R v RM [2013] ACTSC 289

5. RM be convicted of the burglary at the house in Wanniassa on 25 September 2009.

6. RM be sentenced to ten months' imprisonment, to commence on 2 January 2014.

7. RM be convicted of theft of property on 25 September 2009 during that burglary.

8. RM be sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to commence on 2 January 2014.

9. RM be convicted of burglary of a house in Kambah on 26 January 2011.

10. RM be sentenced to ten months' imprisonment, to commence on 2 July 2014.

11. RM be convicted of the burglary of a shop at Yarralumla between 21 and 22 June 2011.

12. RM be sentenced to ten months' imprisonment, to commence on 2 January 2015.

13. RM be convicted of theft of money taken between 21 and 22 June from that burglary.

14. RM be sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to commence on 2 January 2015.

15. That sentence be suspended from 8 November 2013, for a period of two years.

16. RM be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years to include the following conditions:

(a) A probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General, or a person delegated to supervise him, for a period of twelve months, or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him as to alcohol and drug treatment and counselling, and to anger management issues.

(b) A community service work condition that he perform 100 hours of community service work within twelve months.

1. The objective of the criminal justice system is, as Brennan J said in Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 at 437, the protection of society. That protection is through the prevention of behaviour that is regarded by the community, represented by the parliament, as criminal. Crime is unacceptable and, while crime prevention has become increasingly recognised as an area where the community needs to put resources and effort, there are likely to be many who will commit crime still and who, therefore, need to be dealt with by the criminal courts.

2. When it is proved that a person has committed a crime, whether by a plea of guilty or after a trial, the criminal courts must play their part in stopping crime by imposing sentences that contribute to that. This is done through the objectives of sentencing, which are set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), and which give the courts some limited guidance as to how they are to address the crime and the criminal. It must, however, be steadily borne in mind that the ultimate purpose is to stop crimes being committed and that the courts, in doing so, must be careful that they do not exacerbate the situation by net widening, setting people up to fail or creating secondary obligations which escalate the involvement of people in the system indirectly.

3. This can be an issue dealt with thoughtfully and creatively in the case of young people, where the Sentencing Act establishes a special regime for sentencing, which requires individualised justice to be extended to them.

4. Standing for sentence today is RM, who has pleaded guilty to a series of crimes that the legislature rightly considers serious, but which may, unfortunately and inappropriately, not be seen by the perpetrator to be as serious as the parliaments have directed the courts to take them.

• one count of aggravated burglary, an offence against s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), punishable by a maximum penalty of 2,000 penalty units (that is, a fine of $220,000), or imprisonment for twenty years, or both;

• three counts of burglary, an offence against s 311 of the Criminal Code, punishable by a maximum penalty of 1,400 penalty units (that is, a fine of $154,000), or imprisonment for fourteen years, or both; and

• three counts of theft, an offence against s 308 of the Criminal Code, punishable by a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units (that is, a fine of $110,000), or imprisonment for ten years, or both.

6. In addition, RM has asked me to take into account the following offences:

• Two counts of minor theft, an offence against s 321 of the Criminal Code, punishable by a maximum of 50 penalty units (that is, a fine of $5,500), or imprisonment for six months or both; and

• Two counts of minor property damage, an offence against s 116(3) of the Criminal Act 1900 (ACT), punishable by a maximum of 50 penalty units (that is, a fine of $5,500), or imprisonment for six months, or both.

7. I shall take those additional offences into account in the way required, as set out by the Court of Appeal in R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 at [46]- [50].

8. I shall deal with the offences chronologically. On 25 September 2009, RM smashed the rear sliding glass door of a home in Wanniassa and entered the premises. He obviously cut himself while breaking the glass and left blood in the premises, which through DNA analysis, linked RM to the crime. He stole cameras, electronic equipment and jewellery to the value of $965. This was the first in time of the burglaries and thefts.

9. On 26 January 2011, RM used a rock to break the rear laundry window of a house in Kambah, setting off the security alarm. When the alarm went off, he ran down the driveway, climbed the fence of a neighbouring property and decamped. The cost of the damage to the property caused to the mesh doors and the windows was $1,630. This was the second burglary. Nothing was stolen on this occasion.

10. The rest of the offences were all committed between 19 June 2011 and 27 July 2011.

11. Between 19 June and 20 June 2011, RM smashed a snack vending machine in some apartments at Griffith and stole some chocolate bars and packets of chips. Attempts had been made to reach the coin box. Other items had been damaged and the stock had to be disposed of due to contamination. The stolen goods were valued at $466. The value of the remaining stock was $200 and the cost of repairs to the machine was about $400. This was the first of the offences of damaging property and minor theft.

12. Later, two vehicles in the car park in the same apartments were damaged, though only one was the subject of a charge against RM. The vehicle - a convertible - had its top cut open and the inside was searched. Coins totalling a value of $5 were stolen. The repairs were covered by insurance, but the owner had to pay the excess of $550. This was the second of the offences of damaging property and minor theft.

13. Between 21 and 22 June 2011, RM broke the front window of a restaurant business at Yarralumla and entered the premises. He stole about $30 in loose change. This was the third burglary and the second theft.

14. On 27 July 2011 RM, with a co-accused, Peter Chemhere, pushed through the wire mesh of a screen door of a house in Griffith and unlocked the screen door. They entered the house and walked through the house looking for things to steal. RM picked up $1.50 in coins, which he took. This is the aggravated burglary and the third of the thefts. One of the residents of the house, who was aged eighty-nine, was asleep at the time. She was awoken by the telephone ringing and got up. While she was in the kitchen, RM and Mr Chemhere came in and she asked them what they were doing. Mr Chemhere said, "Just checking up on you", but she said, "No you're not, that's not true". The two left the house.

15. RM was under the age of eighteen when he committed the offences. He is now nineteen. He identifies as Aboriginal. He was born in Canberra, the only child of his parents, with whom he lived in Yass until he was five, when he went to live with his paternal grandmother in Canberra. He remained in her care until December 2008, when he assaulted her after becoming extremely angry and aggressive with her. RM's accommodation became unstable, being in several community residential programs before a care order was made in February 2009. Under that order he has lived under the Life without Barriers Program. Most recently, he was living at Narrabundah House under that program.

16. RM was schooled in Canberra, but says he was bullied at school in his early years and this may have led to his anger management issues in his teenage years. It also appears to have led to him becoming something of a bully himself. Nevertheless, RM has made some attempts to improve his education after he left the formal system when he completed Year 9. He has returned to the Canberra Institute of Technology to participate in the Access 10 program, to obtain a Year 10 certificate, and he hopes to continue that program. He has been enrolled in a mechanics course there, but failed to attend regularly. He has completed some further courses when he was in custody and has gained his white card.

17. After school, RM had some limited employment, three months at a McDonald's restaurant in Goulburn some years ago, and some employment as a rouseabout in a shearing shed near Yass. He has the prospect of some employment with his partner's sister in horticulture. He is interested in being employed and Mr Tim Crane of the Youth Support and Transition Team expressed in evidence to me some confidence that reasonable steps could be taken with the support of his team in that direction. RM's involvement with that team, however, is now unclear.

18. RM first used cannabis when he was thirteen and it soon became a daily user. He says, however, that he ceased using illegal drugs in about mid-2010.

19. He did give some inconsistent reports to the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS). On 31 May 2012, he reported no drug use. That may, of course, refer to current use and that would appear to be accurate. The report goes on to say, however:

At assessment on 31st May and 16th April 2012 [RM] denied using cannabis and amphetamines. It is noted that in the CADAS report submitted in August 2011 that [RM] admitted to using cannabis and amphetamines on a regular basis.

20. This is odd, when he appears to have made full acknowledgment of his cannabis and other drug use to the author of the helpful Pre-Sentence Report. RM not only told him about his cannabis use and that he had stopped it, but also of his methamphetamine use, though this was casual and only for a couple of years and never problematic. His last reported use was in early 2012.

21. He also experimented at one stage with "sniffing substances", but has not done that for years.

22. Some confirmation of him ceasing use of illicit drugs is in the report of four drug screenings that were conducted in 2009, all of which were negative for illicit drugs.

23. Since then, the last Pre-Sentence Report of his time in custody at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (the AMC) makes no suggestion of further drug use.

24. I had evidence from both RM and the couple with whom he was living, who are the parents of his partner, that he is not using illicit drugs at the present time.

25. It was clear, however, that alcohol was now RM's major drug challenge. He admitted the need for help, but does not seem to have taken many positive steps about it. He did speak to Ms Jenny Hudson, a mental health worker in Yass, but that seems to have been a short chat where she gathered information, rather than a counselling session where she gave him strategies for managing his alcohol use.

26. He has said to me that he is more aware of his need for moderation and can stop drinking before he becomes intoxicated and has limited his alcohol use. I do, however, think that more needs to be done in this area. He has, nevertheless, reduced his alcohol use since January this year and I had evidence from his partner's mother to that effect.

27. He has also completed a First Steps Drug and Alcohol program whilst in custody.

28. He has, regrettably, a history of inadequate commitment to programs which may assist him to achieve what he has expressed as his awareness that he needs help dealing especially with his alcohol problem. He participated in a Ted Noffs program in 2011, but that appears to have amounted to "several brief detoxification programs".

29. He was also referred to the CO-OP (community outreach and outpatient program), but his attendance and participation was minimal. The CADAS report suggested that he felt his alcohol abuse was not currently problematic and that he wished to continue drinking. CADAS did, however, recommend that he needs to discuss this with a counselling service to ensure that he really has managed his use responsibly. Nevertheless, the completion, in custody, of the First Steps Alcohol and Drug program is a promising sign, as is the moderation of his drinking that was reported by the mother of his partner.

30. RM has a diagnosis of a mild conduct disorder, but has been reluctant to engage with mental health services. He has had two meetings with Ms Hudson, but I have had no report from her, nor any comment as to outcomes. He does, it appears, continue to have episodes of depression.

31. RM has a growing criminal history. He has been found guilty of eleven offences in five Childrens Court appearances. He has not received a prison sentence, though he has been on remand. The offences include an aggravated robbery in 2008 though the sentence then imposed shows that it was not seen as a very serious version of the offence.

32. He has three other offences of violence on his record, all being common assaults, however, as well as an offence of recklessly obstructing a Territory public official.

33. When arrested on 27 July 2011, RM was refused bail and appeared in the Childrens Court the next day. Bail was again refused and he remained in custody until 15 September 2011, when he was granted bail. On 17 February 2012 he was remanded in custody following a breach of bail, but released again on 20 February 2012. He appeared thereafter on three further occasions for breaches of bail and, on 10 April 2012, his bail was revoked and he was remanded in custody.

34. On 5 June 2012, RM pleaded guilty to the various charges laid against him and was remanded for sentence. Ultimately he appeared before me on 28 June 2012 and, having heard the start of the sentencing proceedings, I granted him bail with a supervision condition which included the authority for his supervisor to direct him to undertake where he may live and the persons with whom he may associate. I also made it a condition of his bail that he not drink alcohol or enter or remain on the premises of any licensed club or hotel. He had, at that stage, been in custody for 134 days, that is, a little over four months.

35. I adjourned the sentencing hearing so that RM could continue working with the Youth Support Transition team officers, who were working with him to address issues of education, employment, residence and the like. Unfortunately, RM did not really take up the opportunity. Indeed, he breached almost every one of the conditions of the bail that I had granted. He left Canberra without approval of his supervisor. He went to Yass to stay with his mother. He continued to drink alcohol, though I am prepared to find that it was with some moderation, and he ignored contact from the Youth Support Transition team.

36. His mother, who had been jailed over a violence offence, was then subject to a parole order and also tended to drink more alcohol than the amount with which RM was comfortable.

37. RM did, however, make some positive steps. He did attend on the mental health worker in Yass. He applied for, and obtained, a job at a mushroom farm, though he only stayed a short time before leaving. He also stayed, from time to time, with his father, with whom he had a long period during which they had had no contact. Most importantly, earlier in 2013, he made contact with his Youth Support and Transition team worker and asked for help to surrender himself to the Court to regularise his situation.

38. Mr Tim Crane, the youth worker, collected him from Yass and returned him to Canberra, where he appeared in Court on 4 January 2013. He was granted bail and appeared before me on 14 January 2013, when the sentencing proceedings continued, though he was late in attending the court. RM did not appear for sentence, however, on 16 January 2013, when I had listed the matter for the imposition of a sentence. He told me in evidence today that he had been warned by "his mates" that he would go to jail and that he should simply not turn up to court. He did not do so. As I have already noted, he was arrested on 10 September 2013 and remained in custody since then. He now appears for sentence.

39. On both 28 June 2012 and 14 January 2013, I heard from Mr Crane, who had been supporting and working with RM. I also heard today from RM and from the mother of his partner. RM explained that, in earlier proceedings, he felt a great need to see his mother, whom he had not seen for a while. That was why he went to Yass. He also said that he had resolved some outstanding matters in the New South Wales criminal justice system, which is perhaps to some advantage. He had searched for Mr Crane's telephone contact and obtained it from a mate, which is how he returned to Canberra. He said in cross examination that he had been drinking alcohol nearly every weekend, but not to excess.

40. In his evidence today, however, he acknowledged that contact with his mother was problematic and that that was not something he was currently pursuing. He has, however, made contact with his father at times when his father was not inebriated, and these were promising connections that he wishes to continue. The assessment of the author of the Pre-Sentence Report twelve months ago seems to me to sum up the situation as it was then. It states:

[RM] is a young man who appears to have experienced a difficult childhood as well as an unfavourable introduction to adulthood. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that his familial issues will continue into the immediate future and this raises ongoing concerns regarding his stability.

Although he admits to having a problem with alcohol, his attempts to address this issue appear superficial to date. However, there are positive signs that he is keen to finally address his alcohol issues.

It appears that [RM] has the support of several community based agencies who can assist him in turning his young life around. However, [RM] will need to engage with these services and maintain an ongoing commitment with his rehabilitation.

Unless [RM] can take advantage of the support he will receive in the community and comply with any interventions that he may be referred to, he will continue to display the same attitudes and behaviours that result in periods of custody.

41. RM failed to appear for sentence, as I said, in January 2013. A warrant was issued, but not executed for some reason until 10 September 2013. Prior to that, however, he had formed a relationship, in January 2013, with a young woman. He has now moved into the house of her parents. They are good people who have provided him with the care and support of a normal family that has been so lacking in his history. They have provided role models, too, from which RM seems to have benefited. He has reduced his alcohol consumption and is looking for employment. Alcohol consumption seems to be one of the triggers to his current behaviour, so it is appropriate that he is addressing it; it was referred to as a "necessary" issue to be addressed in the opinion that I referred to in the earlier Pre-Sentence Report.

42. I note that RM has now spent 190 days in custody.

43. I note, too, that no victim impact statements were put before me. I can, of course, take into account the likely effect on the victims of the offences, and I do.

44. The offences committed by RM range from very serious to serious. The maximum penalties provided show that the courts are required to deal with them as serious offences. Aggravated burglary is the most serious dishonesty offence, apart from robbery which also involves violence. All burglaries are, however, serious where they amount to the invasion of people's homes and businesses creating a sense of unease and concern.

45. There is, of course, as in this case, damage to property, which costs the owner and leaves them exposed and with inconvenience. If there is a theft, as there was in all but one of these cases, there is the loss of property for which the owners have worked hard to earn the money to buy. Sometimes the property has sentimental value which can never be replaced. The whole community also suffers through insurance premiums, which are affected. See R v Hayes (1984) 11 A Crim R 187 at 189-90, per Street CJ.

46. I take into account RM's pleas of guilty. They did not come at an early stage in the proceedings and the evidence, mostly provided through DNA matching and fingerprint matching, was very strong. Nevertheless it did have a benefit to the community and it saved the cost of a trial and the stress and inconvenience to the witnesses, including the victims of the offences who would have had to have given evidence.

47. RM's record denies him some leniency, though I must not punish him again for offences for which he has already been punished: Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 477.

48. Earlier offences on his record are, however, by and large different types of offences to those he is now facing. RM was also, as I have noted, under eighteen at the time the offences were committed and so he is to be sentenced under the regime for very young offenders, under Pt 8A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. This includes principles such as that rehabilitation takes a more significant role. See R v Smith [1964] Crim LR 70. In Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372 at [37], [44], the Victorian Court of Appeal noted that:

(i) The youth of an offender should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court where that matter properly arises;

(ii) Rehabilitation in such cases is usually more important than general deterrence;

(iii) A youthful offender is not to be sent to an adult prison if such a disposition can be avoided, especially if he or she is beginning to appreciate the effect of his or her past criminality; and

(iv) Only in circumstances of the greatest criminal offending and where there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation, may the mitigating considerations of youth be viewed as all but extinguished.

49. In this case, RM's blatant disregard, indeed, rejection of the conditions I put on his bail are worrying, as is his absconding. They show a continuing disobedience of the Court's orders, which earlier bail breaches, both in respect of this matter and on his earlier record, disclose. That would ordinarily mean that I could no longer trust that he would be a risk worth taking, were I to release him into the community. This was fairly pointed out by the Crown and is significant. There are, however, three matters that give me pause.

50. In the first place, he has not committed, or, so far as I am aware, been alleged to have committed, any further offences, apart from breaches of bail. That means that for two years he has been crime free, apart from the breaches of bail, the longest period during which he has been crime free since December 2008.

51. The second matter is that he did voluntarily, and at some effort, return from Yass earlier this year, though that was negatived to a large extent by his then absconding, prior to me sentencing. It did show, however, a level of responsibility and maturity that is a good sign for the future. I do not think that it was completely negated by his absconding, particularly having regard to his behaviour since then.

52. The third matter is that, since the period when he has absconded, he did show considerable progress in the efforts he has made to put his criminal activities behind him. He has now a stable family life. He has a partner and the support of her parents. He has reduced the levels of alcohol consumption and he has moved away from the bad peer group that he had.

53. I had a letter from his partner's mother, as well as her oral evidence, which noted that her family had given him "solid structure and a nurtured environment", in which he was "well mannered and ... law abiding", not using illegal drugs and hoping to complete his Year 10 certificate and gain full time employment. This seems to me to meet some of the concerns that were set out in the Pre-Sentence Report.

54. These three matters do, in my judgement, justify giving RM a further chance to show that he can lead a crime free useful life without having to impose deterrent sentences.

55. I have had regard to the seriousness of the offences and the circumstances in which they were committed.

56. I also take into account the subjective circumstances as I have outlined above.

57. I take into account the offences on the list of additional offences, as I have referred to earlier.

58. I note that the actual circumstances of the committing of the offences were not such as to aggravate them in any particular manner.

59. I note that, although periodic detention is not available to youthful offenders, it can be imposed where the offender is 18 when such a sentence is to be served, even though the offences were committed when the offender was under that age (see s 77(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act).

60. I note that RM has been assessed as suitable for periodic detention and for a community service condition to a good behaviour order.

61. It seems to me that RM is at a stage where he can genuinely develop his pro-social options and maintain the direction in which he seems now to be heading.

62. I am aware that the courts have been urged in cases such as R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118; (1999) 106 A Crim R 314 to take sceptically assertions that offenders have now "turned the corner".

63. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that, with the support networks that RM now has, it is likely that he will head in a pro-social direction. If that is so, then he is entitled to favourable consideration, despite the seriousness of the offences and the poor behaviour he has exhibited on the way to this sentencing. If not, then he needs to be punished to try and reinforce to him that the court will not tolerate continued offending. I note that RM is said to be at moderate to high risk of reoffending without attention to his alcohol use.

1. I convict you of aggravated burglary of a house in Griffith on 27 July 2011.

2. I sentenced you to twelve months' imprisonment to commence on 2 May 2013. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to fifteen months' imprisonment.

3. I convict you of theft of money on 27 July 2011 from that aggravated burglary.

4. I sentence you to six months' imprisonment to commence on 2 May 2013, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary in September. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to seven months' imprisonment.

5. I convict you of the burglary at the house in Wanniassa on 25 September 2009.

6. I sentence you to ten months' imprisonment to commence on 2 January 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Griffith. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to twelve months' imprisonment.

7. I convict you of theft of property on 25 September 2009 during that burglary.

8. I sentence you to six months' imprisonment to commence on 2 January 2014, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to seven months' imprisonment.

9. I convict you of burglary of a house in Kambah on 26 January 2011.

10. I sentence you to ten months' imprisonment to commence on 2 July 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the burglary at Wanniassa. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to twelve months' imprisonment.

11. I convict you of the burglary of a shop at Yarralumla between 21 and 22 June 2011.

12. I sentence you to ten months' imprisonment to commence on 2 January 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the burglary at Kambah. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to twelve months' imprisonment.

13. I convict you of theft of money taken between 21 and 22 June from that burglary.

14. I sentence you to six months' imprisonment to commence on 2 January 2015, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to seven months' imprisonment.

15. That is a total sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment, to commence on 2 May 2013.

16. I suspend that sentence today for a period of two years.

17. I require you to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years to include the following conditions:

(a) a probation condition that you be under the supervision of the Director-General, or a person delegated to supervise you, for a period of twelve months, or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise you considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise you as to alcohol and drug treatment and counselling, and to anger management issues; and

(b) a community service work condition that you perform 100 hours of community service work within twelve months.

66. RM, you have been around long enough probably to know what I have done, but I need to explain it to you. Basically, I have said the criminality that you committed is worth two years and six months' imprisonment having regard to your personal circumstances and so on. However, you have now spent about six months in prison and I do not require you to spend any further time in full time custody.

67. I have suspended the sentence for two years. That means that, if you commit any further offences which are punishable by imprisonment, you breach that order and you can be brought back before me and I can resentence you and that includes imposing the balance of the two years and six months. That is about another two years of full time custody.

68. As required on suspending that sentence, I have made a good behaviour order and that is for a period of two years from today, so for two years, if you commit any further offences that breaches the order, you can be brought back and be dealt with.

69. I have made two conditions. One is a probation condition. I agonised over that. I note that you have not been very good at complying with the obligation to attend on probation. You may have heard in my discussions that we had earlier that in one sense just turning up is not of value, but there is a need I think for you to be under some degree of supervision.

70. I think the family that you have managed to move in with is amazingly important for you and I hope that is able to continue and I hope that you do not blow that by behaving inappropriately in their company, or doing any silly things that will lead them to say this is the end of it.

71. I think there is a need for the community to ensure that in particular your alcohol consumption is understood. You have done the First Steps Program, but you have got a history. You will get into the community and deal with other people who drink alcohol. You need to have the risk factors addressed. You need to strengthen your ability to be able to either say no or to moderate your consumption.

72. There are the anger management issues and you do not want to get into an anger situation in the home in which you are living, which could lead to disastrous consequences, so probation can help you with that kind of situation and where you might go, but you have to be committed and you have to take care.

73. If you do not obey directions, or if you do not turn up when you are required, then that is a breach and you could be brought back before me and again I can re-sentence you, and that includes sentencing you to a period of imprisonment.

74. It seems to me that this is not quite enough to meet the community's requirement that you pay back for what you have done by your behaviour and so I have given you a community service work condition that you do 100 hours of community service work within twelve months. That may also assist you, in fact, to give you some structure about work and it may lead - sometimes, it does - to some kind of long term employment; so that is a penalty and it is meant to be a penalty and a payback to the community for what you have done, but it also is an opportunity for you to gain some support and some structure and then possibly some long term employment, but you are able to do that, of course, during the week.

75. I hope that this is the turning point that I have identified. You have really fallen on your feet. You have got a lovely partner who has a great family.

76. You have been able to manage that. You are starting to get back to some kind of relationship with your father and that is really good, but ultimately, at the end of the day, it has to be your doing. You have to take control of your life and you have to do what you have to do and that includes some of the things that I am telling you that you have to do and if you do not do that, if you do not take the opportunity, then the court will have to deal with you and that may well include some serious response, which is to send you back to the AMC, which you have now tasted. You do not like being at the AMC. It is not the place for a young man like you, but it is in your own hands.

77. It is up to you to keep out of there. I have given you the opportunity. You take it and run with it and then hopefully the courts will not see you back in the criminal situation again.

I certify that the preceding seventy-seven (77) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Refshauge.

Solicitor for the prosecution: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions