R v Lachlan Houison [2020] NSWDC 325

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lachlan Houison [2020] NSWDC 325 Hearing dates: 1 August 2019, 6 December 2019, 25 February 2020, 23 June 2020 Date of orders: 23 June 2020 Decision date: 23 June 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Wilson SC DCJ Decision: 2 year Intensive Corrections Order imposed. Decision at [87] – [92] Catchwords: CRIME – Sentencing – s11 bail – successful rehabilitation – young Offender – remorse – reduced risk of reoffending – intensive corrections order Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 NSW ss 97(1), 192E(1)(A), 527C(1)(A) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss NSW 3A, 21A(2)(o), 32 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 NSW ss 15, 16 Cases Cited: Cummins v R [2019] NSWCCA 163 Liao v R [2007] NSWCCA 132 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Mobbs [2005] NSWCCA 371 Re Attorney General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Texts Cited: None Category: Sentence Parties: Mr Lachlan Houison (Offender) Regina (ODPP) Representation: Solicitors: Mr J Staples (Crown) Mr G Stewart (Offender) File Number(s): 2018/236920; 2018/270350; 2018/278444 Publication restriction: None

Judgment

INTRODUCTION 1. These proceedings have been before me on 3 prior occasions (1 August 2019, 6 December 2019, and 25 February 2020). The reason for the delay in sentence was to facilitate the Offender's continued participation in rehabilitation programs directed to treating him for his addiction to alcohol and other drugs, before determining whether the Offender should serve his sentence in full-time custody or by way of Intensive Corrections Order in the community. 2. The Offender, Lachlan Houison, appears for sentence today on a single charge of robbery with an offensive weapon in breach of section 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW. There is no doubt that this is a serious charge which would commonly result in full-time custody. The seriousness of the offending is reflected by the maximum penalty, that being a period of 20 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. The maximum penalty is a guidepost to sentence, representing the attitude of the community, through Parliament, towards the seriousness of the offending. 3. The Offender was born 25 July 1997 and is soon to be 23 years of age. 4. He committed the offence, the subject of this sentence, on 6 September 2018. He was arrested on 11 September 2018. 5. Shortly before the subject offending, the Offender was involved in the commission of other offences, being H number ending 221 (goods in custody and dishonestly obtaining property by deception), and H number ending 977 (alter prescription which included a prohibited drug and possess a forged prescription). Those charges have now been placed on 2 Form 1 documents and attached to the principal charge for sentence. The Offender has admitted guilt in relation to those charges and asked me to take into account pursuant to section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ('the CSP Act'). 6. By signing the Certificates to those documents, I confirm that I have taken those charges, being (Form 1 charges) into account in sentencing for the principal charge. The charges on the Form 1 are to be taken into account with a view to increasing the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for the principal sequence. The court does so by giving greater weight to two elements which are always material in the sentencing process. The first is the need for personal deterrence, and the second is the community's entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences: Re Attorney General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 at [65]. 7. The first Form 1 attaches charges, arising out of the events which occurred on 13 July 2018 at Caringbah. The Court Attendance Notice alleged that the Offender: did have in his actual possession a forged prescription which included a prohibited drug, Oxazepam, the accused knowing the prescription to have been forged. 1. That gave rise to 2 criminal charges in breach of sections 15 and 16(b) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The first being alter a prescription which includes a prohibited drug, and the second being in possession of a forged prescription. The pharmacist to whom it was presented contacted the doctor who apparently prescribed the medication, the latter confirming that she had not issued the prescription. Apparently, she had prescription pads stolen from her practice earlier in the year. 2. The second Form 1 also attaches to charges arising out of the events which occurred on 1 August 2018 at Caringbah. The Offender was charged that, in breach of section 527C(1)(a) of the Crimes Act he had goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen. The second charge was dishonestly obtaining property by deception in contravention of section 192E(1)(A) of the Crimes Act. Police located a is a card in the wallet of the accused in the name of Tarnia Quigley. A police check revealed a recent report of lost property and an allegation of fraudulent transactions. The 3 transactions ranged in value from $2 to $44.99. The total was less than $100. 3. In respect of those four charges, the Offender has indicated his guilt and has asked that I have regard to those charges when sentencing him in respect of the principal charge, robbery with an offensive weapon. 4. For the present matter, the Offender was committed for sentence from the Downing Centre Local Court on 28 March 2019. He entered a guilty plea at an early time entitling him to a discount in sentence of 25%, representing the utilitarian value of that plea.