[2015] ACTSC 361

1. Sabian Roux be convicted of burglary at the Knightsbridge Bar on 28 July 2014.

2. Sabian Roux be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2014 to take into account pre-sentence custody.

3. Sabian Roux be convicted of the first burglary at the Vista Apartments on 30 or 31 July 2014.

4. Sabian Roux be sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2014 to take into account your pre-sentence custody and to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the burglary at the Knightsbridge Bar.

5. Sabian Roux be convicted of theft from the Vista Apartments on 30 or 31 July 2014.

6. Sabian Roux be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2014 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the first burglary at the Vista Apartments.

7. Sabian Roux be convicted of intentionally damaging a cage at the Vista Apartments between 30 July and 2 August 2014.

8. Sabian Roux be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on 15 September 2015 to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for the first burglary at the Vista Apartments.

9. Sabian Roux be convicted of a second burglary at the Vista Apartments between 4 and 10 August 2014.

10. Sabian Roux be sentenced to twenty months imprisonment to commence on 15 January 2015 to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for intentionally damaging property at the Vista Apartments.

11. Sabian Roux be convicted of theft during that burglary at the Vista Apartments between 4 and 10 August 2014.

12. Sabian Roux be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 January 2015 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the second burglary of the Vista Apartments at that time.

13. Sabian Roux be convicted of the third burglary at the Vista Apartments on 5 or 6 August 2014.

14. Sabian Roux be sentenced to twenty months imprisonment to commence on 15 January 2015 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the second burglar at the Vista Apartments.

15. Sabian Roux be convicted of dishonestly driving someone else's motor vehicle without their consent on 6 August 2014.

16. Sabian Roux be sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 15 June 2015 to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for the third burglary at the Vista Apartments.

17. Sabian Roux be convicted of intentionally damaging a motor vehicle between 6 and 7 August 2014.

18. Sabian Roux be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 March 2016 to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for dishonestly driving someone else's vehicle on 6 August 2014.

19. Sabian Roux be convicted of dishonestly driving someone else's motor vehicle without consent on 15 August 2014.

20. Sabian Roux be sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 15 December 2015 to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for intentionally damaging a motor vehicle.

21. Sabian Roux be convicted of the theft of keys and other items from a motor vehicle between 6 and 7 August 2014.

22. Sabian Roux be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 September 2016 to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for dishonestly driving someone else's motor vehicle on 15 August 2014.

23. Sabian Roux be convicted of using a motor vehicle with number plates attached not properly issued to the vehicle.

24. Sabian Roux be fined $500 with no time to pay.

25. Sabian Roux be convicted of unlawful possession on 15 August 2014 of ACT registration plates reasonably suspected of being stolen.

26. Sabian Roux be sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 15 July 2017 to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for theft of keys and other items from the motor vehicle between 6 and 7 August 2014.

27. Sabian Roux be convicted of unlawful possession of a black keyless entry remote reasonably suspected of being stolen.

28. Sabian Roux be sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 15 July 2017 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for unlawful possession of registration plates.

29. Sabian Roux be convicted of unlawful possession of a white SNP security card reasonably suspected of being stolen.

30. Sabian Roux be sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2017 to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for unlawful possession of the black keyless remote.

31. Sabian Roux be convicted of unlawful possession on 15 August 2014 of a white coloured metal shovel reasonably suspected of being stolen.

32. Sabian Roux is sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2017 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for unlawful possession of a white SNP security card.

33. Sabian Roux be convicted of being an unlicensed driver on 15 August 2014.

34. Sabian Roux is fined $250 with no time to pay.

35. A non-parole period of 18 months be set, to commence on 15 August 2014 and to end on 14 February 2016.

CRIMINAL LAW - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - judgment and punishment - sentencing - burglary - theft - intentionally damaging a motor vehicle - dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent - using a motor vehicle with number plates attached not properly issued to the vehicle - unlawful possession - unlicensed driver - series of offences - interrelated offences

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33(1)

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 90, 90A, 9A(7), 90B

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 31(1)

Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT), s 22(1)(a)

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), Pt 8

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311, 318(2), 324, 403

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120

Rees v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 6

R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333

R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450; (2004) 151 A Crim R 376

R v Ogilvie [2015] ACTSC 296

R v Roux [2015] ACTSC 307

Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13

The Queen v Tonks [1916] 1 KB 443

Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)

1. Between 20 July 2014 and 9 August 2014, storage cages in the underground car parks to a residential complex known as the Vista Apartments were burgled and various property stolen.

2. The accused, Sabian Roux, was connected to those events by forensic evidence found in an abandoned motor vehicle containing some of the stolen goods, from which forensic evidence matched that of Mr Roux, and later when some further stolen goods from the burglaries were found in a motor vehicle that he was driving.

3. Mr Roux was arrested and charged with various offences. He was committed for trial on 10 February 2015 and the indictment presented contained sixteen counts.

4. Mr Roux elected for trial by judge alone. I was the judge for the trial.

5. Immediately before arraignment, the Crown was granted leave to file a Notice Declining to Proceed (Nolle Prosequi) for one count on the indictment and, when arraigned, Mr Roux pleaded guilty to six counts on the indictment. He pleaded not guilty for the remaining counts.

6. On 14 October 2015, I found Mr Roux guilty of one of those counts to which he pleaded not guilty, but not guilty of the remaining accounts: R v Roux [2015] ACTSC 307.

7. It now falls to me to sentence Mr Roux for the seven counts of which he is guilty, either by a finding or his plea.

8. These constitute three counts of burglary, two counts of theft, one count of intentionally damaging property and one count to the dishonestly driving someone else's motor vehicle without their consent.

9. Burglary is an offence against s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and attracts a maximum penalty of 1400 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $210,000) and imprisonment for fourteen years.

10. Theft is an offence contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code which provides for a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $150,000) and imprisonment for ten years.

11. Intentionally damaging property is an offence under s 403 of the Criminal Code which makes Mr Roux liable for a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $150,000) and imprisonment for ten years.

12. Dishonestly driving someone else's motor vehicle without their consent is an offence prohibited by s 318(2) of the Criminal Code for which the maximum penalty is 500 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $75,000) and imprisonment for five years.

13. Mr Roux had earlier been charged with a burglary at the Knightsbridge Bar in Braddon, ACT, on 28 July 2014 and appeared in court on that day when he was granted bail. That is important, for all of the other offences were committed while he was on that bail. I am required to sentence him for this offence also.

14. He was charged with further offences on 15 August 2014, namely using a vehicle with a number plate properly issued to another vehicle, four offences of unlawful possession of stolen property, and one offence of being an unlicensed driver.

15. These offences were transferred under s 90B of Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) to this Court to be dealt with under Pt 8 of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). I will do so. He pleaded guilty to these charges.

16. As to those further offences, I note that I have dealt with the offence of burglary, but I make the following comments about the other offences.

17. Driving a vehicle with number plates properly issued to another vehicle is an offence against s 22(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT) which provides for a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units, that is a fine of $2800.

18. Unlawful possession of stolen property is an offence prohibited by s 324 of the Criminal Code which provides for a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $7500) and imprisonment for six months.

19. Driving without a licence is an offence prohibited by s 31(1) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) for which the maximum penalty is 20 penalty units (that is a fine of $2800).

20. Having been charged with these further offences, Mr Roux was remanded in custody and remained in custody since then.

21. He was later charged, on 9 October 2014, with further offences, namely burglary of a storage cage at the Vista Apartment, intentionally damaging property, dishonestly driving someone else's vehicle without consent, and theft. He pleaded guilty to these offences and was, on 10 February 2015, committed to this Court for sentence.

22. Finally, on 15 August 2014, when Mr Roux was stopped by police, he was found to be in possession of a white coloured metal shovel that had been taken from Mr Michallef earlier. This was the final charge of unlawful possession of stolen property which was referred against Mr Roux on 13 November 2014.

23. Ultimately, it became clear that the burglary with which he was charged on 9 October 2014 was in fact the same offence as count 15 on the indictment on which he went for trial, so I dismissed that count.

24. Section 90A of the Magistrates Court Act does not, at face value contemplate such a disposition. Ordinarily, the court must either sentence the offender committed for sentence, or, under subsection 90A(7), must, if the facts do not support the charge on which the offender is committed or the offender or his or her lawyer or the informant request it, remit the proceedings back to the Magistrates Court.

25. It seems to me, however, that, having accepted Mr Roux's plea at his arraignment to the plea to the count on the indictment and now the notice under s 90A of the Magistrates Court Act having been presented, the fact that there is a clear and unarguable defence of autrefois convict available to Mr Roux, it is appropriate to proceed.

26. Technically, I could remit the charge back to the Magistrates Court, but it does not seem to me that s 90A(7) of the Magistrates Court Act squarely applies because it is not the facts that do not support the charge; they do. There is another plea available.

27. In the words of the UK Court of Appeal in The Queen v Tonks [1916] 1 KB 443 at 448,

If a plea of autrefois convict can be supported, no technicality should prevent this Court from doing what is right.

28. Accordingly, I permitted the plea of guilty to be withdrawn and dismissed the charge.

29. The details of the offences for which I must further sentence Mr Roux have been earlier described.

30. The facts were, for the most part, set out in an Agreed Statement of Facts tendered by consent and reproduced in the R v Roux at [30] and I do not need to repeat what is there stated. I take those facts into account.

31. The facts relating to the other offences are as follows.

32. On 20 July 2014, an employee of the Knightsbridge Bar in Braddon, ACT, attended the premises, but, having entered, heard a loud banging on the window. She called out in the hope of scaring away anyone there, but the banging increased in speed, so she called the police.

33. When the police arrived, they entered the premises and found damage to a rear window and located Mr Roux in a storage shed at the back of the premises and arrested him for burglary. The police also seized a portable battery powered drill, several cutting bits, two sets of gloves, wire cutters, and a Phillips screwdriver and a small torch on Mr Roux.

34. Mr Roux was arrested and charged with burglary, being the burglary of the Knightsbridge Bar referred to above.

35. On 6 August 2014, a resident of the Valonia Apartments, Braddon, left her car in the underground car park. The next morning, she discovered the two windows on the passenger side of the car had been smashed. She also noticed that some items had been stolen from the car, namely some keys, a jar of lip gloss, a bottle top opener, and two pairs of sunglasses. The victim was charged $440 to repair the broken windows.

36. When Mr Roux was stopped by police on 15 August 2014, property from the theft from this car was located in the van he was driving. An analysis of blood found on the inside of the door from the vehicle at Valonia Apartments matched it to Mr Roux's DNA.

37. These facts constituted the other charge of intentionally damaging property and the final charge of theft.

38. On 31 July 2014, the owner of a Queensland registered Mazda van parked outside his unit in Northbound Avenue, Turner. When he returned to it on 10 August 2014, he found the vehicle had gone.

39. On 4 August 2014, a resident of units in Leahey Close, Narrabundah, parked his sister's car in an insecure underground car park and, when he returned to it the next day, he discovered the registration plates for the vehicle were missing. He reported the matter to police.

40. On 15 August 2014, police approached a white Mazda van stopped at the side of Flemington Road, Mitchell, as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts referred to in R v Roux at [30].

41. Initially when approached by police, Mr Roux said that he had run out of fuel and was waiting for a friend who was bringing some fuel for him. A female arrived a short time later and as police spoke to her, they noticed Mr Roux started to drive off in the van. Police found that Mr Roux's driver licence had expired and the number plates affixed to the van had been reported as stolen from the Narrabundah car park. The police therefore chased the vehicle with the emergency lights and siren on their vehicle activated.

42. Mr Roux stopped the vehicle and was arrested. Police ascertained that he had been disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence until 13 September 2013, but had not applied for a licence since then.

43. The van was identified as that stolen from Turner. Inside the van were also found registration plates for the white Triton utility which had been stolen on 26 July 2014 from Mr Ebejer as described in the Agreed Statement of Facts, as well as the white coloured metal shovel stolen from the Vista Apartments.

44. These facts constituted the charges of driving a motor vehicle with number plates properly issued to another vehicle and two of the charges of unlawful possession of stolen property, being the number plates stolen from Narrabundah and the white shovel, and being an unlicensed driver.

45. Also located in the van was an ACT Canberra Hospital pass that had been stolen from a secure underground car parking facility at an apartment block in Harrison in ACT, known as Harrison Green, between 5 and 6 August 2014. This was a further charge of unlawful possession of stolen property.

46. Finally, located in the van was a keyless entry fob, a remote control for the entry door of the Vista Apartments which had been stolen from a car parked between 12 noon and 4 pm on 30 July 2014. This was the final charge of unlawful possession of stolen property.

47. Tendered to me by the Crown was a Court Duty Report and the criminal record of Mr Roux and tendered by Mr Roux was a Forensic Mental Health Report. Mr Roux's stepfather also gave oral evidence. From this material, I can make the following findings.

48. Mr Roux is now 37 years old. His step-father lives in Leeton, New South Wales, and he is on good terms with him.

49. His family situation is somewhat complicated and I do not need to examine it in detail.

50. Mr Roux seemed to experience a normal childhood, though he experienced some problems at age 5 when his father left home. He was an average student at primary school, but his academic performance deteriorated from about year 8 onwards. The family moved about within the Riverina as his mother was posted to other employment positions from time to time. At age 14, he was living out from home because of his mother's mental impairment, she having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He did show some discipline problems at school and was suspended on about five occasions for fighting with other students.

51. He completed year 10 and, since leaving school, has completed a number of certificate three courses in sales, security and wholesale operations. He has been employed in sales and security positions since leaving school. He has an excellent work ethic, at one stage holding three jobs at the one time in Griffith, New South Wales.

52. About fifteen to twenty years ago, he moved from Griffith to Canberra and obtained steady employment. He excelled in sales positions with various employers and changed jobs, the longest period of employment with any one employer seemed to be for about three to four years.

53. In 2014, he left his job. As I understand it, he was offered an incentive if he achieved a performance target at work but, having achieved the set target, was not paid the incentive.

54. He did obtain other work, but a personality clash resulted in him ceasing work altogether about twelve months ago.

55. This led to deterioration in his situation. Whereas he had kept regular contact with his family in Leeton, communication lessened and he made no visits and fewer and fewer telephone calls.

56. Mr Roux has been involved in number of intimate relationships. He described to the psychiatrist who prepared the Forensic Mental Health Report that he was unsure as to why they had not worked out, blaming himself partly, but also because he seemed to be attracted to women who also "have issues all the time".

57. He has a six year old son from one of his relationships. The son lives with his mother in Tuggeranong and, while having little contact in the period before he was arrested and having some dispute over custody and access, he unexpectedly received three or four visits from them while he was remanded in custody.

58. When he lost his employment, he lived with his brother for a short time but when his brother was posted overseas, he became homeless. He managed to couch surf for a time.

59. He explained the offending to the examining psychiatrist as stemming from his homelessness and the consequences of the "battle" to see his son. He said he became depressed, lost confidence in himself and was just trying to get by. He had, by the time of the offending, been receiving NewStart payments through Centrelink. He said that what he received was insufficient to pay for necessities such as food, clothing and petrol, so he resorted to crime to supplement his income.

60. He has been in custody since 15 August 2014, but not subject to any disciplinary action during this time. He has completed a first aid certificate and courses in horticulture while in custody and regularly attended sessions of behavioural therapy and counselling.

61. He is said, in the Court Duty Report, to be have been diagnosed in custody with "an ongoing mental health disorder" and is currently receiving medication. This information is said to have been verified but, in an annoyingly frustrating practice of ACT Corrective Services, the diagnosis has not been provided to the Court for reasons that I find inexplicable.

62. Thus, instead of being a helpful Court Duty Report, it raised more questions than it answered. I do not know whether the mental health disorder refers to mild depression or schizophrenia, a personality disorder or bipolar disorder, which may well make a significant difference to the sentence that must be imposed.

63. The Forensic Mental Health Report has managed, however, to make up for this, quite regrettable, deficiency, on the assumption that that which is referred to in the Court Duty Report is the same as what is reported by the examining psychiatrist. It reported that Mr Roux attempted suicide when he was 15 years old.

64. It also reported that at about four to five years ago, Mr Roux had what he described as "a bit of a blow out" and again attempted suicide. He was subsequently prescribed anti-depressant medication, though he did not think it was particularly effective.

65. While in custody, he was reviewed by a psychiatrist in the Alexander Maconochie Centre and diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder and complex trauma. He had some suicidal ideation and was prescribed further anti-depressant medication. His suicidal thoughts decreased and he agreed to undertake counselling.

66. Mr Roux drinks alcohol socially but, prior to his remand in custody, had been using amphetamines at about three to four points a fortnight. He does not use other illegal substances.

67. The Forensic Mental Health Report concluded with the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and amphetamine use disorder, both of which require treatment. The Report stated, however, that there was no information to connect the disorders with his offending, rather this was attributable to his social difficulties.

68. There was no indication either that a sentence of imprisonment would weigh more heavily on him than on a person in normal health.

69. Mr Roux's step-father stated in his oral evidence that Mr Roux had admitted that he realised that his offending was quite wrong and he is ashamed about what he had done. He accepts full responsibility for his actions.

70. Mr Roux's intention is to return to Leeton when he is released from custody. He can reside with his step-father who can provide him with some stimulating activity. There are also employment opportunities and counselling for his mental health and drug use available in Leeton, or, if not, relatively close-by in Griffith, New South Wales.

71. Mr Roux has a minor criminal record. In 1996, a non-conviction bond was imposed for an offence of assault of which he was found guilty. It appears that that may have been an assault on his partner who had attacked him. In 2013, he was fined for traffic offences including driving offences while suspended by law. While not a first offender, this record of quite different offences is of no real significance in sentencing Mr Roux.

72. It is important to have regard to the maximum penalties for the offences as this is, as the High Court pointed out in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 at 133; [31], an indication of the relative seriousness of the offences.

73. Accordingly, burglary is, by that yard stick, a very serious offence, although by no means the most serious offence in the criminal calendar. I have set out in R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 at [48]- [51], a summary of the consequences of burglary which makes it such a serious offence. I have regard to those matters.

74. It has been accepted that burglaries of commercial premises are less serious than those of residential premises, see Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13 at [54]. This applies to the first burglary where no property was stolen. It would appear to me also that the same reasoning would mean that, although the premises where he committed the burglaries were residential premises, the place where the burglaries actually took place was in a separately located car park and therefore the offences were somewhat less serious than the home invasion of residential premises.

75. The further burglaries, however, where Mr Roux returned to the same premises and committed further burglaries and a theft are somewhat more serious because of the repetitious nature of the offending.

76. On the other hand, the two burglaries on the second occasion merit a high degree of concurrency in sentencing for the trespass was primarily into the underground car park itself and the burglary of the two cages, in a sense, part of the same enterprise.

77. Theft is a serious offence also because of the deprivation of property for which the owners have paid from their earnings. It is somewhat more severe, too, to deprive people of their tools of trade. Apart from this, the properties stolen was not of particularly substantial value. A relevant matter of seriousness is noted in Rees v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 6.

78. Driving someone's motor vehicle without their consent is also a serious offence. In a city such as Canberra which is very dependent on car transport, the taking of someone else's motor vehicle which, if they have not purchased a home, may be their most expensive purchase, leads not only to deprivation of that significant property, but serious disruption to the life of the owner and possibly others.

79. Although the maximum penalty for unlawful possession of stolen property is not great, I should not dismiss such offences as trivial since they are a form of receiving though receiving is, in penalty years, of course, a much more serious offence) and is part and parcel of the dishonest misappropriation of people's property, which is an attack on the harmony of our community.

80. The use of number plates is an important regulatory device and the placing of wrong number plates on motor vehicles is apt to undermine the appropriate regulatory regime.

81. Similarly, driver licensing is an important part of the regulatory regime which is intimately connected with management of road safety, a serious matter in the community.

82. Thus, the dishonesty offences are objectively serious. In general terms, the offences were unremarkable examples of the relevant offences. Nevertheless, the period of offending over some two weeks or so is a relevant factor. See R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450; (2004) 151 A Crim R 376 at 383-4; [40].

83. While the latter regulatory offences are nowhere near as serious, they cannot be discounted.

84. I have regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). In this case, it seems to me general deterrence is important and, given the fact that Mr Roux committed repeated offences, specific deterrence also plays a significant part. These offences were not just opportunistic, there was some premeditation and planning as the acquisition of stolen vehicles, the use of improper number plates and the purchase of the bolt cutters and the taking of tools shows.

85. It is necessary to denounce the offending and to hold Mr Roux accountable for it. The offences were also more serious because all but one were committed while Mr Roux was on bail.

86. I take into account Mr Roux's pleas of guilty which were made at an early time in the Magistrates Court. The one offence of theft of which I found him guilty does not attract that discount.

87. I have regard to the seriousness of the offences as I have described them earlier.

88. I also have regard to the factors set out in s 33(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, so far as I know them they are set out above.

89. As to sentencing practice, I have considered the sentencing practice related to burglary and theft in R v Ogilvie [2015] ACTSC 296 and I have regard to what I there said.

90. What is significant is that Mr Roux's offending was in a relatively short period and motivated by his descent from a successful employee to a homeless, unemployed person. It was not, it appeared, in order to have fuelled his drug habit and that was not suggested by the Crown, though his use of drugs would have depleted the funds otherwise available to him. The earliest offence was committed on 28 July 2014 and the latest on 15 August 2014.

91. Many of the offences were interrelated. For example, the unlawful possession of the remote entry fob was the means of entry to commit the second burglary at the Vista Apartment and using the vehicle that he was dishonestly driving was part and parcel of the offending also.

92. Mr Roux has been assessed as suitable for a community service work condition to a Good Behaviour Order and is suitable for serving a term of imprisonment by periodic detention. He signed an undertaking to comply with the periodic detention obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT).

93. Nevertheless, the number and seriousness of the offences shows that a period of full-time imprisonment is appropriate. I take into account the period that he has spent in custody since 15 August 2014. I shall backdate the sentences to that date.

94. There are multiple offences for which a sentence must be imposed. This raises a number of issues to be considered.

95. Thus, I have carefully considered the length of each of the sentences to ensure that when there are overlapping common elements between any of the offences, Mr Roux is not punished twice. I have considered whether the sentences should be partly or wholly concurrent because, for example, they are part of the same enterprise or otherwise. This applies particularly to the offences in early August at the Vista Apartments and those associated with those offences.

96. I have reviewed the length of the term of imprisonment arrived at and ensured that the principle of totality is respected and that the total sentence is adequate to reflect the criminality of the offences committed, but not more than that. The total sentence is not overly severe and leaves open the realistic prospect of reform and hope for the achievement of Mr Roux's goals when he returns to the community. Where necessary to achieve this, I have adjusted the accumulation or concurrency of the relevant individual sentences.

1. I convict you of burglary at the Knightsbridge Bar on 28 July 2014.

2. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2014 to take into account your pre-sentence custody. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment.

3. I convict you of the first burglary at the Vista Apartments on 30 or 31 July 2014.

4. I sentence you to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2014 to take into account your pre-sentence custody and to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the burglary at the Knightsbridge Bar. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to twenty-seven months imprisonment.

5. I convict you of theft from the Vista Apartments on 30 or 31 July 2014.

6. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2014 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the first burglary at the Vista Apartments. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment.

7. I convict you of intentionally damaging a cage at the Vista Apartments between 30 July and 2 August 2014.

8. I sentence you to six months imprisonment to commence on 15 September 2015 to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for the first burglary at the Vista Apartments.

9. I convict you of a second burglary at the Vista Apartments between 4 and 10 August 2014.

10. I sentence you to twenty months imprisonment to commence on 15 January 2015 to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for intentionally damaging property at the Vista Apartments. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to thirty months imprisonment.

11. I convict you of theft during that burglary at the Vista Apartments between 4 and 10 August 2014.

12. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 January 2015 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the second burglary of the Vista Apartments at that time. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment.

13. I convict you of the third burglary at the Vista Apartments on 5 or 6 August 2014.

14. I sentence you to twenty months imprisonment to commence on 15 January 2015 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the second burglar at the Vista Apartments. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to thirty months imprisonment.

15. I convict you of dishonestly driving someone else's motor vehicle without their consent on 6 August 2014.

16. I sentence you to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 15 June 2015 to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for the third burglary at the Vista Apartments. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to twenty-seven months imprisonment.

17. I convict you of intentionally damaging a motor vehicle between 6 and 7 August 2014.

18. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 March 2016 to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for dishonestly driving someone else's vehicle on 6 August 2014. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment.

19. I convict you of dishonestly driving someone else's motor vehicle without consent on 15 August 2014.

20. I sentence you to eighteen months imprisonment to commence on 15 December 2015 to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for intentionally damaging a motor vehicle. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to twenty-seven months imprisonment.

21. I convict you of the theft of keys and other items from a motor vehicle between 6 and 7 August 2014.

22. I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 15 September 2016 to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for dishonestly driving someone else's motor vehicle on 15 August 2014. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment.

23. I convict you of using a motor vehicle with number plates attached not properly issued to the vehicle.

24. I sentence you to be fined $500. I allow no time to pay.

25. I convict you of unlawful possession on 15 August 2014 of ACT registration plates reasonably suspected of being stolen.

26. I sentence you to three months imprisonment to commence on 15 July 2017 to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for theft of keys and other items from the motor vehicle between 6 and 7 August 2014. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to four months imprisonment.

27. I convict you of unlawful possession of a black keyless entry remote reasonably suspected of being stolen.

28. I sentence you to three months imprisonment to commence on 15 July 2017 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for unlawful possession of registration plates. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to four months imprisonment.

29. I convict you of unlawful possession of a white SNP security card reasonably suspected of being stolen.

30. I sentence you to three months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2017 to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for unlawful possession of the black keyless remote. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to four months imprisonment.

31. I convict you of unlawful possession on 15 August 2014 of a white coloured metal shovel reasonably suspected of being stolen.

32. I sentence you to three months imprisonment to commence on 15 August 2017 to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for unlawful possession of a white SNP security card. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to four months imprisonment.

33. I convict you of being an unlicensed driver on 15 August 2014.

34. I sentence you to a fine of $250. I allow no time to pay.

98. That is a sentence of thirty nine months, three years and three months, from 15 August 2014.

99. I set a non-parole period of 18 months to commence on 15 August 2014 and to end on 14 February 2016.

I certify that the preceding ninety-nine [99] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge.