R v Tan (No.4) [2023] NSWDC 405

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tan (No.4) [2023] NSWDC 405 Hearing dates: 29 September 2023 Date of orders: 29 September 2023 Decision date: 29 September 2023 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraphs 8 - 11 Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – assessment of community services condition to community correction order Legislation Cited: Nil Cases Cited: R v Tan (No.3) [2023] NSWDC 298 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Sentence Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP) R Tan (Offender) Representation: Ms J Todhunter for the ODPP Mr D Stewart for the offender (counsel)

Solicitors: ODPP Ross Hill Solicitors for the offender File Number(s): 2021/00203497 Publication restriction: Non-publication order in relation to the complainant's name.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background 1. On 21 July 2023, after having indicated my inclination to order a community corrections order against this offender of 10 months' duration, I adjourned this sentencing proceeding. This was to enable a sentencing assessment report to be obtained which was directed to exploring whether a community services condition was appropriate as an additional condition to such order. My remarks on sentence were published on Caselaw (R v Tan (No.3) [2023] NSWDC 298). 2. A sentencing assessment report (SAR) has since been received. It was prepared by the Campbelltown Community Corrections Officer. Annexed to that report is an additional case note report prepared by a psychologist of the Department of Corrective Services. 3. The SAR does, indeed, feature the officer's opinion that a community services condition is appropriate and nominated a figure (up to 22.5) for hours of work for each month of the order. This was after the officer's consultation with the CNSW Psychologist, amongst other things. The officer took the opportunity, further, to opine that the offender presented as a low risk of reoffending according to the LSI-R scale. The corrections officer, plainly influenced by the recommendation of the CNSW psychologist, also indicated her intention to implement a particular supervision plan. Specifically, the officer recommended that the Court order that the offender comply with a CNSW psychology assessment and recommended treatment for as long as was deemed necessary by that service. 4. The CNSW psychologist, Mr Nicholls, indicated that the nature of the offence was such that it was not amenable for any assessment of the risk of reoffending on the Static 99R scale. He indicated that a comprehensive psychological assessment was warranted for the purpose of helping to clarify dynamic risk factors pertaining to the offence and appropriate treatment options. Specifically, and on the premise the offender receives a community sentence, the psychologist envisaged that the offender may be referred to an external community -based psychologist to address any such risk factors. 5. Subsequent to the report, the Crown urged me to adopt the recommendations in the SAR. Counsel for the offender, on the other hand, effectively asked me to reconsider my ruling on 21 July 2023, reprising his contention that no further penalty upon the offender should be imposed. 6. I disagree. That is especially so in the light of the psychologist's view that further risk assessment would be helpful. 7. It is appropriate for me to confirm the sentencing option foreshadowed and supplement it to a degree.