in trouble during his school years for fighting, truanting and possession of cannabis. The Sentencing Assessment Report records that he has maintained employment since the end of his schooling and had his own business for a short period of time prior to his arrest. The offender told the psychologist that at age sixteen he starting working for Plastering Core Mercial Interior Linings and was employed there for six and a half years before leaving to set up his own business. There was a letter before me attesting to his positive work ethic when working with that company.
While in custody, the Sentencing Assessment Report, records that he has held employment as a general hand at the MRRC since 16 December 2019, and he has received multiple positive reports that attest to his conduct and work ethic.
[8]
Substance use
In terms of his substance misuse, Mr Smiroldo told the author of the Sentencing Assessment Report that at the time of the offence he had been using one to two grams of cocaine per weekday and up to fourteen grams on weekends. He described his primary drugs as being cocaine and benzodiazepine and denied any use since his arrest. I notice in his Custody Record, consistent with that statement, there have been no infringements of gaol discipline recorded.
The offender also told the author of the Sentencing Assessment Report that his poly-substance use began at thirteen or fourteen years of age whereby he commenced using illicit substances at the urging of older anti-social acquaintances. The offender provided further details of his substance use issues to the psychologist. He told the psychologist that he started using cannabis when twelve or thirteen years of age and smoked cannabis until age sixteen. At age fourteen he said he commenced using amphetamines and then progressed to methamphetamine commonly known as Ice. He also told the psychologist that by the age of eighteen his focus had changed from Ice to cocaine and that was his primary drug prior to the commission of the offence. He told the psychologist that he would use two grams of cocaine per day and the amount, on weekends, would increase to fourteen grams.
The offender, Mr Smiroldo, told the psychologist that his life spiralled out of control as his use of cocaine increased and that he also began to drink whiskey when using cocaine. According to what he told the psychologist, the offender began to use Xanax to help come down from the effects of the illicit substances and to alleviate his anxiety levels.
The psychologist considered that the offender has a stimulant use disorder in a controlled environment and a sedative, hypnotic or anxiolytic-use disorder. The offender told the psychologist that after he has completed his sentence he wants to be admitted to a rehabilitation facility to address his substance abuse problems. He confirmed in his evidence before me, that if he is unable when next in the community to properly deal with his substance abuse issues, he wishes to enter a rehabilitation facility.
[9]
Psychological/psychiatric history
The Sentence Assessment Report notes that Justice Health records show that he is currently prescribed an anti-depressant and medication for the treatment of ADHD. The psychological report referred to in the Sentencing Assessment Report is Ms De Santa Brigida's report. That report records confirming with the offender's mother that in his teenage years he had been diagnosed with ADHD. The diagnostic physician is no longer alive so formal confirmation could not be obtained. The psychologist noted, consistent with the Sentencing Assessment Report, that the offender while in custody was receiving a drug used in the treatment of that condition. The psychologist records in her report that research shows that people with ADHD tend to exhibit executive dysfunction, working memory deficits, emotion disregulation and risk taking behaviours. The psychologist also notes that a common comorbidity of ADHD is risk-taking behaviour and impulsive aggression. The psychologist considered that the presence of ADHD in childhood does pre-dispose individuals to a number of adult disorders including substance abuse. Psychometric testing administered by the psychologist revealed that the offender showed significant symptoms associated with depression.
The psychologist in her report refers to having reviewed correspondence from a gastroenterologist indicating that when seventeen or eighteen years of age the offender was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease. The offender reported that he is currently on Infliximab infusions for that condition and there have been delays in the administration of the infusions while in custody. Mr Smiroldo in his evidence confirmed that he has this condition and how it manifests itself within the custodial environment.
The Sentencing Assessment Report records that the offender, Mr Smiroldo appears motivated to engage in substance use and mental health interventions. I note the positive reports that have been received concerning his performance of employment in gaol and his lack of any infringements of gaol discipline.
[10]
Attitude to the offence
The offender, Mr Smiroldo, denied to the author of the Sentencing Assessment Report that the offence was violent but considered that it was threatening although stated that the victims, "Could have elected to leave and were at no point at risk". This to my mind shows very limited insight into the impact of the offence upon the victims. The offender, Mr Smiroldo, told the psychologist that in terms of the offence, his co-offender had told him he had been ripped off by a drug dealer in the house that had been broken into and that he wanted to get his money back. This statement suggests that the idea for the offence came from the co-offender, Mr Mills, and that was the effect of Mr Mills' evidence which I will discuss shortly. The offender, Mr Smiroldo, told the psychologist that all he thought about was obtaining drugs or money. He also told the psychologist that now that he was clean he was remorseful and sorry for what had occurred.
[11]
The future and risk of re-offending
The offender, Mr Smiroldo, was assessed in the Sentencing Assessment Report as having a low to medium risk of re-offending. The psychologist considered that the offender, Mr Smiroldo, in relevant assessment testing, scored on the high side of the moderate range in terms of the risk of re-offending.
I mentioned earlier that the offender gave evidence before me. There was nothing about his evidence that caused me any concern and his evidence was generally consistent with the documentary material tendered on his behalf. He did strike me as a little immature for his age and perhaps does not fully appreciate how hard it will be for him to stay away from prohibited drug use when he is next in the community.
[12]
Plea and special circumstances
Mr Smiroldo entered his plea of guilty in the Local Court and I will allow him a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of his plea. Having heard from the offender and having regard to his early plea of guilty, I am satisfied that he is genuinely remorseful in relation to the offence. I consider Mr Smiroldo has good prospects for rehabilitation; he has considerable family support, a strong employment history and no significant prior criminal history. As I say, I am satisfied on the evidence that he has good prospects of rehabilitation; he has commenced his rehabilitation while in custody, although it is not yet complete.
His prospects of rehabilitation will be assisted if he has a longer period on parole. This is also his first time in custody and I am sentencing him during the COVID-19 pandemic which has caused in-person visits to gaols to be suspended since mid-March this year and it is unknown when they may re-commence. The fact he suffers from Crohn's disease is likely to make his time in custody more onerous than it is for inmates who do not suffer from that disease. For all of those reasons I propose to make a finding of special circumstances when fixing the non-parole period.
[13]
Mr Mills
Turning then to the subjective case for Mr Mills. The offender Mr Mills' date of birth is 14 June 1996 so he is currently twenty-four years of age and was twenty-three as at the date of the offence. He, like Mr Smiroldo, is a young adult offender and the principles of sentencing I referred to earlier apply to him as well.
He has a relevant criminal history as a juvenile. In 2013, for offences committed in 2012, he was sentenced in this court for five years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years for offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and steal from the person. It appears he was about sixteen years of age at the time of the relevant offences. That sentence concluded on 2 February 2018. Having a prior record for such serious offending as a juvenile disentitles him to substantial leniency here.
I note from his custodial record that since being in custody he has incurred three infringements of prison discipline, two of which concern fighting. He gave evidence about those incidents before me and I will say a little more later about his evidence generally, but I do not consider those incidents will adversely affect my assessment of his prospects for rehabilitation.
Documentary material
[14]
Family background
There are before me a Sentencing Assessment Report; a psychological report dated 31 October 2020 by Ms Dombrowski; an affidavit from the offender's mother; a letter from his sister; documents concerning Mr Mills' employment and documents concerning his engagement in courses while in gaol. The offender also gave evidence before me and confirmed the contents of those reports.
In terms of his family background, the Sentencing Assessment Report records that the offender, Mr Mills, has a positive and supportive relationship with his family. His mother was present at the sentencing hearing on Friday in support of the offender; she is here again today, along with his sister. The psychological report records that the offender identifies as an Aboriginal man of maternal Wiradjuri descent. He grew up living with his parents, two older sisters and a younger brother. He described to the psychologist growing up in a home with some domestic violence; he said his father used alcohol heavily and was highly controlling and intimidating and regularly threatened to kill him. He was young when his parents separated and he continued then to live with his mother. At some point during his adolescence he ran away from home. When sixteen, he was sentenced for the offence I have previously referred to and spent the remainder of his adolescence in juvenile detention. He returned to the community when nineteen and lived independently up until his time of arrest. Prior to his incarceration he was residing with his ex-partner for a period of three years.
He is currently single, his relationship having ended around the time of the offence. He has no children. He gave evidence that he intends to live with his mother when he is released back into the community. The offender's family background was essentially confirmed in his mother's affidavit.
[15]
Education and employment history
In terms of his education and employment history, the offender, Mr Mills, told the psychologist that he had experienced anxiety when at school and frequently truanted. He completed year twelve in juvenile detention. Since leaving juvenile detention he has largely worked in concreting and had been promoted to a managerial position by his former employer. The offender told the psychologist he had ceased his employment two weeks before the offence because of difficulties with his substance use and mental health. There is a document before me from his former employer indicating that he was a hard-working, reliable worker. Prior to his arrest the offender, Mr Mills, was employed as a manager in the construction/manufacturing industry for about two and a half years. Whilst in custody he has maintained employment within the maintenance team at the MRRC. The overseer confirmed to the author of the Sentencing Assessment Report a positive assessment of his performance and attitude.
[16]
Substance use
In terms of Mr Mills' substance use, he disclosed to the author of the Sentencing Assessment Report that he had been abusing alcohol for about a year prior to the offence. He also stated that he had been using cocaine and non-prescribed Xanax nearly every day for a number of months prior to the offence. He also advised that on the day of the offence he had consumed excessive alcohol and cocaine. He confirmed that to be the case when he gave evidence
[17]
Psychological/psychiatric history
Mr Mills told the psychologist that during his adolescence he had a history of regular cannabis and MDMA use. He also told the psychologist he started using alcohol and cocaine heavily on weekends at the age of twenty-two. He said that he started using cocaine more frequently to manage his alertness and fatigue while at work. The offender told the psychologist that he was using about one gram per day of cocaine for the twelve month period prior to his arrest. He is currently doing the EQUIPS Remand Addiction Programme while in custody and gave evidence as to how he considered that course is assisting him in dealing with his addiction issues.
The psychological report records that at the age of thirteen the offender, Mr Mills, was diagnosed with ADHD. Around the age of sixteen a Juvenile Justice psychologist diagnosed him with anxiety and depression. The report records that he engaged in deliberate self-harm when nineteen, and a suicide attempt by way of overdose when twenty-two. He denied to the psychologist ongoing deliberate self-harm or suicidal intent and did not report symptoms of psychosis. The psychologist records that the offender no longer experiences difficulties with concentration or restlessness; in other words he does not currently show symptoms consistent with ADHD. He takes anti-depressant medication while in custody. The psychologist considered that Mr Mills is not inherently anti-social and that his thinking and judgment, as at the time of the offence, were likely compromised by his substance use and he needs assistance in that regard.
[18]
Response to supervision if relevant
In relation to supervision in the past, in January 2018 he completed his parole order and it was noted that he had responded well to supervision. He has also completed while in custody twenty sessions of the Remand Addiction Program and has verbalised a willingness to engage in interventions to address his substance abuse and aggression issues.
His custodial record, as I noted earlier, shows some infringements of prison discipline, but that the last of those occurred in April and his evidence about them I accept and do not consider they have an adverse impact upon my assessment of his prospects for rehabilitation.
[19]
Attitude to the offence
The Sentencing Assessment Report records that the offender, Mr Mills, has accepted responsibility for his offending behaviour. The author of that report considered that the offender had demonstrated insight into his anti-social behaviour, acknowledging the impact his offending would have had on the victims. The psychologist recorded an expression of remorse by the offender, Mr Mills. The author of the Sentencing Assessment Report considered the offender had a low to medium risk of re-offending.
As I mentioned earlier, the offender Mr Mills gave evidence before me. There was only one aspect of his evidence that caused me concern and which I do not fully accept, and that was his description of how Mr Farrelly came to feel the gun pressed up against his head. I found his evidence about that, which suggested it was simply something of an accident after they fell to the ground, to be unacceptable. It did not cause me, however, to doubt other aspects of his evidence.
Mr Mills in his evidence fully accepted that it was his idea to commit the offence, that he supplied the painted gel-blaster and took it to the premises, having accepted at some point he had painted it to disguise the plastic nature of it. He full accepted that he had, in effect, recruited Mr Smiroldo to participate in the offence. On the basis of his evidence, his involvement in the offence was clearly greater than that of Mr Smiroldo.
[20]
The future and risk of re-offending
His evidence concerning his performance in the EQUIPS Program and the letter from the Remand Addictions Program suggests that he is making a genuine effort to do something about his drug problem in custody and is on the path to rehabilitation. I found his evidence of remorse for the offence to be genuine.
[21]
Plea and special circumstances
The offender, Mr Mills, also pleaded guilty in the Local Court and I will allow him a 25% discount of his sentence for the utilitarian value of his plea. As I have said earlier I accept the evidence of remorse he gave as being genuine; that, together with his early plea of guilty satisfies me that he has genuine remorse in relation to the offence.
Despite his earlier serious juvenile offence I consider he has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. He is relatively young; performed appropriately on parole in relation to his previous offence; has family support and a substantive work history; he has applied himself to rehabilitation courses in custody. Mr Mills has commenced his rehabilitation in custody, it is not yet complete and will be assisted by a longer period on parole. I note also this is his first time in adult custody and that I am sentencing him during the COVID-19 pandemic. I propose to make a finding of special circumstances when fixing the non-parole period for those reasons.
The evidence before me suggests that he had an early life of some considerable social disadvantage although not as severely disadvantaged as many other offenders this court sees. I have had regard to the principles concerning the relevance of social disadvantage to sentencing discussed in Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 in imposing sentence.
The fact that both offenders committed the offence under the influence of prohibited drugs is not a mitigating factor. I note in Mr Smiroldo's case it appears his use of prohibited drugs may well be linked to his mental health issues when a juvenile and to that limited degree there is some connection between his mental health and the commission of the offence. I have had some regard to the fact that Mr Mills' early life of social disadvantage may have caused him to turn to prohibited drugs.
[22]
Imposition of sentence
Both offenders have been in custody since 8 November 2019 and their sentences will be backdated to that date to take account of pre-sentence custody.
I have had regard to the objects of sentencing referred to in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act which include the need to impose adequate punishment; general and specific deterrence; protection of the community; denouncing the offenders' conduct; recognising the harm done to the victims and the community; and rehabilitation of the offenders. This type of home invasion offence is far too prevalent in our community. People should feel safe in their homes and free of the risk of persons breaking in, in the early hours of the morning, armed and with the intent of intimidating them. The offence is obviously serious and that is reflected in the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period that the Parliament has provided for. Sentences of sufficient severity need to be imposed in order to deter not only these offenders but others in our community from engaging in such offending.
The maximum penalty and standard non-parole period have been taken into account as legislative guideposts. I have departed from the standard non ‑parole period due to my assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and my findings of special sentences. There will be a difference in the sentences I impose to reflect the offender, Mr Mills', slightly greater involvement in the offence which I referred to earlier and the difference in their subjective cases. As they are appearing via video link I will not require them to stand.
Mr Smiroldo is convicted of the offence to which he has pleaded guilty. I impose a sentence consisting of a non-parole period of eighteen months and a balance of term of eighteen months. That is a total sentence of three years imprisonment. It commences on 8 November 2019 and expires on 7 November 2022. The non-parole period expires on 7 May 2021. The earliest date Mr Smiroldo is eligible to be released to parole is the date of the expiry of the non-parole period which is 7 May 2021. Whether he is in fact released to parole that day is a matter for the State Parole Authority ultimately, which will no doubt take account of his behaviour in prison in determining whether he is released then or on another date.
In relation to Mr Mills he is convicted of the offence to which he has pleaded guilty. He is sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non‑parole period of two years imprisonment and a balance of term of one year and six months. That is a total sentence of three and a half years imprisonment. It too commences on 8 November 2019 and expires on 7 May 2023. The earliest date he is eligible to be released is at the expiry of the non-parole period which is 7 November 2021. Whether he is released to parole that day or on another date is a matter for the State Parole Authority.
[23]
Mr Smiroldo
1. The offender is convicted of the offence to which he pleaded guilty
2. Impose a sentence of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. The sentence commences on 8 November 2019 and expires on 7 November 2022. The non-parole period expires on 7 May 2021.
[24]
Mr Mills
1. The offender is convicted of the offence to which he pleaded guilty
2. Impose a sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years. The sentence commences on 8 November 2019 and expires on 7 May 2023. The non-parole period expires on 7 November 2021.
[25]
Amendments
05 August 2021 - Amended counsels' names
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 05 August 2021