Aaron Winslade appears for sentence in respect of nine offences which I will refer to shortly. In addition to those nine offences, he asks the Court to deal with him in respect of the breach of a s 9 bond imposed on 10 November 2017 of 18 months for an offence of common assault upon April Araullo, contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act in relation to which he received a s 9 bond of 18 months. He also asks the Court to deal with him in respect of a breach of a s 12 suspended sentence of eight months in respect of an offence which occurred on the same occasion as the previously referred to common assault, that is, 22 February 2017, and on 10 November 2017 he was sentenced for an offence contrary to s 114(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. That offence is being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence, that is, intimidation. In respect of that as I have said, he received a suspended sentence of eight months pursuant to s 12.
I have referred to those offences at the commencement because the commission of those offences has significant relevance to the nine offences that he subsequently committed on 28 January 2018, that is, approximately two and a half months after he had been dealt with in the Local Court for the common assault and being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence. I intend to refer firstly to the facts in relation to those two matters.
The offender had been living in an intimate relationship with the victim, April Araullo, in Woodcroft. At 7.45pm on 22 February 2017, witnesses who were socialising in the Woodcroft's fields heard the screeching of tyres coming from Woodcroft Drive. They observed an Asian female approximately 30 years of age exiting a black coloured Subaru with the number plate DBP66X and begin to walk briskly towards the Woodcroft fields. Shortly after, they observed a male, being Mr Winslade, observed to be Asian in appearance, approximately 30 years of age with balding hair, a full length tattooed sleeve on one arm and a half sleeve on the other, walk towards the victim. He then ran at the victim shouting, and in the process punched the victim with a swinging arm, connecting with her head and causing her to fall to the ground. He then continued to assault the victim with several punches while she was on the ground.
The second victim, Joshua Lopez Banting, and another witness approached the victim and the accused in order to assist Ms Araullo. They asked if she was okay. Mr Winslade reached into his pocket and pulled out a silver and gold coloured pocket knife, approximately 15 centimetres in length, and faced the blade towards Mr Lopez Banting before saying, "Come any closer and I will fucking kill you". The offender then started walking closer to Mr Lopez Banting, still brandishing the knife. Mr Lopez Banting retreated due to his fear of being stabbed if he did not. Mr Winslade then ran towards his vehicle and drove off.
However, a few minutes later he returned and stopped next to the victim. A verbal argument was heard before the victim, Ms Araullo, then entered the vehicle and both left the area in the motor vehicle. Police arrived shortly thereafter and were able to obtain the address of the accused and the victim and attended the premises. The victim answered the front door but was uncooperative with police, denying being at the location of the incident and denying being assaulted. They were led to her premises because she was the registered owner of the Subaru Forester which was parked in the vicinity.
The relevance, apart from that the facts are relevant to the sentences that were imposed by the learned magistrate, for which the offender was placed in breach by the commission of these later offences, is that the offender some two and a half months before was before the Court for assaulting a female in what I would regard as a relatively vicious fashion. It was fortunate for him that having delivered a swinging punch to her head she did not suffer a more serious injury on falling to the ground due to what has become known as a, "coward's punch". Of significance is that he was prepared to assault a female, not only punching and knocking her to the ground but continuing to assault her after she had fallen to the ground, and then producing a weapon to deter witnesses from providing any assistance to her.
The offences which constitute the breaches of the s 9 and the s 12 suspended sentences are as follows:
Section 61, common assault, Lewis Cebedo. The maximum penalty provided by the legislation is two years' imprisonment.
An offence contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996, being possess a prohibited firearm, a shortened .44‑40 Winchester Calibre ARMI Jager Frontier Carbine revolving carbine without authorisation licence or permit. The maximum sentence provided is 14 years' imprisonment and there is a relevant standard non‑parole period of four years which remains relevant as a guideline even though the matter is a plea of guilty.
An offence contract to s 62(1)(b), possess firearm not a pistol, namely a .410 calibre Boito single barrel shotgun that had been shortened without authorisation or permit. The maximum sentence provided for such an offence is 14 years' imprisonment.
An offence contrary to s 62(1)(b), possess firearm not pistol, shortened, a .177 air rifle calibre Gamo Expo single shot‑shortened. Again, the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of 14 years.
An offence contrary to s 6(1) of the Explosives Act 2003, handle an explosive, namely a double‑base smokeless gun powder without authority and without authorisation by permit. The maximum sentence is one year and/or 50 penalty units.
On 30 August 2018, the offender was committed for trial in relation to those offences and further offences that I have yet to refer to. On 5 October 2018, he was arraigned in the District Court and a trial was listed to commence on 24 June at the Parramatta District Court. It remained in the list until 27 June 2019 when it was allocated to a court and a judge. On that day 27 June 2019, the offender entered a plea of guilty to the five offences that I have just referred to. On the following day, 28 June 2019, there was a pre‑trial argument which was finalised. I am not aware of what the pre‑trial argument was. However the matter was listed for a fresh trial on 1 July 2019 on the remainder of the charges.
Ms Isabella Cebedo, a victim, commenced her examination in‑chief. Towards the end of the day, the matter was adjourned for negotiations, it obviously being indicated to the presiding judge that there was some hope of shortening the matter. However on the following morning, 2 July 2019, Ms Ormand‑Hales, barrister, who had appeared for the offender, was granted leave to withdraw from the matter as she indicated she had an unstated ethical conflict, leaving the offender in those circumstances unrepresented, with the trial part heard and partway through the evidence of his de facto or ex de facto, whichever is the appropriate expression. In the circumstances, the presiding judge determined that it was appropriate to terminate the trial to allow Mr Winslade to obtain fresh legal representation.
On 16 January 2020, a new indictment was filed which contained four counts. There was a variation from the indictment that had previously been before the Court in that on the earlier indictment there had been three counts of offences contrary to s 93G(1)(a)(ii) of the Crimes Act. All were offences of possessing a loaded firearm, namely a shotgun, so as to endanger the life of another person and there were three persons accounting for the three separate counts on the indictment, Isabella Cebedo, Lewis Cebedo and Isabella Cebedo's young son, Isaiah Araullo.
On the fresh indictment, there is no reference to any offence in respect of Isaiah Araullo and in respect of the offences charged in respect of the offender's conduct towards Isabella Cebedo and Lewis Cebedo, they were changed to offences contrary to s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. On 20 January 2020, the second trial commenced. However, the matter was adjourned so that the parties could confer and potentially resolve any issues.
On the following day, 21 January 2020, a new indictment was presented and the offender was arraigned and entered pleas of guilty to a further four offences. They are as follows (and I will continue the same numbering from before):
An offence contrary to s 61 of common assault in respect of Lewis Cebedo, the maximum sentence being two years' imprisonment.
An offence contrary to s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900, being use offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation of Isabella Cebedo. The maximum sentence provided is a term of imprisonment of 12 years.
A further offence contrary to s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, use offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidate Lewis Cebedo. Again the maximum sentence is 12 years, and,
An offence contrary to s 323(a) between 26 February 2018 and 3 April 2018 at Parklea did communicate with Isabella Cebedo via telephone with intent to cause Lewis Cebedo, a witness in a judicial proceeding, to withhold true evidence in that proceeding. The maximum term of imprisonment provided in respect of an offence of that nature is seven years' imprisonment.
With the exception of the last offence referred to, all of the offences to which he pleaded in respect of the original indictment, and in respect of the amended or fresh indictment, occurred on 28 January 2018. He was arrested on 28 January 2018 and has been in custody as a result only of these offences since that time. The plea of guilty in relation to what I have referred to as Offences 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 occurred on commencement of the trial on 27 June 2019.
There was some, although little, utility in the plea. The offender is entitled to a discount for sentence in the circumstances, but the pleas were belated, and as I have said, only after the commencement of the trial. In the circumstances a discount in the order of 5% for the utility of the plea alone is appropriate, and such a discount will be provided.
Ms Isabella Cebedo gave evidence on 1 July 2019, during that fresh trial, which was discontinued.
The matter was again listed for trial on 20 January 2020 and on 21 January 2020 the offender entered pleas of guilty to Offences 6, 7, 8, and 9.
The matter first came before me to deal with a disputed fact hearing on 12 February 2020. There was only one disputed fact and that was whether the Boito shotgun was loaded at the time of the offences, with a live cartridge shotgun cartridge or a shotgun cartridge that had previously been fired.
Lewis Cebedo gave evidence on the disputed fact hearing. The offender did not give evidence. The determination made by me was that Lewis Cebedo's evidence was both truthful and accurate in that he had observed a shotgun cartridge which was live rather than had been fired, he being familiar with the shotgun cartridges that the offender possessed because they had previously been shown to him and he could tell from the end of the cartridge, that it was crimped and folded so as to retain the shot and gunpowder within the cartridge.
Again, in respect of these four charges, the plea was in my view extremely belated. There has been no suggestion before me that the offender had offered in the past a plea to any lesser count which became the subject of the count in the indictment, and accordingly in respect of Offences 6, 7, 8 and 9, I will again allow a discount for the utility of the plea alone of 5% and such a discount will be applied when I turn to sentence.
The facts are agreed and they are as follows:
(1) The complainant, Isabella Cebedo, lived in a unit in Victoria Avenue, Chatswood with her two year old son, Isaiah Araullo, and her brother Lewis Cebedo.
(2) At the time, the offender had also been living at that address for approximately two months. Isabella Cebedo was eight month's pregnant with his child when the offences occurred.
(3) At about 7.30pm on Sunday, 28 January 2018, the offender, Isabella Cebedo, her son Isaiah and her friend, Elisha Delos Reyes, were sitting in the lounge room of the unit. Lewis Cebedo was in his bedroom.
(4) The offender was playing with Isaiah. He fired a "nerf gun" comprising soft foam toy bullets at Isaiah, who became upset and began crying. Isabella Cebedo said to the offender, "Babe, you hit him in the face", and when the offender continued to fire the nerf gun, she took Isaiah into her bedroom, slamming the door.
(5) The offender immediately followed her into the bedroom. Both Delos Reyes and Lewis Cebedo heard banging noises and shouting coming from the bedroom and Delos Reye heard Isabella say, "Stop, please stop it". Lewis heard Isabella say, "Lewis, help".
(6) In response to this, Lewis Cebedo opened the door to the bedroom. The offender came to the door and punched Lewis in the head multiple times, causing him to fall backwards onto the floor of the hallway. The offender then kicked him in the ribs and then picked him up and dragged him into the bedroom, where Isabella and her son had remained. That constitutes the first of the common assault offences.
(7) When Lewis was inside the bedroom, he heard Isabella say, "Stop hitting him". The offender closed the bedroom door and approached Isabella. Isabella was still holding her son at the time.
(8) The offender was yelling and screaming. Lewis stood up and put himself between the offender and Isabella. The offender punched Lewis again and kicked him in the leg. The offender then kicked Lewis Cebedo in the chest forcing him backwards, causing him to hit the bedroom wall. That is the second common assault offence.
(9) The offender started pacing around the bedroom before walking to his belongings, including a box which he searched through before pulling out a sawn‑off shotgun. He retrieved a brown wooden box which contained various types of ammunition. He selected a shotgun shell from the box and loaded the shotgun he was holding. That is the shotgun cartridge that I have previously found was a live cartridge in the disputed facts hearing.
(10) Isabella took her son to the opposite corner of the bedroom. She held her son, Isaiah, on her lap and she sat on the bed. The offender pointed the shotgun in their direction. He walked closer to Isabella and pointed the shotgun at her. That is the offence that I have referred to as Offence 7.
(11) Lewis stepped in front of the firearm and grabbed the end of it. He told the offender to put the gun down. After a short struggle, the offender pointed the shotgun at Lewis's face and said:
"I'll fucking shoot you. I'll kill you both. I have been to prison before and I am happy to go back. I do this for a living."
That is what I have referred to as Offence 8.
(12) The offender began pacing the room again. Lewis said to stop telling the offender that they "can figure something out". The offender said, "We can't really move past this now because you will call the police". He sat on the edge of the bed, still holding the firearm, and asked for Isabella's and Lewis's phones. Isabella gave hers to the offender and Lewis stated that his was still in his own bedroom.
(13) Whilst they were in the room, the witness, Elisha Delos Reyes, who had seen the offender assault Lewis and had heard the screaming and banging noises from the bedroom, went to the nearby Chatswood Police Chatswood where she alerted police to the incident. The offender had on a previous occasion shown her the box of ammunition and told her that he also had a shotgun. She conveyed that information to the police.
(14) Police attended the unit at 8.23pm that night. When they knocked on the door, the offender hid the shotgun amongst his belongings in the corner of the bedroom and told Lewis and Isabella:
"Be quiet, don't answer the door. If you say anything I will come after you after this. I have connections. I can get you killed if you say anything."
(15) After the knocking continued, he told them:
"Answer the door and tell them it was a prank call."
When Lewis refused to do so, he directed them into the other room and told them to stay quiet. The offender then opened the front door. Police arrested him for assault and Lewis Cebedo invited them into the premises. They were informed that there was a firearm in the premises and they conducted a search.
(16) In the offender's bedroom, amongst his belongings, police located:
One 4‑10 calibre Boito single barrel shotgun. The serial number had been removed and a portion of the barrel shortened. It was later analysed as a shortened prohibited firearm and was tested as being in working order. That was the offence that I had previously referred to as Offence 3.
One shortened .177 air rifle calibre GAMO Expo single shot air rifle, serial number 656363. The butt stock had been removed. It was later analysed and determined to be a shortened prohibited firearm, and was tested as not being in working order. That was what I had previously referred to as Offence 4.
One shortened 44-40 Winchester calibre ARMI Jager Frontier carbine revolving carbine serial number 60244. It was later analysed and determined to be a shortened prohibited firearm and was tested and found to be not in working order. There was no trigger mechanism or hammer attached. That was what I had previously referred to as Offence 2.
Each of the firearms when located was in a disassembled condition.
(17) During a search of the residence, police located the following in the offender's belongings and on top of a cupboard in the bedroom:
One shotgun stock
One timber receiver for a shotgun
One barrel
One revolver chamber
One silver coloured block nut
One silver coloured shotgun part, "GAMO"
One silver coloured barrel serial number 656363‑45 cal. and,
One timber receiver
(18) On top of a cupboard in the bedroom, police located:
One firearm scope
Thirty-nine .22 long rifle calibre cartridges, identified as ammunition
One 9mm parabelyn calibre cartridges, identified as ammunition
One .22 long rifle calibre cartridge, identified as ammunition
Seven .32 automatic calibre cartridges, identified as ammunition
Four .38 special calibre cartridges, identified as ammunition
Six .4‑10 calibre live shotgun cartridges, identified as ammunition
One .4‑10 calibre fired shotgun cartridge case
One .38 super calibre inert cartridge
Seventeen lead sinkers
One unknown manufacture telescopic sight
One unknown manufacture metallic tube with attached timber, "handle"
Six lead sinkers
One trigger guard, and
One blue plastic bag containing brown granules later analysed as gunpowder/propellant
The last of those matters relates to what I previously referred to as Offence 5.
(19) The offender was taken to Chatswood Police Station and made a general denial of wrongdoing and declined to participate in an ERISP, as he was entitled to do. Isabella Cebedo gave a version to police where she denied she was assaulted and made no mention of seeing a weapon. On 1 July 2019, Isabella Cebedo gave evidence during the first trial of the accused which supported the Crown's version of events. That trial was subsequently terminated before verdict on the application of the offender.
(20) Lewis Cebedo provided a statement noting that he had been shown the shotgun and revolver on a prior occasion. The offender told him he had taken the shotgun from, "someone who owed him money". The offender had also shown him the box containing multiple types of ammunition. This caused Lewis Cebedo some concern, and later when the offender was not present, he used his mobile phone to make a short recording of some of the items. He also recounted another occasion when the offender had used some of the bullets as chips to play poker with him.
(21) Whilst in custody for the above offences, the offender had several conversations with the complainant Isabella Cebedo between the dates of 26 February 2018 and 3 April 2018 in which he attempted to influence the evidence of Lewis Cebedo. The accused said the following to Isabella:
"See if your brother can go to the courthouse and get an affidavit done...that's like a formal document. So it's like a formal document of what really happened that night. So of course, I never hit him and all that bullshit. He made it up, obviously. Write that on the paper as well...cause if they believe violent crime then that's why Luke … Isaiah and Lucas will get taken."
"So you need to give a full event, like, can, have you got your pen and paper?...Elisha was drunk. You could smell weed from your brother's doorway. The only reason we were arguing, it's the truth anyway, is because Elisha was drunk, and your brother, like, had weed spread out, and I could smell weed throughout the house. That's the truth anyway. They probably would have found his bong and they've told her she's drunk. In her statement it says she's drunk. Yeah, and fucking, tell me the truth. That I never hit you or your brother, and I never pulled a weapon...Say Aaron never assaulted me or my brother. Like fuck. So can you read it back to me?"
"Once ballistics come back and it comes with his fingerprints they're going to go what the fuck? Why is this guy accusing him? It's his fingerprints on every bullet and every gun...That's why he needs to do the stat fucking dec. Cause, I'll honestly, I'll fucking make sure he goes to gaol."
(22) The offender made multiple requests for Isabella to ensure her brother signed and filed an affidavit stating that:
"Nothing happened, doesn't belong to me (the offender) you may find my prints on the thing but we found it outside and he (Lewis Cebedo) was high on the night."
Paragraphs (21) and (22) are the basis for what I have previously referred to as Offence 9.
In respect of each of the two common assault offences in respect of Lewis Cebedo, being Offences 1 and 6 as previously referred to, there was clearly a frenzied and violent attack by the offender on Lewis Cebedo, who was simply endeavouring to come to the assistance of his sister and her child, Isaiah.
Before I continue with that, I note there were some further agreed facts that I failed to refer to. On 12 February 2020, there were further agreed facts on sentence.
The parties agree that on 28 January 2018 pursuant to a lawful search of a bedroom the offender was then using, he had in his possession eight shotgun shells. These were seized and marked with an exhibit number. Also lawfully seized on that date was a .4‑10 calibre Boito shotgun with three separate exhibit numbers for the three separate parts in which it was located and,
The parties agree that six of the seized shotgun shells were capable of being discharged from the Boito shotgun and,
The parties agree that the shells are of equal length. One shotgun cartridge seized could not be discharged but could be loaded into the shotgun. It is further agreed it would require slightly more force to load it into the shotgun than the other shells.
Returning to the two common assault charges in respect of the offender's assaults on Lewis Cebedo: having come to the door to assist his sister, he was punched in the head multiple times by the offender and caused to fall backwards onto the floor of the hallway. He was then kicked in the ribs before being picked up and dragged into the bedroom. It is a significant assault but there is no information before me that any injury was caused to the victim or that there was any significant sequelae. I would assume that he at least received some bruises from the attack, but beyond that there is no evidence.
As to the second assault, while Lewis Cebedo was in fact in the bedroom, it occurred because Lewis Cebedo gallantly placed himself between the offender and the offender's pregnant de facto, sister of Lewis, and when he did so the offender punched Lewis Cebedo and kicked him in the leg before then kicking him in the chest, forcing him back against the wall which he hit.
Again there is no information before me as to any significant injury being occasioned or any significant sequelae. I would again assume that there would be at least some bruising from the assault but the evidence takes the matter no further. While these were each, in my view, vicious assaults in respect of a person simply trying to intervene to assist a pregnant woman and his sister, in the absence of any significant injury I find that they fall towards the lower end of objective seriousness.
As to what I have referred to as Offence 2, being possession of the shortened .44‑40 Winchester calibre ARMI Jager, I note that it was shortened, a portion of the barrel having been removed but that it was not in working order.
As to Count 3, being the possession of the Boito single barrel shotgun, I note that it was again shortened and was in working condition.
In respect of Offence 4, being the offence of possessing the shortened .177 air rifle, I note that the butt stock had been removed and that it was otherwise not in working order. There is no evidence before me as to what would have been necessary to place either the ARMI Jager or the air rifle in working order, or whether the offender had in his possession the required parts which would have placed them in working order.
I am of the view in relation to Offence 2 and Offence 4 that the fact that they were not in working order places the offences at the lower end of the range of objective seriousness. However, each of the air rifle, the shotgun and the Winchester were shortened. The possession of shortened firearms is serious because of their capacity for concealment, R v Brown [2006] NSWCCA 249, and I accept that shortened firearms are not used for recreational use.
It is frequently the evidence in matters that come before this Court in relation to armed robberies that weapons have clearly been shortened for the purpose of being able to conceal them before confronting those who might have money or drugs available to be stolen. Whether that be service station attendants, bank tellers or other persons in a vulnerable position, or persons involved in the illicit drug trade.
In my view there can be no legitimate purpose in shortening the barrel of a rifle or shotgun, or an air rifle for that matter. While there is no evidence that the offender actually shortened the weapons, he at least had several parts which may have been the result of such activity, and he could have no legitimate purpose apart from not being authorised or licensed or permitted to have such weapons, in having these weapons in his possession.
The authorities have indicated that sentences imposed in respect of such offences must provide a "real disincentive to those otherwise attracted to the illegal possession of firearms", R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219 at (71), (R S Hulme J, Giles JA and Latham J agreeing), R v Lachlan [2015] NSWCCA 178 at (68).
I further note in respect of the shotgun that the serial number had been removed, although there is no evidence that it was removed by the offender. In my view, there is a significant distinction to be made between the shotgun which was in working condition and the two other firearm offences.
As to Offence 5, being the offence of handling an explosive, I first of all indicate there is no evidence before me as to any quantity: that is, could it be contained in a teaspoon or would it require a 44 gallon barrel? I infer from the fact that there is no reference to the quantity that it was in fact a small quantity of gunpowder, and from the fact that a number of lead sinkers (which I understand may be the technical term for lead shot) were found amongst the ammunition, that the gun powder had been obtained by being removed from one or more shotgun cartridges together with the shot that would have been present in the cartridge.
There is no evidence before me as to any ostensible use to which the offender might have put the gun powder and I would infer that it was merely the residue of the disassembling of a cartridge, without any particular intention to do anything with the disassembled components. Accordingly, in my view that falls at the absolute lowest end of any scale of objective seriousness.
As to Offences 7 and 8, as I have referred to them, being using an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely the intimidation of Isabella Cebedo and separately, Lewis Cebedo, it is a very significant concern that the offender in what was clearly a state of rage and anger obtained his shotgun from where it was kept in the room and then proceeded to load it with a live cartridge before pointing it at Isabella Cebedo and her young child before focussing particularly on her rather than the general direction of the two, and then subsequently, threatening Lewis Cebedo with the weapon, Lewis Cebedo in particular being aware that he had loaded it with a live cartridge.
It is fortunate that during the short struggle between Lewis Cebedo and the offender, the shotgun did not discharge in a room, being a bedroom of a unit, then occupied by four persons. Any discharge may have inflicted at least serious injury or terminated the life of one of the persons present. It is also of concern that the offender accompanied his actions after the short struggle with Lewis Cebedo by pointing it at him and saying:
"I'll fucking shoot you, I'll kill you both. I have been to prison before and I'm happy to go back, I do this for a living."
It is not difficult to understand how extremely fearful both Isabella Cebedo and Lewis Cebedo must have been in the circumstances of the offender's outrageous conduct in a state of anger directed at them. However, there are no Victim Impact Statements provided in this matter. I would at least accept that their state of terror and anguish in the circumstances would have been very significant, but there is no evidence of any emotional harm going beyond what might normally be expected in those circumstances, or any ongoing sequelae.
I note in respect of the offender's assertion that he had been to prison before, "and I am happy to go back, I do this for a living", that before me is the offender's criminal history. While he has certainly assaulted others in the past he has apparently never served a period of imprisonment. Having considered all of the material before me I am of the view that the offender is a person who wishes to present himself to others as being a "hard man", an associate of the criminal element, and his assertion that he had been to prison and he did this "for a living" was simply a boast to heighten the degree of intimidation of both Isabella and Lewis Cebedo. I regard each of these offences as being very serious, particularly considering Offence 7 was in respect of his de facto, who was then eight months pregnant.
The final offence is Offence 9 which relates to his endeavours while in custody by telephone to persuade Isabella Cebedo to cause her brother to withhold true evidence in respect of the offences that had been charged against the offender. I note that it was not a single conversation but a number of conversations over the period from 26 February 2018 to 3 April 2018. It was at a time when he was in custody, having been arrested for these offences. He clearly endeavoured to intimidate her into assisting him by suggesting that if she did not assist him by getting Lewis to retract his evidence, in effect, that (1), she might expect her children to be taken off her and (2), that he would ensure that somehow Lewis Cebedo, her brother, would be charged with offences relating to the guns and/or ammunition. I note in that respect that the Crown's submissions refer to his conduct as being detailed and calculated and that that was not accepted as an appropriate description by Mr Shukoor, barrister, who appeared on sentence for the offender. It was submitted by Mr Shukoor, and I quote:
"The very use of the telephone from in custody to execute the offence in circumstances where it is common knowledge that telephone calls made by inmates are monitored and recorded - suggests a complete lack of planning or calculation."
I do not agree with that submission at all. Mr Shukoor might be surprised to find how many times matters come before this Court for sentence where prisoners using the prison telephone service, knowing that it is likely to be recorded, endeavour to obtain assistance to interfere with the justice system and/or indeed, to commit further offences such as drug supply. It is in my view not relevant, although submitted to be relevant by Mr Shukoor that the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful.
Further in relation to this offence, I note that as a result of this offending, the offender had been served with an Apprehended Violence Order to protect Isabella Cebedo. Making contact with her was in fact a breach of the AVO, although he has already been dealt with for that offence.
In Cross v R [2016] NSWCCA 214 at (96), it was stated:
"The integrity of justice is placed at risk if individuals arrogate to themselves the role of determining what evidence will or will not be given in court and whether that evidence will or will not be truthful in circumstances where the individual is seeking to promote their own self‑interest."
That quote is particularly relevant to this offender, and in respect of this charge. I regard it as a serious offence that he endeavoured while in custody to intimidate the person he was not supposed to be contacting to assist him in committing an offence by getting another person to withhold true evidence. On many occasions, the courts have indicated that any attempt or completed offence of attempting to interfere with the justice system is to be regarded as a significant offence in order to discourage others from like offending.
[2]
SUBJECTIVE MATTERS
The offender was 27 years of age at the time and will be 30 years of age in June this year. Before the Court is his criminal history, his custodial history, a Sentencing Assessment Report under the hand of Christopher Baker, Community Corrections officer, dated 19 May 2020 and Exhibit W1, consisting of a psychological report by Mr Awit, dated 26 May 2020, a letter to the Court from the offender dated 16 April 2020, a letter to Ms Isabella Cebedo dated 19 May 2020, a letter to Mr Lewis Cebedo, also dated 19 May 2020, a letter to the Court from Mr John Talbot , being a godfather of the offender, dated 20 May 2020, a letter to the Court from one of the offender's younger step‑sisters, Jacqueline Winslade, dated 27 May 2020.
In addition, although not prepared for this matter and being part of Exhibit 1 is all the documentation in relation to the breaches of the s 9 bond and the s 12 suspended sentence. That includes, apart from the court attendance notices, the paperwork from before the magistrate and further information as to there being a Pre‑Sentence Report for the Court date of 8 November 2017 in relation to what were the three offences of drive motor vehicle while licence suspended and armed with intent to commit indictable offence and common assault, dated 30 October 2017, under the hand of Jal Daljeet Arora, Community Corrections Officer, and the relevant fact sheet to which I have already referred when commencing these remarks. A further document headed, "Breach of Good Behaviour Bond", under the hand of Patti Hammond, Community Corrections Officer at Blacktown Community Corrections office, dated 25 January 2018 in relation to an application that the offender be brought back to court in respect of his breach of the s 9 bond and the s 12 suspended sentence previously referred to. Subjective matters are drawn from that material
He was born in Sydney and is the second of four siblings, having one older brother and two younger sisters. His parents divorced when he was approximately three, and he remained living with his mother although he saw his father on a fortnightly weekend basis. He states that his father often physically beat him and that they continued to have an argumentative relationship even after the divorce. His father was a Commander in the Navy and now retired. His mother had worked for a security firm and the family was financially sound.
He claims that he was significantly physically abused under his father's care, stating that on one occasion his father stabbed him in the head with a fork when he was eight, and rubbed mineral turps in his eyes when he was 11. At the age of 14, he refused to further visit his father although five years later he reconnected with him, and has had some ongoing relationship with him since that time, even living with him for a period of time when he was around the age of 20. Mr Awit's report includes the following, "his father denied any wrongdoing to him".
Each of his parents have had a number of further relationships and he informed the psychologist that one of his stepbrothers had sexually molested him when he was between the ages of eight and 11, although he had not reported it until recently reporting it to his mother. He attended the Mary Immaculate Primary School from Kindergarten to Year 6, continuing on to St Andrews College from Year 7 to Year 9. He was however asked to leave due to fighting. After Year 9, he went to two further schools to complete Year 10 without success and then tried to complete it at TAFE. The first school he had attended was one he was asked to leave for an unspecified reason, and the second school and TAFE he simply decided to stop attending.
He then moved to Canberra to live with his father for a period of time, and he finished a Year 10 equivalent and then enrolled in an online university course in behavioural studies but only completed half of the degree before discontinuing. He was first employed in 2010 at the age of 20, working in a bottle shop for one and a half years. Following that, he became the manager of a chicken shop for one and a half years. From 2014 to 2016 he apparently worked as a manager for a Domain store in Penrith. He has not been employed since that time. As to being a manager for a Domain store, I would assume that what he is referring to is being, if a manager, only the manager for a particular department of the store rather than the whole store, in the light of his lack of education and lack of specific training. I note that no reference has been provided from any past employer.
From the age of 14 to 19, he consumed excessive amounts of alcohol on a daily basis, or nearly daily basis. At the age of 19, he was arrested in the city due to a fight which appears as a charge of affray on his criminal history. He said he was intoxicated at the time and that as a result of this, he decided that he had to change his life. The affray was in 2009. He had before that time been before the Coven Children's Court for an offence of possess prohibited drug, which was dismissed with a caution, the offence occurring in December 2004. There is at least a reasonable lack of offending between the affray offence for which he was dealt with in April 2010 and the offending that I have previously referred to, which was the subject of the s 9 and s 12 matters.
He also advised the psychologist that he had commenced smoking cannabis and ice when he was 14, and cannabis on a daily basis, and while the use of ice started off on the basis of every couple of days, it moved to an everyday habit. He claims to have ceased using any illicit substances since entering gaol on 28 January 2018. I note that the custodial history contains no reference to any breach of prison regulations, and I accept that he has managed to stay off prohibited drugs or drugs not prescribed for him while in custody. It has been frequently said by prisoners that it is just as easy to obtain prohibited drugs or drugs not prescribed for them while in custody as it is in the outside community, and I have no difficulty in accepting that they are generally available although COVID‑19 may be placing some restriction on that availability.
He informed the psychologist that now that he has had over two years in prison to reflect on his life, he is not the same person who went into gaol and that gaol had "saved him" and "after having everything taken away from him, and having a son that he doesn't know, he does not want to make any more mistakes".
In 2014, he married Ms Jessica Impas. The marriage was terminated in 2016. According to him, while married, his drug use had been light but after the end of the marriage he relapsed significantly. The Sentence Assessment Report indicates that according to both he and his family, that following the end of that relationship, his life "fell apart".
While in custody he has seen his son, born approximately two months after he entered custody, on only two occasions, once when the child was six months of age, and again when the child was nine months of age. As I understand it, on each of those occasions the child was taken to the prison by the offender's sister so that he could see the child. Since ceasing his employment with the furniture retailer, Domain, he has existed on NewStart benefits up until the time of his arrest.
The breach matters indicate that he had started a further relationship at least it would seem, in late 2016 or early 2017, with April Araullo. The offending against her occurred on 22 February 2017. However by March 2017 he had commenced a new relationship with Ms Cebedo, and she fell pregnant in June 2017, accounting for why she was eight months' pregnant at the time of the offending.
Mr Awit diagnosed the offender as suffering from a general anxiety disorder and a major depressive disorder as well as a substance use disorder of a severe nature, but being in what is referred to as early remission, obviously while in custody. Mr Awit opined that there was a psychological link between Mr Winslade's condition and the offences before the Court:
"The writer is of the professional opinion that this psychological link stems from Mr Winslade's impaired decision‑making ability at the time. Mr Winslade advised that he has often made quick impulsive decisions that have led to a number of consequences."
It is difficult to assess the reliability of Mr Awit's opinion as the offender provided to him a story about what had happened which is not consistent with the agreed facts. The story provided was as follows:
"Mr Winslade advised that he was holding all the guns for a friend. He advised that they had been in his possession for seven to eight months. He even advised that some were rusted. Mr Winslade advised that he would always play with his partner's child and it was an accident that he shot him in the face with the nerf gun. Mr Winslade advised that he felt bad when this happened. He advised that when Ms Cebedo went into the bedroom with her child, he did not want to be alone with her friend (Ms Elisha Delos Reyes). He advised at the time of the incident Ms Reyes was blind drunk. Mr Winslade advised that he was already agitated on the day due to an eviction notice that was served two days earlier. Mr Winslade advised that the eviction notice was served due to Mr Lewis Cebedo's cat residing in the residence. Mr Winslade advised that when he followed Ms Cebedo into the bedroom, they started arguing in relation to the eviction and her intoxicated friend being present. Mr Winslade advised that when Mr Cebedo came in, he told him to leave and when he refused, he became agitated and things got out of hand. Mr Winslade advised that at no time did he ever have a desire to discharge any of the weapons. He advised that he acted impulsively and is remorseful in relation to his behaviour."
The offender also gave evidence on sentence. I did not find him to be an impressive witness. In my view, he was dissembling on occasions, seeking to undermine or diminish the seriousness of his offending, just as he endeavoured in the version given to Mr Awit to suggest that there were external reasons arising from other persons that were the cause of his conduct, rather than him being responsible for himself and conducting himself in a significantly serious fashion.
He was asked in cross‑examination to name the friend he claimed to the psychologist he had received the weapons and ammunition from, and provided a first name but would not provide a surname in the circumstances where he said that the person who had provided them to him was deceased. Even when it was indicated to him that inevitably the Crown would make a submission because he refused to name the supposedly deceased person by surname, that little faith could be put in his evidence, he still refused to provide the surname, and even in the circumstances where the Court was closed other than to the parties, his mother and one elderly male gentleman who was present, and who I am not aware of the connection in respect of, but who is presumably either his father or Mr Talbot.
As the matter later progressed, and when submissions were being made, without being asked in a question or it being relevant, he decided to introduce a surname for the deceased person, of course in circumstances knowing where the Crown would never be able to check on anything that he had said. He also gave evidence that when he obtained the shotgun in the bedroom, he had to first assemble it from its three dissembled parts. That is entirely, in my view, contradicted by the facts, which simply state that he obtained it from where it was.
I have no doubt that if he had had to assemble it from three separate parts, both Isabella Cebedo and Lewis Cebedo would have provided that information to the police in their statements, but the facts to which he has agreed are simply that he obtained the shotgun, and in my view, it was obtained in an assembled state. In fact, as I indicated during the submissions, in my view, it would be worse for him in terms of seriousness if he had first assembled it showing a greater degree of pre‑meditation than simply picking up a shotgun that was already assembled and then loading it. However, it reflects on the veracity of his statements to the Court and also to Mr Awit, who I note was at painstaking repetition, determined to indicate that the offender had indicated genuine remorse and contrition on numerous occasions during the course of his report.
If the weapons had been in the offender's possession for seven to eight months, then he had transferred them from one set of premises where he was living to the current set of premises where he was living. There was no apparent need for him to retain them. I note that Mr Awit opines that the offender's risk of re‑offending will continue to reduce with ongoing psychological intervention and that with such intervention and treatment, his condition should improve considerably. He outlines a treatment plan.
All of the matters referred to, said to be part of a plan for when he was released from prison - being fortnightly psychological sessions, cognitive behaviour therapy, attend at Narcotics Anonymous on a weekly basis and if he relapsed, to enter into a suitable drug rehabilitation program, to be provided with stress reducing techniques, and otherwise to receive problem solving skills - all of those things, the writer proposed to provide as part of his treatment plan for the offender after he was released from prison.
On the other hand, the Sentence Assessment Report indicates:
"Mr Winslade has commented that he is willing to be supervised and assessed for relevant intervention programs. However he added that he now believed he had no issues requiring to be addressed."
He was assessed by Christopher Baker as being a medium to high risk of re-offending, which in my view is an appropriate assessment, particularly having regard to the breaches of the s 9 and s 12 matters. Although it is of course not the offender's fault, I note that in relation to the treatment plan suggested as being in effect essential by Mr Awit, all of which is to be provided after he is released from prison, that it is never likely to occur because it would require the offender to have access to significant funds in order to pay Mr Awit for his services on a regular basis.
And of course in relation to drug rehabilitation and Narcotics Anonymous, he now believes that he is free of those problems because he has been able to abstain while in custody. That is of course ignoring the fact that he has in the past at least reduced his consumption while married, only to return to heavier consumption at times of stress.
Contrary to the assertion of Mr Awit, I am unable to find that the offender's early life, while still to be taken into account, operates to bring him, as submitted by Mr Shukoor, within the principles of Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 at 40. That is, that because of any significantly deleterious early upbringing, his moral culpability is reduced. In my view he does not fall within the parameters referred to in Bugmy or Fernando. In my view, it is evident that the offender clearly has a problem with anger management, whether affected by prohibited drugs or not. There is no suggestion that at the time of these offences he was in fact affected by prohibited drugs, and the search of the premises by the police did not locate any prohibited drugs.
As to remorse and contrition, the progress of a matter through the Courts is always relevant to look at in relation to whether there is genuine remorse or contrition. I have already referred to the progress of this matter by way of the first and second trial and a contested facts hearing. The final pleas of guilty were entered on 21 January 2020; that is, almost two years after the offending events. He was continuing at least until 27 June 2019 to claim that he did not commit the offences that he then pleaded to, and continuing to claim that he did not commit the further offences that he eventually pleaded guilty to on 21 January 2020. That is, in my view, entirely inconsistent with the demonstration of remorse or contrition by the offender up until the entry of the final pleas on 21 January 2020.
Since that time, of course, he has seen Mr Awit on 26 May 2020 or shortly prior because that is the date of the report and there is no reference in the report to when he was in fact in consultation with the offender, and Mr Awit in his report, though frequently referring to the offender as stating that he was remorseful and contrite, simply refers to him as expressing shame and remorse and having had a lot of time, that is two years, to reflect. It is difficult from Mr Awit's report to determine what it is that the offender actually said to Mr Awit that Mr Awit interpreted as an expression to him of remorse or contrition, rather than simply an assertion that he was remorseful and contrite.
There is of course other information before the Court as to remorse and contrition. The offender's letter to the Court is relevant, being an unsigned letter of 16 April 2020. It is an eloquent detailing of matters relevant to remorse and contrition, and in addition he has written letters of apology to Ms Isabella Cebedo and Mr Lewis Cebedo. In the letters to them, apart from apologising and indicating his serious regret for his actions, he claimed to be not in right state of mind as he was struggling from a severe alcohol and ice addiction. There is of course no evidence before the Court that at the time of the offending he was affected by either ice or alcohol, or even the consequences of withdrawing from either of those substances. He otherwise in effect claims to have decided to change his life and to have done so since going into custody. If he was in fact genuinely remorseful and contrite from the outset in relation to what was overwhelming evidence, one might have expected that he would have entered pleas of guilty at a very early time, even if not participating in an electronically recorded interview and confessing.
Other material has been provided relevant to remorse and contrition, that being the letter from Mr Talbot. Mr Talbot is a 74 year old company secretary, and at least for the last 20 years the belated godfather of the offender. I say "belated" because normally godfathers become godfathers on birth rather than what must have been when he was about 10 or 11 years of age, when Mr Talbot first met him. I have taken into account Mr Talbot's reference, and I note that in part he seems to hold him in high opinion because at the age of 16 he demonstrated some exceptional musical talent, and that Mr Talbot's expectation of him was that he would make a success of his life. He states that the potential is still there but it is latent and has been sabotaged by some of the negative features that remain to be addressed in his character, although he does not particularly state the negative features that he sees. He states,
"I remain of the view that with application, focus and professional guidance in addressing those negative character features, Aaron can still be a positive member of society. I understand the nature and seriousness of the charges that Aaron is facing, that he will be receiving significant punishment for his actions."
The offender's younger stepsister, who is some 25 years of age, also provided a reference. She speaks about him having always made a continuous effort to be present in her life and to contribute to her upbringing and cites a number of things that he did for her, such as driving her to high school and helping her to choose and purchase her first vehicle or her first laptop. She states:
"When Aaron told me what had happened, I was shocked and upset, however I could see that he was ashamed and disappointed at himself. In the conversations we have had he has expressed his remorse and also the sadness he continually feels that his actions have caused him to be absent in his son, Lucas's life...My family and I love Aaron and will always support him and wish him the best outcome for his case."
I note in relation to any expression of remorse or contrition to her, that if it was happening for any substantial time before he entered pleas of guilty to the last outstanding charges, it could only have been effectively since January 2020. I am very sceptical about the offender's expressions of remorse and contrition as referred to by others and as referred to by him in his letter to the Court. A letter to the Court is of course very easy to write. It is almost never capable of being cross‑examined on, although in these circumstances, the offender gave evidence and could have been cross‑examined on it, but as to remorse and contrition, there is generally little that the Crown has except the circumstances of the offending and such issues as the history of the matter. While I am entirely sceptical as to whether the offender is in fact genuinely remorseful and contrite, I will give him the benefit of finding that he is.
As to the risk of re‑offending and the risk of rehabilitation, I note the offender's limited past criminal offending, although in April 2017, he was charged with an offence of possessing ammunition without holding a licence, permit or authority. That was of course before being found in possession of these weapons and ammunition as referred to in the facts. He was dealt with for that offence on 24 April 2018, and that is approximately three months after he had been arrested and was in custody in respect of these matters. The sentence was a s 10A conviction with no other penalty, which is perhaps not unusual in the circumstances of the information that must have been before the magistrate as to his being in custody for these matters, and also it was probably before the magistrate that there was an issue in relation to the breach of the s 9 bond and the s 12 suspended sentence. As I have previously indicated, I accept the opinion stated by Mr Baker from Community Corrections, that the offender is in the circumstances, a medium to high risk of re‑offending according to the level of service inventory.
As to rehabilitation, he is now almost 30 years of age. His significant offending occurred when he was approximately 27 years of age and relevant like offending, as referred to in respect of the s 9 bond and the s 12 suspended sentence, only occurring in February 2017.
It is difficult to understand why someone who had previously been charged with possessing ammunition, although not yet dealt with for it, and being the subject of a s 9 bond of 18 months for common assault, and a suspended sentence of eight months for being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence, intimidation, and being armed with a knife, why he would be so stupid as to be in possession of a series of shortened weapons and relevant ammunition including live ammunition.
There is no evidence that the offender used any of the seized offending items rather than simply having them in his possession. It is possible that it was because of what was said in the psychological report that he had previously in relation to his use of prohibited drugs over the years been, "beaten and held up at gunpoint, knifepoint and being robbed".
Also in relation to the question of whether the principles of Bugmy were appropriate is the fact that the offender had been capable of maintaining steady and responsible employment, particularly between 2014 and 2016, as well as being married in that period. Of course that does not necessarily overcome an abusive upbringing, but in my view, it does help to indicate that his upbringing does not fall within the Bugmy standard or principles.
I intend to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence. I intend first of all to deal with the offences constituting the breach of the s 9 bond and the s 12 suspended sentence. In each case, the bond and the suspension is revoked.
In relation to the common assault on April Araullo, the indicative sentence is nine months' imprisonment.
In relation to the s 114(1)(a) charge of armed with intent to commit an indictable offence, intimidation, the sentence is eight months.
In respect of what I will refer to as Offence 1, s 61 common assault on Lewis Cebedo, the indicative sentence allowing as I have said for a 5% discount, is 11 months. In fact, I have rounded the sentence down to the next full month and it actually represents slightly over 7.5% discount and that applies to a number of the others. I will not repeat that.
As to what I have referred to as Offence 2, being s 7(1) Firearms Act, possess prohibited firearm, being the shortened Winchester ARMI Jager, not in working condition, the indicative sentence is one year. As that has a standard non‑parole period, having found special circumstances, the indicative non‑parole period will be eight months. So I have reduced the statutory relationship so that the non‑parole period represents two‑thirds of the total term.
As to Offence 3, being the first of the s 62(1)(b) possess firearm offences being the .4‑10 calibre Boito shortened shotgun, the indicative sentence is two years and ten months' imprisonment.
As to Offence 4, the second s 62(1)(b) possess firearm being the air rifle not being in operable condition, the indicative sentence is 11 months.
As to Offence 5, being the offence contrary to s 6(1) of the Explosives Act, he is convicted with no other penalty.
As to Offence 6, being a s 61 common assault of Lewis Cebedo for the second time, the indicative sentence is 11 months' imprisonment.
In relation to Offence 7, being the s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act of use offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence in respect of Isabella Cebedo, the indicative sentence is four years' imprisonment.
In relation to Offence 8, again s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act but in relation to Lewis Cebedo, the indicative sentence is three years, nine months.
In relation to Offence 9, being communicating with the endeavour to have Lewis Cebedo withhold truthful evidence in judicial proceedings, the indicative sentence is three years.
I have taken all of those matters into account. I have applied as I have said, a 5% discount to each of the matters and it will be evident in relation to some of them that the discount was in fact by way of rounding down to the next whole month slightly in excess of 7.5%.
The aggregate sentence, taking into account the principles of totality and proportionality, and the fact that there is a need for some accumulation in relation to offending of a different nature and in relation to offending at different times, I have also taken into account the additional aggravating circumstances as provided by s 21A(3) in determining the indicative sentences. Those are that he was on conditional liberty as a result of the s 9 bond and the s 12 suspended sentence at the time of this offending. That was in relation to all of the subsequent offending.
Further, that the offending occurred, apart from Offence 9, in the premises of the victims and in the presence of a child. I also note of course in that regard that in my view, Ms Cebedo was particularly vulnerable because she was then eight months' pregnant and even in the absence of any actual violence against her, the circumstances were such, in my view, that might have had serious consequences for her in respect of her as yet unborn child, arising from what I regard as the extreme fear and distress which must have been caused.
These reasons have taken at least twice the length of time that I anticipated. It was not an easy matter to resolve. Is there any significant matter that I have omitted or made a mistake in relation to?
NORMAN: Not from the Crown.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Madam Crown. Ms Boehm.
BOEHM: No issues arising, thank you.
HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you. Could we have Mr Winslade on sound? You've been able to hear us all the way through, I understand, Mr Winslade?
OFFENDER: Yes I have, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: We turned you off so that we wouldn't get the noise from the prison hospital which was either coming through the recording system there or coming through the door behind you, one way or the other.
OFFENDER: Okay, no problem.
HIS HONOUR: You understand the sentence that has been imposed?
OFFENDER: I understand, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: All right. Let me make it clear.
The sentence of six years with a four year non‑parole period will commence on 28 January 2018, which was the date you went into custody. Accordingly, the four year non‑parole period will expire on 27 January 2022. The balance of term is two years and the total sentence of six years will expire on 27 January 2024.
I take it, since you have now been in custody for two years, that you have some understanding of how sentences work.
OFFENDER: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: You will not automatically be released on 27 January 2022. It is matter for the authorities to determine whether you should be released on that date. Relevant to that will be how you have gone in prison in the meantime. So I suggest to you that you take advantage of every course that you could possibly do to increase your qualifications for when you are released and also to deal with any ongoing problems. It may be that you have managed to cease the use of prohibited drugs in custody, but it is the fact that prisoners are frequently tempted because prison is a fairly boring place, to return to using prohibited drugs for stimulation, and if you do that and you are detected, it will be a blot on your copybook and likely to affect whether you are released at the earliest opportunity.
If you are released on or about 27 January 2022, you will have approximately two years of supervision. I failed to refer in my reasons to the fact that the Pre‑Sentence Reports that were available, and I should have said that I cannot determine that you would not re‑offend because of the fact that you committed these offences while on the s 9 and the s 12 bond, and were already at risk of being brought before the Court for the breach of the good behaviour bond because of the report from Patti Hammond of 25 January 2018 - a report only three days before you committed these offences, which indicates that you had not been complying appropriately with supervision and had placed yourself out of contact.
Indeed, even the Pre‑Sentence Report from October 2017, indicates that you had ignored the request for consultation so that a Pre‑Sentence Report could be provided. It seems to me that none was ever provided because of your poor response, your failing to return telephone calls or respond to letters that provided dates for you to attend, your at least having on one occasion made an appointment and then failing to attend for that appointment. So in my view you are appropriately regarded as a medium to high risk of re‑offending because of that continuing disregard for what is actually designed to assist you by way of supervision.
So, Mr Winslade, you are now almost 30 years of age. You will be next month. You do not want to spend the rest of your life in the revolving door of the prison system. You need to take stock of your current position and do what you can to help yourself while you are in custody as well as when you are released on parole. You do continue to have family support and no doubt that will still be there for you. That concludes what I wish to say.
BOEHM: Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, Ms Boehm.
BOEHM: May I just ask that Mr Winslade remain in the AVL area so that I can speak with him on the phone?
HIS HONOUR: Yes, certainly and if you could just wait a minute, I will be and my associate will be out of the courtroom so you can have the privacy of the courtroom to do that in, and the Crown will depart. The officer will need to either come in, if you do not mind him being here or he would have come in at least when you are finished, to turn things off.
BOEHM: Yes thank you very much, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I will adjourn.
[3]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 21 September 2020