26 July 2013, 2, 30 August 2013, 26 September 2013, 15 November 2013, 7 February 2014, 29 April 2014, 23 June 2014, 15 August 2014, 23, 30 September 2014

(1) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the burglary of a house in Nicholls on 13 February 2012.

(2) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2014.

(3) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the theft of property from the premises in Nicholls on 13 February 2012.

(4) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2014, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary.

(5) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the burglary of a house in Ngunnawal on 24 February 2012.

(6) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to twelve months on the sentence for the first burglary.

(7) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the theft of property from the premises in Ngunnawal on 24 February 2014.

(8) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to ten months' imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2016.

(9) The sentence be suspended for a period of two years from 10 March 2015.

(10) Luke Scott Spencer 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 from 10 March 2015, with the following conditions:

1. A probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him for two years, or such lesser period as that person considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him as to mental health treatment and counselling, drug treatment and counselling and vocational training; and
2. A condition that he remain on the methadone program until the officer in charge of that program considers it appropriate that his participation should end.

CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment and Punishment - Sentencing - Burglary - Theft

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)

Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33, Pt 4.2

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68B

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 4733

Gilson v The Queen [1991] HCA 24; (1991) 172 CLR 353

Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8

Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59

R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740

R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269

1. Luke Scott Spencer appears before me to be sentenced on two counts of burglary and two counts of theft. The proceedings, however, have been protracted, in part to provide him with an opportunity to address some of the issues have contributed to or caused his offending. There have also been some complications and complexities in the circumstances under which Mr Spencer has come to be sentenced.

2. Burglary is an offence against s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and renders Mr Spencer liable to a maximum penalty of 1,400 penalty units (that is, a fine of $154,000, or imprisonment for fourteen years, or both).

3. Theft is an offence contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code and attracts a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units (that is, a fine of $110,000, or imprisonment for ten years, or both).

4. The offences were committed in February 2012. On 13 February 2012, Mr Spencer removed and damaged a fly screen to a bathroom window in residential premises in Nicholls, ACT, smashed the window and entered the house. This was the first offence of burglary.

5. While in the house, he removed some coins and jewellery worth approximately $4,460. This was the first count of theft.

6. On 24 February 2012, Mr Spencer removed a fly screen to a bathroom window in another residential premises, this time at Ngunnawal, also smashing the window, and entering the house. This was the second burglary.

7. While on the premises he stole some coins and jewellery and a pair of gloves, to the total value of approximately $2,055. This is the second count of theft.

8. Mr Spencer was identified from the matching of his DNA profile with DNA found on a latex glove left at the Nicholls house and with DNA from blood on the handle of a mattock used to smash the window on the house in Ngunnawal.

9. The search of Mr Spencer's house under a search warrant located a number of the items of jewellery from the burglary and theft at Ngunnawal.

10. Mr Spencer was summonsed to appear in the ACT Magistrates Court on 30 August 2012. It is not clear why the police chose to issue a summons to Mr Spencer, given the seriousness of the charges and the fact that he was, at the time, as was known to police, serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Alexander Maconochie Centre.

11. This was a complication, for it would have been possible for the Court to tailor a sentence at the time that took into account his situation, especially given that the sentence he was then serving was for offences committed after the ones for which I must now sentence him.

12. The principles in Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 at 62-7 suggest that that factor needs to be taken into account in the imposition of any final sentence.

13. In any event, Mr Spencer entered pleas of not guilty on the fourth mention of the charges in the Magistrates Court and was committed for trial to this Court on 17 January 2013. By this time, he had been released from custody and was on bail for these offences.

14. In accordance with the then procedure, Mr Spencer appeared in this Court on 7 February 2014 and orders were made under r 4733 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) for preparation for trial.

15. On 11 April 2013, he elected, under s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), to be tried by Judge alone. The Court set the date of 16 May 2013 for his arraignment, but on that day he pleaded guilty to each of the offences.

16. A Pre-Sentence Report, prepared under Pt 4.2 of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT), was ordered, as was a report from the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS).

17. Sentencing was set for 26 July 2013 but, on that day, it was adjourned, though I cannot tell from the Court records why that happened.

18. On the adjourned date, Mr Archer, Mr Spencer's then counsel, told the Court that he was seeking further information and the proceedings were adjourned again for that further information to be provided. On the further adjourned date the proceedings were again adjourned, but again the court records do not explain why that happened.

19. On the further adjourned date, Nield AJ disqualified himself from hearing the proceedings and they were listed before me on 20 September 2013. In order that I should understand the proceedings properly, I adjourned them to 26 September 2013, while I obtained a copy of the Court transcript.

20. On 26 September 2013, sentencing proceedings commenced. I received a copy of the Statement of Facts, a copy of Mr Spencer's criminal record, a Pre-Sentence Report, a chronology of events, a copy of the police Statement of Facts for the offences and a certificate that Mr Spencer had completed a detoxification phase of the Odyssey House Rehabilitation Program. I also heard oral evidence from Mr Spencer and his mother.

21. Mr Spencer had been seeking rehabilitative help. He had, as the certificate showed, completed a program at Odyssey House. He then was admitted to the Canberra Recovery Services Program of the Salvation Army. As he was, however, experiencing strong suicidal thoughts, he was prescribed medication but left after eleven days as he said the treatment was not suitable. He is reported as saying that he found it detrimental to focus on drugs and would rather focus on other things more beneficial to his recovery.

22. He continued his medication and continued to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, which he said gave him good support.

23. His mother described him as struggling with depression and that he would take on the problems of the world as his problems. The heroin he took helped to block out these thoughts.

24. Mr Archer sought a forensic mental health report and so the proceedings were adjourned to 15 November 2013 for that purpose. On that adjourned date, I received a letter from a counselling organisation that had been providing short term confidential counselling for Mr Spencer and details of the withdrawal services transition program of Arcadia House, an agency of Directions ACT, the well-respected drug and alcohol rehabilitation agency. I did not have a forensic mental health report.

25. The Arcadia House Day Program is designed to promote and maximise the health and wellbeing of persons affected by alcohol, tobacco and other drug-related harms and to their families. It seems to improve the health, social and economic outcomes for these people and to implement intervention, assistance and support services to them utilising evidence-based community education methodologies.

26. It operates on a therapeutic community model where the participants themselves, in the community, through self-help and mutual support, provide the principal means of promoting personal change.

27. The Day Program was for eight weeks, five days a week, and each participant is assigned a case manager who works with that person to design a tailored program. The participants live at home and attend the Program during the day and sometimes in the evenings.

28. The goal of the Program is to help the participants to achieve abstinence, but the Program recognises that "there may be times in the recovery journey where the participant will slip-up and the workers in the program teach the participants skills to safely get back on track if this happens". It has links with individual counselling and operates on the basis of holistic case management.

29. Mr Spencer sought to enter the Arcadia House Day Program, but would not complete the eight weeks before the Program Christmas shutdown. It was also submitted to me that Mr Spencer needed some time to restore his medical condition so as to be fit to undertake the rigorous Program.

30. Accordingly, I adjourned the proceedings to 7 February 2014, with a view to confirming progress and, if Mr Spencer was ready for the Arcadia House Day Program, to allow that to be completed before finally imposing a sentence.

31. On the adjourned date, 7 February 2014, I was informed that Mr Spencer had commenced the Program four days earlier. A letter from Directions ACT confirmed this. He remained living with his mother and continued with his medication. In order to provide an opportunity for Mr Spencer to complete the Program, I adjourned the proceedings to 29 April 2014.

32. On that day, Mr Spencer gave evidence. He had continued at the Arcadia House Day Program, but had struggled. An early urinalysis disclosed drug use but that may have been from pre-Program use. He informed the staff of that prior to the results being known. He was not discharged. He undertook some one on one counselling at Directions ACT and had been job hunting.

33. I adjourned again, to 23 July 2014. I requested a CADAS Report. On that date, the CADAS Report showed that Mr Spencer's attendance at Arcadia House had become increasingly erratic and, on at least eight occasions, he had not attended and had arrived late on at least four occasions.

34. He admitted to using opioids on one occasion but had been permitted to continue in the Program. He ceased attending, however, from 11 May 2014 and his placement had been terminated.

35. Mr Archer raised issues with Mr Spencer's mental health and sought a further adjournment. He also indicated that efforts were being made to have Mr Spencer readmitted to Arcadia House. While Mr Spencer admitted to drug use, his admission was only to use on one occasion.

36. I adjourned the proceedings to 15 August 2014. On that day, Mr Spencer's mother gave evidence. She said that Mr Spencer had become very agitated following the appearance in Court on 23 July 2014, and had been referred to a general practitioner at Directions ACT, who prescribed some further anti-depressant medication. The general practitioner was focussing on Mr Spencer's depression.

37. The CADAS team had also recommended that he seek assistance from the ACT Health Mental Health team but there were problems with arranging an appointment. There was also some tension between the general practitioner and Mr Spencer. CADAS advised that Mr Spencer had never been assessed by a psychiatrist, though an appointment had been made for him for that on 10 September 2014.

38. I also received a report from the general practitioner, who confirmed the diagnosis and the referral to a psychiatrist. He also indicated that he was "trialing (sic) anti-depressant medication". A report also showed that Mr Spencer had also started on the methadone program which he was continuing to access.

39. The CADAS Report confirmed the above matters. I permitted Mr Spencer to pursue the options, adjourning the matter to 23 September 2014.

40. On 11 September 2014, however, Mr Spencer appeared before me, having breached his bail because of his failure to attend supervision at ACT Corrective Services and most importantly, therefore, failing to present for the two urinalyses which I had requested in order to satisfy myself that his self-report of non-using of illicit substances was, in fact, correct.

41. As a result, I remanded him in custody, where he has remained. On 23 September 2014, I received a brief mental health report which noted that Mr Spencer was currently a voluntary client for ACT Mental Health Services with a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder complicated by ongoing opioid use. That confirmed my concerns. Since entering custody he ceased anti-depressant medication and has been treated with psychological therapy.

42. Mr Archer was quite critical of the mental health treatment provided to Mr Spencer but, unfortunately, I am not in a position to do anything other than note that. Mr Archer sought a forensic mental health report and I agreed to order one since I had had only a very limited amount of material on that issue. On 30 September 2014, I ordered a report and adjourned the proceedings for sentence to today, 25 November 2014.

43. The forensic mental health report by Dr Graham George followed an examination by him at the Alexander Maconachie Centre. He expressed the following opinion.

His diagnosis is one of Substance Abuse Disorder (polysubstance abuse) but specifically, it does appear that his major substance abuse problem is with heroin. It does appear that this substance abuse problem has fuelled his criminal behaviour in recent times. He also appears to suffer elements of a Borderline Personality Disorder and in general terms, he would be regarded as having a Mixed Personality Disorder with both antisocial and borderline traits on a background of substance abuse.

In view of the chronicity of his substance abuse and prior failed attempts at rehabilitation his prognosis is certainly guarded. He should continue with treatment, either within the prison system for substance abuse issues or, alternatively, continue treatment in the community. He should remain on methadone in the long-term until he has a much better control of his substance abuse issues.

44. Despite referring to the prior incidents of self-harm and Mr Spencer's reporting his depression linked to poor self-esteem, it is interesting that the earlier diagnosis of dysthymic disorder is neither mentioned nor explained. And, in fact, Dr George does not make any mention of that particular issue.

45. His mother's descriptions as recently as on 15 August 2014 suggests that his depression is not of historical relevance only. It has also been confirmed by at least one general practitioner and one psychiatrist since he has been before me for sentencing. I accept that, in addition to the opinions expressed by Dr George, Mr Spencer is suffering clinical depression.

46. Mr Spencer was born thirty-two years ago, as the only child of his parents. His parents separated when he was four and he has lived with his mother since then. He has a positive relationship with her but had little contact with his father until Mr Spencer was about eighteen, when they established a fairly positive relationship, said to be more of a friendship than a parent/child relationship. Indeed, his father has visited him at times when he was in custody in the Alexander Maconachie Centre.

47. Mr Spencer was educated in government schools, obtaining a Year 10 certificate. He had no trouble making friends at school. He was, he thought, an average student but was unstimulated by his education. No doubt, his drug use made for a struggle in his academic work at school. He did not get into serious trouble at school. After school he completed a Certificate III in Food and Beverage from the Canberra Institute of Technology and commenced a career in hospitality. He worked there, for a number of years including, in one position, for six to seven years.

48. In 2009, he sought to change careers when he undertook an internship with a credit union. He found it difficult, however, and he felt quite stupid, disillusioned, and disappointed.

49. This led to an escalation of his drug use and to his resignation from the position. He worked, briefly, then for a pizza restaurant but has been unemployed since 2010. He is currently in receipt of Centrelink benefits when not in custody.

50. Mr Spencer has a long and entrenched drug history. He started smoking cannabis when he was thirteen, leading up to using two grams a day between ages of fifteen and twenty. He also started using opiates at this age, a quite young age, developing a tolerance so as to be using up to three and a half grams of heroin a day by 2011. Heroin is his drug of choice.

51. He did not start drinking alcohol until he was sixteen and alcohol has never been a problem for him. He now drinks little, perhaps once every three months.

52. He has also used amphetamines, first using them when he was eighteen. He uses either ecstasy or methamphetamines, but only occasionally. He said it was about every six months.

53. I have detailed his attempts at rehabilitation earlier and do not need to repeat them. The attempts have been ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining abstinence, but my impression from reading all the reports I had from the various agencies is that he is reducing his use at present.

54. He now says to me that he is not using, particularly while on methadone and in custody, even though access is available. There is, of course, no corroboration for this and while I have accepted, generally, what Mr Spencer has told me, he being frank and honest in his failings with me from time to time, I do not think I can ultimately rely on that absolutely.

55. He has been admitted to a methadone program in the past, apparently being treated on a dose of up to one hundred and twenty milligrams in 2011. He has now resumed the program and is currently taking thirty-five milligrams a day. As noted earlier, Dr George strongly recommends that he continue under that regime. CADAS has not made any specific treatment recommendations in the recent past, but continuation of this participation in the methadone program seems essential.

56. I have referred earlier to his mental health issues and do not need to repeat that. He is physically healthy, though he is currently positive for Hepatitis C, for which he appears to have had no treatment.

57. Mr Spencer's criminal history dates from 2009, when he committed a very serious offence, namely aggravated robbery with an offensive weapon. It was his first criminal offence. He was sentenced to two years and five months' imprisonment, part served by full-time custody, a part by periodic detention and one year and six months suspended with a good behaviour order.

58. I have had regard to the sentencing remarks of Nield AJ when imposing what was, not inappropriately, described by his current counsel, Mr A Doig, as a "creative approach".

59. I note, to Mr Spencer's credit, that he did not breach the good behaviour order. Since then, however, he has been convicted of eleven further offences, all but one being dishonesty offences. These include, however, an earlier offence of burglary and theft. These resulted in further periods of imprisonment, most recently in 2012, when he was released from custody, and very early in 2013.

60. As I mentioned earlier, on 11 September 2014, I revoked his bail and he has been in custody since then. This is a period of custody I need to take into account as pre-sentence custody.

61. The offences were relatively unremarkable examples of burglary and theft from residential premises. These are, as the maximum penalties show, however, to be regarded nevertheless as serious offences. See Gilson v The Queen [1991] HCA 24; (1991) 172 CLR 353 at 364. They were a little more serious than the ordinary examples of home burglaries, for the entry of the premises did involve criminal damage to them.

62. The amounts stolen were quite significant sums of money and jewellery, which often has sentimental value to the owners, although I do note that some of the jewellery was recovered.

63. As Street CJ said in R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 at 742, burglary of residential premises must be treated seriously. They disturb the peace and peace of mind of residents and inflict wider damage on the community and require stern measures by the courts.

64. The Court of Appeal, in Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 at [13], noted that many of the sentences for the offence of burglary in this jurisdiction were for about eighteen months' imprisonment.

65. I take into account the purposes of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act and, as set out earlier, have regard to the matters set out in s 33(1) of that Act.

66. I take into account Mr Spencer's pleas of guilty. They were not made at the earliest opportunity. It was relatively late but, nevertheless, has saved the administration of justice and the victims of the offences the expense and stress of a trial.

67. I take into account the seriousness of the offences as I have described them. They cannot be minimised. They must be regarded, not just because of the maximum penalties provided by the legislature, but also by the effect on our community as ones that the Courts must act to try and prevent in the future and thereby take seriously.

68. I take into account Mr Spencer's personal circumstances. I have set those out in some detail above. Perhaps, more importantly, since he has been charged with these offences, now over two years ago, he has not committed any further offences of which I am aware, apart from the continued use of drugs for which, of course, he has not been charged but which is, nevertheless, a criminal offence. That is an important matter, given his fairly continuous offending in 2011 and 2012, although not breaching the good behaviour order, which shows there is a degree of reliance I can place on him being subject to such conditional liberty.

69. I accept, too, that he has made genuine, though unsuccessful, efforts to undergo drug rehabilitation. This has had mixed success but it seems that his participation in the methadone program is valuable and his drug use is at least reducing.

70. It seems to me that his mental health challenges are a real factor in his offending behaviour also. These challenges seem to be some impediment to him completely addressing his drug addiction and it is that which leads him into crime. This allows for some moderation of penalty by appropriate application of the principles set out in R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269 at 276; [32].

71. It is tempting to suggest that he may benefit from further time to show the recent incarceration has generated some greater motivation insight and commitment to address his mental health and drug addiction. I have the impression that he has been a little precious in his attempt to deal with these issues, though I accept that the mental health issues feed into that challenge also.

72. Nevertheless, the sentencing process needs to come to an end and I consider that I need to proceed to sentence as soon as I can. I can do that today.

73. I note that Mr Spencer has been assessed as unsuitable for a community service work condition to a good behaviour order or to serve a term of imprisonment by periodic detention because of his drug dependence. I could override those recommendations, but do not consider I should do so.

74. It seems to me that a further period of imprisonment is necessary as a recognition of the seriousness of the offending and the failure to complete the abstinence-based drug rehabilitation opportunities that I gave him, but that Mr Spencer can be released early to recognise the factors on which I particularly rely; his non-offending since being charged and his genuine, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, attempts at rehabilitation and the fact that he has a relatively short criminal history, although it is becoming much more serious, and the fact that he has shown that he is able to comply with conditional liberty conditions.

75. As there are multiple offences and so multiple sentences that I need to impose, I have regard to how they need to be structured. 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 Spencer is not punished twice.

76. I have also considered whether the sentences should be partly or wholly concurrent because, for example, they are part of the same enterprise or otherwise.

77. I have then reviewed the length of the term of imprisonment arrived at and ensured that the principal of totality is respected and that the total sentence is adequate to reflect the criminality of the offences committed but not more than that, that the total sentence is not crushing and leaves open the realistic prospect of reform and hope for the achievement of Mr Spencer's goals when he returns to the community. Where necessary to achieve this, I have adjusted the cumulation or concurrency of the individual sentences.

(1) I convict you of the burglary of a house in Nicholls on 13 February 2012.

(2) For that offence, I sentence you to eighteen months' imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2014. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to twenty-one months' imprisonment.

(3) I convict you of the theft of property from the premises in Nicholls on 13 February 2012.

(4) For that offence, I sentence you to twelve months' imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2014, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to fifteen months' imprisonment.

(5) I convict you of the burglary of a house in Ngunnawal on 24 February 2012.

(6) For that offence, I sentence you to eighteen months' imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to twelve months on the sentence for the first burglary. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to twenty-one months' imprisonment.

(7) I convict you of the theft of property from the premises in Ngunnawal on 24 February 2014.

(8) For that offence, I sentence you to ten months' imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2016. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to twelve months' imprisonment.

(9) That is a total sentence of two years and six months.

(10) I suspend that sentence from 10 March 2015 for two years.

(11) 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 from 10 March 2015, with the following conditions:

1. A probation condition that you be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising you for two years, or such lesser period as that person considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising you as to mental health treatment and counselling, drug treatment and counselling and vocational training; and

2. A condition that you remain on the methadone program until the officer in charge of that program considers it appropriate that your participation should end.

79. [His Honour then spoke directly to Mr Spencer]

80. Mr Spencer, that is the formal sentence that I have made and you will hear, from your counsel, a summary of what I have done. I have sentenced you to two years and six months.

81. These are serious offences and should be treated seriously. Magistrate Morrison gave you a relatively lenient sentence for burglary, but the time comes when you must recognise that going into other people's houses is just not on. However, I have recognised that, had you been sentenced at the same time by Magistrate Morrison, you would not have served the full period of an appropriate sentence and that would have been moderated because of issues of totality.

82. I have accepted that, although, as I put it colourfully before, you come to the starting gate, you never get over; you really need to take control of your own life, otherwise, unfortunately, the courts will take control of it for you.

83. I do not like sending people to gaol but it seems to me, in this case, there has been a bit of a short, sharp shock. I do not think it needs to be any longer than is necessary to show to the community that I do not take lightly things like burglary. And six months is about the period that I think is appropriate that will allow you, hopefully, to straighten yourself out a bit further and be ready to go into the community.

84. I do not think it is necessary for you to serve any further period after that by periodic detention or otherwise and while community service order was attractive, I think it is better, really, that you concentrate on your mental health issues and your drug treatment with the unfailing support, as one would expect but does not always happen, from your mother.

85. I hope you will really genuinely use this opportunity to put this horrendous period from 2009 to 2012 behind you. You have shown in the past that you can keep out of trouble, even though you are still using and you need to stop that because that will lead you back into trouble. But I hope this is the end of a really nasty chapter and that you will do your time easily and quickly, use it to your best advantage while you are in the Alexander Maconachie Centre and then use the resources that are available to you.

86. There is, in the supervision, someone who can assist you and give you some direction and so on. You have made some connections with Directions ACT and elsewhere. You really need to address your mental health, if your depression is as significant as it is said then you need to address that, but also your borderline personality. I was listening to Radio National and there are new treatments for borderline personality disorder that can lead you into a more useful way.

87. You have shown that you can be a useful member of our community. Hospitality is a growing industry. It is really important. It is going to be tough with your background and your problems but I hope this really will be an opportunity and I have given you that opportunity I am proud, and I hope that this will be an opportunity for you to put your criminality, your drug use and your mental health issues behind you and into perspective and that the criminal courts will not see you again.

I certify that the preceding eighty-seven [87] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge.