District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Matthew MOORE [2012] NSWDC 295 Decision date: 23 November 2012 Before: Cogswell SC DCJ Decision: For offence of robbery in company - sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months, non-parole period of 16 months. For common assault under s 166(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - convicted, order directing offender enter into a good behaviour for 3 months. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offence - robbery in company - vulnerable victims - two 15 year old boys at train station - offender carrying baseball bat - one victim forced onto train tracks to retrieve property. Sentence - relevant factors - gravity of offence - middle of range of objective seriousness - response to charges - admissions to police - plea of guilty at earliest opportunity - 25% discount - evidence of remorse - acknowledged fault in pre sentence report - prior criminality - several offences dealt with by Children's Court including two aggravated robberies - greater emphasis on specific deterrence - nature and circumstances of offender - suffering psychotic illness at time offence committed - offences related to substance abuse - risk of re-offending and prospects of rehabilitation dependant on addressing drug addiction - addiction does not reduce moral culpability - offender aware of effect on his behaviour of combining drugs and alcohol - mental illness - inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence - custody weighs heavily - full time custody reflects need for protection against violence when dependant on public transport. Sentencing procedure - sentencing guidelines - most Henry factors present - special circumstances found - young age, first time in adult custody, need for rehabilitation and for extensive period of residential rehabilitation - victim impact statement - flashbacks. Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 166(1)(b). Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act) 1999, s 9, s 50 Cases Cited: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346. R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228. Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Matthew Martin Moore (Offender) Representation: Counsel: B P Hancock (Offender) Solicitor: C Summerfield, Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) File Number(s): DC 2012/156907 REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1Matthew Moore is a young man with a bad criminal law track record. When he mixes illegal drugs and alcohol with his unstable mental condition he becomes very aggressive. He did this earlier this year and held up two teenagers at a train station and this has resulted in him being charged with a crime known as robbery in company. 2He is before me today for sentencing for that crime and for another related assault. Robbery in company is regarded as a serious offence by the New South Wales Parliament. This is indicated by the fact that Parliament has fixed a maximum of 20 years imprisonment to the crime. 3In sentencing anyone a judge needs to say something about what happened to bring about the charges and also something about the offender so that both the events that made up the crime and the personal circumstances of the offender are put into the mix in the sentence which is imposed. 4This case is an example of where the mix is important because there are some particularly nasty aspects about the offence and there are also some significant aspects about Mr Moore's own personal history. 5First I should say something about what resulted in these charges. Matthew Moore, who is still only 20, was drinking with a man named Scott Wright on Saturday 18 February 2012. He had also been taking a mixture of illegal drugs including amphetamines. At some stage Mr Moore got upset because he found that $100 was missing from where he lived. He got angry and he and Scott Wright left to find the culprit. 6They turned up at Kingswood Railway Station at about 8:50pm that night. They walked on to one of the platforms. Scott Wright was holding onto a baseball bat. By that time, I should add, it seems that Matthew Moore had abandoned the idea of looking for the person he thought had stolen the money. They were accompanied by another man who is not identified. That man waited near the exit. Matthew Moore and Scott Wright went towards two teenage boys who were on the platform. As they approached the two boys Scott Wright passed the baseball bat to Matthew Moore. 7What happened next is described in what are called the District Court facts which are contained in exhibit A and I will quote selectively from that. When they saw the baseball bat, understandably "both victims became fearful for their safety". Matthew Moore said "Put the money on the floor. Give it to us." One of the boys removed his watch and put it on the platform. He then dropped his mobile phone on to the platform but it bounced on to the tracks. What Mr Moore then did was to tell that boy to "get on to the track and retrieve the mobile phone". The boy got on to the tracks and put the phone back on to the platform. Then both Mr Wright and Mr Moore walked away and left the platform with what they had stolen. 8There is also included in exhibit A statements from the two boys. The boy who had the phone said that he had had it since the beginning of the previous year and it was worth about $600. He then goes on to say that when he got onto the track and had put the phone onto the platform he "couldn't get back up off the tracks". He then saw the men walk away. He still "couldn't jump back off the tracks, so I had to cross the tracks and walk a short distance before I found a ladder, which I could climb back up to the other platform". 9The police arrived a short time later and he reported what happened. Understandably he said that during the whole incident he was "really afraid". He thought that they were going to hit them with the baseball bat. When he was on the tracks he was "afraid that I was going to get hit by a train. Since that's happened I get flashbacks and think about the situation a lot". 10The other boy described the same incident and said that he "felt scared because they had a metal bat. I thought that they could have killed us with it. That was the first thing that came to my head, 'Was I going to die'. I think about what happened every day." 11It was not until 16 May 2012 that Matthew Moore was arrested and he then was interviewed and made what the District Court facts call full and frank admissions to his involvement in the offence. He informed the police that he was affected by intoxicating liquor and amphetamines at the time of the robbery. 12I have been supplied with a transcript of the interview which Matthew Moore gave to the police. He was frank about what he had done in committing this offence and at one stage admitted that when he and the others saw the two boys on the platform one of the men said "Let's go bash them ones, yeah. We should go bash them and get some anger out". 13Mr Moore admitted that he was being aggressive. He also said that when he was "under the influence I'm a whole different person". He said this mostly happens when he is drinking wine and he acknowledged that he gets "very aggressive on alcohol. That's why I don't like to drink". He said that he was quite shocked when he found out that the boys were only 15. 14As a result of what he did he was charged with the robbery in company and also charged with a common assault to the other boy brought about by the other boy's fear which was instilled by being approached with the baseball bat. That offence has been made the subject of a related offence under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and I will deal with it in due course. 15Turning to matters which are personal to Matthew Moore, a judge has to first look at an offender's criminal record. In Matthew Moore's case for a 20 year old it is a bad criminal record. He has a history of being convicted for assaults, break and enter, assaulting and resisting police officers and, significantly, two offences of aggravated robbery. These were all committed when he was under 18 and therefore were dealt with in the Children's Court. In addition he has been charged with offences of shoplifting, larceny and goods in custody. 16The most serious of the offences were the two aggravated robberies and for those offences the Magistrate made control orders which is in effect custody for a young person. It is not surprising that the Magistrate did this when the facts of what happened on those two previous occasions are taken into account. They were tendered as part of the evidence for me to take into account. 17The offences occurred a day apart in June 2009 and Matthew Moore and another young man laid in wait for people in a park. On one occasion they picked on a 54 year old woman who was described as small in stature. Matthew Moore walked behind her quickly which startled her. She began to run, Matthew Moore pursued her and grabbed her handbag which was over her shoulder. She struggled. Matthew Moore then swung the victim violently to and fro. The straps were broken. He hit her several times on the face. He hit her at least once when she was on the ground. They got away with her handbag. 18The following day they picked on a boy who was 15 years old and described again as having a "slight" frame. They approached him and asked for money. He declined and then what happened is that he was "viciously struck in the face numerous times" by Matthew Moore. They then got away with his wallet and with money in the wallet. The victim of that offence "suffered a significant laceration below his left eye due to the eye glasses he was wearing being smashed into his skin". 19I do not refer to the details of those offences to aggravate at all what happened on this occasion but to indicate that two of the offences which are on Matthew Moore's criminal record are for violent robberies and this is a factor for me to take into account in sentencing him now. It not only deprives him of his claim to any leniency because of having no previous record but in my opinion it requires me to place more emphasis on deterring Matthew Moore from committing these sorts of offences. 20I now turn to some of the factors which are relevant to Matthew Moore's own personal background and mental state. Ms C. Summerfield who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions tendered a pre sentence report which was dated 15 November 2012. It is more extensive than the usual pre sentence reports. It summarises its conclusions in the following terms: "Mr Moore is a 20 year old man, who presented as a quickly spoken individual and appeared to be quite forthright during the preparation of this report. For such a young man the offender already has an unenviable criminal history, which comprises of various offences similar in nature to the one currently before the court. By all accounts he has exhibited a number of problematic, behavioural issues from a very young age, which not only impacted on his familial relationships, but also his educational opportunities. He described an event in his early adolescence as being the precipitating factor to his initial illicit substance use and involvement in anti-social and criminal behaviours. It is likely that at least some of these behavioural issues stem from what his medical practitioner described as 'schizoid personality' traits, and it is positive that the offender reported that his current regime of medication is assisting him in managing his mental health status and has advised he is willing to maintain compliance. There is little doubt that any mental health condition is negatively impacted by any illicit substance use and the offender will need to work toward long-term abstinence. A breakdown in his relationship 12 months ago and the circumstances surrounding this appear to have been a further catalyst for the offender to retreat into the world of illicit drug use as a mechanism for coping with a difficult person situation. It is considered that he will need to undertake drug and alcohol counselling to assist him in again achieving abstinence, which it is anticipated may in turn see a stabilisation in his life and it is positive that he has verbalised his willingness to do the same." 21The references to the event early in his adolescence and to the circumstances surrounding the breakdown in his relationship mean this. Matthew Moore described his first childhood memory as being when he was 11 and it concerned the death of his 16 year old cousin by way of a drug overdose. He told the probation officer that he was "significantly affected by this death and identified this as being the point at which his life started to deteriorate; he rebelled against any form of authority figure; particularly his mother; commenced illicit substance use; started associating with a negative peer group; and engaging in anti-social and criminal behaviours." 22His mother reported that she recollected Matthew's behaviour deteriorating since that event. 23His background he had otherwise described as having little recollection about but he did not think that he was subjected to any physical or psychological abuse. 24The circumstances precipitating the break-up of relationship are picked up by the author of the report when she takes her history. Until he was 14 Matthew Moore had believed that his step-father was his biological father but it was discovered through testing that this person was not his biological father. He said that that "hurt a little" but until about a year ago he continued to consider him as his father. But about 12 months ago the author of the report records that "his step-father commenced a relationship with the offender's partner of 2 years". That means that Matthew has ceased having contact with his step-father and Matthew "indicated that the loss of this relationship saw him continue in a further downward spiral in terms of his lifestyle". His mother confirmed that that relationship had indeed occurred and that it had a distinct negative impact on her son. 25Matthew Moore apparently started drinking when he was 15 and tried cannabis even earlier than that and by 15 was taking amphetamines twice a week. He increased the amount and extent of his illegal drug use when the relationship broke down. He has been unsuccessful in previous efforts to engage in a program which might assist him. 26The information in that report is supplemented by a report of the Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr Olav Nielssen dated 3 November 2012 and some other material which were tendered by Mr B. P. Hancock of counsel who appears for Matthew Moore. Significantly Dr Nielssen, an experienced Forensic Psychiatrist, diagnosed four disorders. The first was obvious and is a substance dependence and abuse disorder. The second is significant and is described as a substance induced psychotic illness. The third is a conduct disorder, which is hardly surprising. The fourth is a possible impulse control disorder. 27Dr Nielssen also expressed the opinion that Matthew Moore was affected by symptoms of the psychotic illness around the time of the offence. He also expressed the opinion that despite what he described as Matthew Moore's "array of psychological problems", his offences "appear to be directly related to substance abuse and his prospects for rehabilitation would appear to be directly related to his successful participation in long term drug rehabilitation." 28Mr Hancock also tendered a report from an alcohol and other drug worker with the Department of Corrective Services. It noted that Matthew Moore "did express his willingness to enter and participate in a long term community based residential rehabilitation program. Also, if this was not an option, he was also willing to participate in custody based interventions to address his offending behaviour." 29Matthew Moore has been assessed as suitable and placed on a waiting list at a residential drug rehabilitation program. However that is community based. 30It can be seen that sentencing Matthew Moore presents complications beyond the mere description of the seriousness of his offending behaviour. His personal background, his behavioural problems, his psychiatric condition and his drug taking together with his age as well mean that some accommodation needs to be made for giving him an opportunity to, as Dr Nielssen said, "get himself off the drug habit which is complicating his medical condition and contributing to his criminal behaviour." 31In her helpful written submissions Ms Summerfield acknowledged that Matthew Moore's plea of guilty was at the earliest available opportunity. This means that in due course I will reduce a sentence I might otherwise have imposed by 25 per cent because of the practical contribution that his pleading guilty has made to shortening the Court lists and the administration of Justice. 32Ms Summerfield referred to the guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346. She went through the various factors which the Court of Criminal Appeal took into account in fixing a guideline which was a head sentence of 4 to 5 years full term after an allowance of 10 per cent for a late plea. 33As she pointed out, one of the factors was that an offender would have little or no criminal history. But in this case Mr Moore has a significant criminal history. Most, if not all, of the factors coincide with Mr Moore's case except that he entered an early plea of guilty which should attract, as I said, 25 per cent. I do regard both victims as being vulnerable for the reasons that Ms Summerfield explains, as 15 year old boys. They were "dependent upon public transport" to make their way around. They relied upon "the good will of community members to be able to maintain" their personal safety "and not be put in fear, be humiliated and robbed." 34Ms Summerfield submitted that the offence fell within the middle of the range for these kinds of crimes but towards the lower end of that category. 35Ms Summerfield acknowledged that Matthew Moore's prospects of re-offending depend of course upon him dealing with his drug addiction and, in my opinion, so do his prospects of rehabilitation. There is some evidence of remorse and contrition. He acknowledged that it was his fault in the pre sentence report. Ms Summerfield also pointed out his awareness that he was prone to acting aggressively when he combined alcohol and the drugs that he took. I accept her submission that his drug and alcohol addiction should not be taken into account to reduce his moral culpability because of that factor. 36Ms Summerfield drew my attention to the statistics for sentencing for this offence made available by the Judicial Commission as well as helpfully some cases from the Public Defender Office Sentencing Table. She emphasised the importance of "endorsing a clear message to the public that robbery by young people, of people in the community who are simply engaging in the necessary aspects of their daily life, such as the victim who was relying upon public transport as his mode of transport, is not to be tolerated. And sentences of full time custody are warranted to reflect the community's need for protection against such acts of violence." 37Her submissions were made in respect of the offence of robbery in company on one of the boys. 38Mr Hancock realistically acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the significance of his client's record. He pointed to the relevance of his client's age. He was 20 when he committed the offences and is still 20 years old. This is the first time Matthew Moore has been in adult custody. Mr Hancock pointed out that his client was in protection because of the acts of other prisoners and is likely to remain there. He reminded me of what the Court of Criminal Appeal had said about mental illness in its decision of R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228, and I will return to that shortly. 39He argued that there were special circumstances for adjusting the normal ratio between the non-parole period and the full term of any sentence. They were his client's need for rehabilitation and his client's young age as well as his first time in custody. Ms Summerfield also realistically acknowledged that there were special circumstances for adjusting that ratio and that an extensive period of residential rehabilitation whilst on parole would be warranted. 40Matthew Moore has been in custody since he was arrested on 16 May 2012 and Ms Summerfield argued that the time he has spent to date is not sufficient given the seriousness of the offence and his prior convictions. I agree with that submission which must be right. The problematic background that Matthew Moore has - particularly regarding the two events that seem to aggravate his developing alcohol problem and his mental health - concern me. As I have said, Dr Nielssen has specifically diagnosed a psychotic illness which was affecting Matthew Moore at the time of the offences. 41Sperling J in R v Hemsley - with whom Dowd J agreed - pointed out at [33] and following that "an offender's mental illness may be relevant in three ways. First the mental illness may contribute to the commission of the offence in a material way, it may reduce the moral culpability of the offender. There may not be the same call for denunciation and punishment." 42I can appreciate the force of that observation but in this case Matthew Moore knew very well how a combination of drugs and alcohol would affect his behaviour. I put little weight on that factor. 43"Mental illness", Sperling J went on, "may render the offender an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence and moderate that consideration". I do take into account that factor as well as the third factor referred to by his Honour that custody may weigh more heavily on a person with a mental illness. That, I repeat, is a factor which I take into account. 44Despite Matthew Moore's age I would regard an appropriate commencing sentence for his crime as being one of 4 years, in other words at the lower end of the guideline suggested by Court of Criminal Appeal in Henry. However because of the impact of his mental health condition I regard an appropriate sentence as being one of 3 ½ years or 42 months. That sentence I will reduce about 25 per cent because of his plea of guilty, so that the sentence which I propose to impose is 32 months. Thirty-two months is just short of 25 per cent but I have in fact been, I regard, a little more generous in making the allowance for his mental health condition. So the sentence that I will impose will be 32 months being 2 years and 8 months. Normally a sentence of 2 years and 8 months or 32 months would attract a non-parole period of 2 years being three quarters of that period but I propose to reduce the non-parole period to 16 months which will be 50 per cent of the overall sentence. That is more than I would usually reduce such a non-parole period to. The main reasons are his age, as I have said, and his need for rehabilitation and the strong recommendations for him to enter into a residential rehabilitation program in the community. He needs to serve some time in custody because of the seriousness of his offending, particularly given his record, and it needs to be longer than he has already served. But on the other hand he really needs to confront at this early age the mental health condition which he suffers from and the drug addiction which he suffers from. I need to give him an opportunity to deal with that once and for all. 45Accordingly I will impose that sentence if you would stand up, thank you. I convict you of the offence of robbery in company. I fix a non-parole period of 16 months to date from 16 May 2012 and to expire on 15 September 2013. The balance of the period will be 16 months to commence on 16 September 2013 and to expire on 15 January 2015. Under s 50 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I make an order directing your release on parole on 15 September 2013. HIS HONOUR: Three things: one is the mathematics I need you all to check. Two is any conditions of parole, and, three, is I need to remember to sentence him for the other matter. So please check the mathematics first. SUMMERFIELD: I think they're correct your Honour. HANCOCK: Yes your Honour, I think they're correct. HIS HONOUR: All right; parole conditions, as I fix them. Obviously good behaviour, staying in touch, turning up to court, change of address, things like that, but any particular ones? Supervision obviously, Probation and Parole. HANCOCK: Well I think he should accept reasonable directions and to address his drug and alcohol conditions, the need for rehabilitation and directions as to accepting supervision of any medical practitioner as to medication for his mental health condition. HIS HONOUR: Okay. SUMMERFIELD: Perhaps attendance at residential rehabilitation. HIS HONOUR: Should it be a condition? I guess if it's recommended. SUMMERFIELD: If it's recommended, your Honour, yes. HIS HONOUR: Do you agree Mr Hancock? HANCOCK: Yes your Honour. 46The conditions of parole are these: (1) That he be of good behaviour; (2) That he attend court if receiving a notice calling upon him to do so; (3) That he notify the Registrar of this Court of any change in his residential address; (4) That he accept supervision from the Probation and Parole Service and accept all of their reasonable directions or recommendations particularly regarding rehabilitation for drug and alcohol addiction and the undertaking of any residential drug rehabilitation program; (5) That he accept and comply with any reasonable recommendations and directions given by a medical practitioner regarding medication for his mental health condition. HIS HONOUR: Does that cover it? SUMMERFIELD: And the only other thing your Honour I was thinking was urinalysis with his-- 47Yes; and the recommendations from the Probation and Parole Service, the ones I have mentioned, plus urinalysis. HIS HONOUR: What should I do with the assault Mr Hancock, I'm not sure that I should necessarily impose a custodial sentence, I may, I may not, I don't know. One has to be careful, just say yes we'll give him 6 months, because there are some instances where custodial sentences have been imposed and you can see it just because it's concurrent and you look at it and it doesn't warrant it. But it may, I don't know, because he's got a record. But this is his first adult offence perhaps it should be a good behaviour bond, I don't know, what do you say? HANCOCK: Well certainly I agree with your Honour's reasoning in the matter. The objective seriousness I suppose is characterised by the fact that the person upon whom the assault was committed was the other person present and the assault was putting that person in fear. There was no actual-- HIS HONOUR: Physical assault. HANCOCK: --physical assault, no your Honour. So that person was put in fear by the circumstances that they were presented with. Certainly there was an intention to put the people in fear, that can't be denied. I think the first thing your Honour would be concerned about is to in some way ensure that the very careful orders that your Honour has given is in relation to the other matter not in any way compromised. HIS HONOUR: Compromised, yes I agree. Could I fine him, I don't know, what are his means? HANCOCK: Well I don't think he has any means at present your Honour so I don't think a fine would be appropriate. Your Honour could sentence him to the rising of the Court, that's an option I suppose. HIS HONOUR: What do you think Ms Summerfield? SUMMERFIELD: Your Honour I would have thought a sentence that indicated the gravity of the offence more than the rising of the Court would do. HIS HONOUR: Just that it's his first adult offence. The other one is very serious and that's why he's got a custodial sentence, this one is shaking a baseball bat at someone and scaring the life out of them. SUMMERFIELD: It is, it's in the context of the other offence too of course. HIS HONOUR: I know but I've got to be careful not to - you're right. SUMMERFIELD: To duplicate. Certainly your Honour the Crown's view would be that a bond would be appropriate. HIS HONOUR: Yes, but I can't post-date a bond can I? SUMMERFIELD: No, it would have to date from today. HIS HONOUR: Yes, what do you say Mr Hancock, bond to be of good behaviour for 3 months or something. But he's in custody so if he-- HANCOCK: He's likely to remain of good behaviour during the time he's in custody your Honour. HIS HONOUR: He is yes. What about a bond for 3 months? HANCOCK: Well I couldn't say anything further your Honour I don't think. 48In respect of the matter under the common assault under s 166(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act I convict him of that offence and under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment I make an order directing Mr Moore to enter into a good behaviour bond for 3 months and the terms of the bond are that he be of good behaviour. HIS HONOUR: Anything else? HANCOCK: No your Honour. SUMMERFIELD: The only other issue was that in relation to compensation. HIS HONOUR: Yes I saw that. SUMMERFIELD: With respect to the victim of the robbery's claim for compensation of $50 given that the watch wasn't returned. HIS HONOUR: I make an order under? SUMMERFIELD: I haven't got my practice here, I'm sorry your Honour. I could find out and advise. HIS HONOUR: Yes would you, because I'm doing the other, are you in the other matter? SUMMERFIELD: I'm not, no. HIS HONOUR: Do you mind. Which practice is it in, do you know? I'll give you volume 1, you can have a look whilst you're here. SUMMERFIELD: Thank you your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Now Matthew Moore you have heard the sentence which I have imposed and you have heard why and you have got a sentence of 2 years and 8 months, 32 months. I have backdated it to when you were arrested so it started on 16 May when you come into custody, so the sentencing itself expires on 15 January 2015, that is the overall sentence. Normally a non-parole period would be 2 years, so you would be in for 2 years until May 2014, but I have brought that back to 16 months. So it starts 16 May 2012 and your non-parole period expires on 15 September next year. So you are going to get out in less than a year and you are going to get out about 3 months before, okay. Now I have fixed your parole conditions, you will be on parole. You have got to stay out of trouble or you come back before me and I may be sentencing you again. If you change your address you have got to let the Court know and if you get a notice in the mail saying you have got to come to court you have got to turn up rather than have the police or Sheriffs come and chase you. Now the most important condition I have made is that you accept supervision from Probation and Parole. I think they looked after you once before; is that right? OFFENDER: Yes your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Let them help you and you have got to comply with their recommendations that are reasonable, particular regarding urinalysis and drug and alcohol rehabilitation or any residential one and there is some program which Corrective Services thought you could do as well. And if you see a doctor and the doctor recommends some medication for your mental health condition then you have got to comply with those reasonable recommendations. They are for your own good. It is easy for me to say, but you have been taking your medication since you have been in custody haven't you? OFFENDER: Yes your Honour. HIS HONOUR: What do you think about the effect of the medication, does it help or not? OFFENDER: It's helped a lot, I no longer feel paranoid. HIS HONOUR: Yes. OFFENDER: I have no more psychotic episodes. HIS HONOUR: Yes. OFFENDER: I'm feeling actually pretty happy with the outcome. HIS HONOUR: Good, okay. Well the idea is that you keep that up when you're out and you get yourself into a rehab and you, as I keep saying, you're not yet 21 you're a young man, you can put all this past - that was apparently started off you know when you're about 14 or something - behind you and just start off. It's not going to be easy doing this residential rehabilitation or any sort of rehabilitation but you'll make a good start by being drug-free when you leave prison, so stay away from any drugs in prison. OFFENDER: Yes your Honour. HIS HONOUR: You will make a good start, you will come out clean and that will give you a very good start and then you have now got an opportunity to turn your life around. You've got the support of your mother so that will make a difference and I think you've got to take it from there. Now do you understand all that I have said? OFFENDER: Yes your Honour. HIS HONOUR: And I have given you a 3 month good behaviour bond for the other assault, all right. I'll just find out about the compensation. SUMMERFIELD: Your Honour I won't pursue that application for compensation, there is another avenue available. HIS HONOUR: There's another avenue available, right okay. SUMMERFIELD: Thank you your Honour. HIS HONOUR: All right Mr Moore, now good luck. OFFENDER: Thank you your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Okay. Thanks Mr Hancock, thank you Ms Summerfield. HANCOCK: Thank you your Honour. SUMMERFIELD: Thank you your Honour. ********** 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 August 2013