District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bradley Alan Smith [2018] NSWDC 18 Hearing dates: 13 February 2018 Decision date: 16 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Term of imprisonment less than two years imposed. Offender to be assessed for suitability to serve sentence by way of intensive correction order in the community. Catchwords: Intentionally destroying property by means of fire Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39 Newton v State of Western Australia (2006) WACA 247 Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145 R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 R v Bilal Skaf [2005] NSWCCA 297 R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118 R v Shortland [2013] NSWCCA 4 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bradley Alan Smith (Offender) Representation: Counsel: B Queenan (Crown Prosecutor) Solicitor: E Renard (Offender) File Number(s): 17/62542 Publication restriction: Non publication for co-accused BB REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1. The offender pleaded guilty when arraigned on an Indictment to an offence pursuant to s 195(1A)(b), in that he did on 24 December 2016 at Bulahdelah, in company with BB, intentionally destroy property, namely an office building situated at 1 Markwell Road, Bulahdelah, the property of Anthony Dorney, by means of fire. 2. The offender has asked that a further matter be dealt with on a Form 1, an offence pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 of aggravated break and enter in company. The offender has admitted his guilt in respect to that matter. 3. The offender was committed for sentence on 5 September 2017 from the Taree Local Court. The sentence hearing took place on 13 February 2018. The sentence hearing 1. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A. It included a Statement of Agreed Facts, which may be summarised as follows. The property on which the offending occurred lies on the outskirts of the Bulahdelah township and comprises some 10 acres. On it, the owner operates a saw mill, dying plant and a transport business. On the property are an office building and weighbridge control room, together with other structures. On 23 December 2016, the operation of the business ceased for the Christmas holidays and the premises were secured. 2. In the early hours of the next morning, 24 December 2016, the offender and co‑offender, a minor who was then aged 15 years, walked from the nearby township onto the property, and at first looked through certain parked vehicles for items to steal. They drew graffiti on two of the trucks and then broke into the office building, which was locked and secured. Having gained entry, they took a fire extinguisher and a small sum of money. The offenders became concerned that the police may find their fingerprints at the scene. They decided to burn the building in order to conceal the break and enter offence by destroying any potential evidence. Initially, they tried to do that by spraying aerosol cans of spray paint through the office, hoping to ignite the vapour, however, they were unsuccessful. They returned to the area where the trucks were parked and syphoned diesel from a fuel tank, carrying it to the office building and pouring the fuel over the building, both inside and outside. They then poured a trail of diesel fuel towards the Prince Street exit, ignited it and fled the scene via Prince Street. 3. At approximately 1.20am the owner was awoken by a loud explosion. From his residence he could see that the office building was engulfed in flames and the emergency services were called. Whilst they were coming, the owner attempted to contain the blaze, however, in doing so he sustained burn injuries to his arms and left leg. The fire brigade arrived and took over management of the fire. The main office and weighbridge control room were entirely burnt down, and the weighbridge area was badly damaged. The owner was conveyed to hospital for treatment to his burn injuries. He required several visits to the hospital over the following month for management of those injuries. 4. The following night, the owner was patrolling the area and in the early hours of the morning observed two young males within the mill area. He spoke to one of those persons, who identified himself as the co-offender. The owner called the police and the co-offender was located some distance from the property. He was formally arrested on 24 February 2017, and made admissions to the offence in a record of interview. 5. The offender was arrested on 27 February 2017. He also made admissions. In those statements, both offenders agreed to the following: "(a) The two met earlier in the evening, and were walking around looking for something to do; (b) They went into the saw mill premises; (c) Trucks were tampered with; (d) The main office was broken into to look for items of value; (e) Items were removed, including the box with money; (f) Decision was made to burn the premises down to hide fingerprints; (g) Fuel was drawn from the truck and poured over the office; (h) A trail of diesel was drawn to the trucks and to the road; (i) Plan was to ignite the trail and run away; (j) Attempts were made initially to ignite the fire by igniting the trail, but that failed. A t-shirt was ignited and thrown onto the premises, but that failed. A gas bottle was located, placed near the office, gas opened facing the office, another t-shirt ignited and thrown at the gas bottle which got the fire started; (k) The fire was ignited and they ran away." 1. Each offender claimed that the other was the main instigator, the decision maker, and carried out most of the criminal conduct. 2. The damage caused to the property was in the vicinity of $600,000.00. In addition, the business carried on there has sustained significant financial loss, and the victim and his family have also suffered significant personal and emotional impact as a result of that fire. 3. It is noted that the co-offender is to be sentenced on 20 February 2018 at the Taree Children's Court. That court has a jurisdictional limit of 2 years as a maximum penalty for the offence. The offender's evidence 1. The offender gave evidence. He is now 19 years of age and has been diagnosed with a borderline intellectual disability. 2. He gave evidence that on the day of the offence he had consumed three long‑necks of beer, a four pack of pre-mixed bourbon drinks, and a six pack of stubbies of beer. He was very intoxicated. 3. The offender gave evidence that he had for some years some problems with alcohol and cannabis. He would consume up to 30 drinks three or four times per week. Despite his consumption of alcohol, his memory of the events on the night of the offence was "pretty good". 4. The offender gave evidence that he had met up with the co-offender BB and they were walking around Bulahdelah on the night in question. It was BB who came up with the idea of breaking into the premises and he had smashed a window to gain entry, and opened the front door for the offender. The money they had taken was in a container of loose change. 5. The offender gave evidence that it was he who came up with the idea of burning down the premises to destroy fingerprint evidence. They had first tried to do so by using spray cans of paint, which would not ignite. They then syphoned off diesel fuel from one of the trucks by using a hose and carried the fuel in a bucket towards the building. The offender had left a trail of fuel from the building and the co-offender had lit that trail, following which, they had run to the other side of Bulahdelah. Thereafter, they washed the smell of fuel off them in the river. 6. The offender gave evidence that he told the police the truth in his record of interview. He denied lighting the fire and acknowledged BB had told the police that he did so. He agreed that it was his idea to light the fire to destroy fingerprint evidence. He had never lit fires before. 7. In respect of the damage caused to the property, the offender gave evidence that it was not his intention to do so. He did not consider the consequences of his actions and the fact that the owner and his family were placed at risk. He did not hand himself in because he was scared and worried, however, he had admitted his involvement when confronted by police. He felt terrible for the victim and his family. He said he knew that it was a family business and that he had put them out of work and that the business had suffered. 8. The offender gave evidence that he had told the police that BB had lit the fire, but it was not an attempt to minimise his involvement. 9. The offender had been arrested on 27 February 2017 and had been subject to strict bail conditions, including a curfew each night after 9.30pm, and reporting each week to police, and being abstinent from drugs. He had complied with those conditions, including ceasing all drug use. He had also commenced a TAFE course. 10. The offender acknowledged that the offending constituted very serious offending that could lead to a gaol sentence being imposed. He said he was worried, scared, frightened and nervous of the consequences and was sorry for his actions. He was terribly sorry for the impact of those actions on the victim and his family and wished that he could go back and undo his conduct. 11. In cross-examination, the offender denied that he had any prior contact with the victim or his family. He could not explain the graffiti, but said it was not him who did it. He acknowledged that he participated in the offending and that both he and his co-offender had sprayed aerosol paint into the building to attempt to light a fire. It was his co-offender who opened the fuel tank to obtain diesel fuel for the fire, and although both of them carried fuel to the building, it was the co-offender who spread it inside, whilst he spread the fuel outside the building. 12. The offender gave evidence that he had worked for one week as work experience at a mill owned by a relative of the victim. He acknowledged he had subsequently offended and had been dealt with in the Local Court for that matter. A pre-sentence report had been obtained in October 2017 setting out his alcohol and drug abuse. He accepted that he still had a problem with alcohol following his offending here. Further, he knew at the time of the offending that the victim and his family lived on the same block of land as the business that was burnt down. Evidence of the offender's mother 1. The offender's mother, Mrs Smith, also gave evidence. When asked how she felt about her son's offending, she said that she was "absolutely ashamed and embarrassed". She gave evidence that when he was 15 or 16 the offender was out of control as a result of his drug use. She and her husband "didn't recognise the kid in front of us". By age 17 and 18, Mrs Smith gave evidence that the offender's behaviour was terrible. They would not see him for a few days and when they tried to talk to him, he was incommunicative. Eventually she and her husband kicked him out of home and her husband went to the police asking for assistance. 2. Mrs Smith gave evidence that the offender had been bullied as a child because of his learning disability. This had led him to congregate with troubled kids and he got into the wrong crowd. He does now not associate with such persons. 3. Mrs Smith gave evidence that the offender's learning disability had been addressed when they lived in Canberra, but since moving to Bulahdelah, the local school did not have the resources. She and her husband assisted him by doing his assignments, however, the most assistance he was given at school was that he was given a reader for his exams. She and her husband sought assistance elsewhere and had sent him to a psychologist, and had investigated other means of assistance including Educare, Oasis House run by the Salvation Army, and Mission Australia. It was only now that he was getting the assistance he required. 4. Mrs Smith confirmed that he had complied with his bail conditions since 27 February 2017, including a negative drug test. His drinking was now under control and he was attending TAFE three days per week. He had been advised that he should be referred to the NDIS to get further assistance to enable him to eventually move out of home and obtain employment. 5. Mrs Smith gave evidence that he came from a close-knit family who had supported him by attending all of his court hearing dates and his various medical appointments. She and her husband would continue to support him. She gave evidence that he had now changed, and he was helpful and polite and more involved in family activities. Other evidence relied on by the offender 1. The offender's negative drug testing result was Ex 1. Ex 2 was a report of Dr Fordyce dated 29 November 2017. It was a lengthy and thorough analysis which set out the offender's family and developmental history, and his educational and vocational history. He was assessed as having a borderline intellectual disability, had low self-esteem and symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. He also described symptoms consistent with the diagnosis of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD") since primary school. This was consistent with his history of learning difficulties throughout his education, his limited academic achievement, and his inability to obtain employment since leaving school. 2. The author noted, however, he had a sound and supportive relationship with his parents and was obtaining an appropriate level of support. 3. Exhibit 3 was a report by Dr Youlden, psychologist, dated 26 July 2017. It recorded that following cognitive assessment, the offender met the criteria for the following diagnoses: 1. Borderline intellectual disability. 2. Attention Deficit and Hyperactive Disorder. 3. Severe learning disorder known as Dyslexia (he is totally illiterate). 1. Exhibit 4 was a report of Dr Arnoldus-Lewis dated 8 May 2017. The offender had been referred to her care by his GP in April 2017 and he had been treated for depression since then. The offender had expressed remorse for the victims of his crime and that the criminal incident had been borne of boredom. Dr Arnoldus-Lewis was of the opinion that the offender would benefit from intensive therapy and required assistance with essential life skills. 2. Exhibit 5 was two letters from Mission Australia regarding the offender's enrolment in various programs, and Ex 6 was a confirmation of his enrolment at TAFE in a Certificate I in Automotive Vocational Preparation at the Taree campus. The offender's submissions 1. The solicitor for the offender provided a thorough written outline of submissions. At the time of the offence, the offender was 18 years old. He is now 19 years. Subsequent to this offending, the offender was sentenced on 5 December 2017 for an offence that occurred on 20 February 2017 of "grooming a child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity". He was placed on a bond to be of good behaviour pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("CSPA") for a period of 3 years. 2. The offender has otherwise been compliant with the conditions of his bail since 5 December 2017 and the conditions of his good behaviour bond. His only prior criminal conviction was a s 10 bond in respect of a charge of larceny in 2016 and he was also fined and disqualified for driving offences. 3. The submissions set out the purposes of sentencing in s 3A of the CSPA. It was conceded that the crime of arson is an extremely serious and dangerous crime and the gravity of the offence pursuant to s 195(1A)(b) is reflected in the maximum penalty of 11 years imprisonment. 4. It was submitted that the circumstances of the possible spreader fire may be taken into account in determining an appropriate sentence, relying on R v Baker. It was also appropriate to take into account the potential risk of physical injury to other persons in determining sentence. 5. The offender submitted that the motive for the offending is relevant to the objective seriousness of the offence, relying on Newton v State of Western Australia (2006) WACA 247. Here, the motive was to remove any fingerprints that may have been left behind in a relatively low end break and enter. It was submitted that the offender's intellectual disability impaired his capacity to foresee the potential consequences of his actions in that regard. 6. It was submitted that the very substantial loss and personal stress experienced by the owner of the property is relevant and may be taken into account in assessing the objective seriousness of the offender's crime, relying on Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145 at [83]. It was therefore conceded that the substantial detrimental effect of the crime on the victim constituted an aggravating factor pursuant to s 21A (2)(g). The further aggravating factor was that the offence was committed without regard for public safety, see s 21A(2)(i). 7. It was, however, submitted that the offence was not part of a planned or organised activity, rather a spontaneous and opportunistic offence committed by a young intellectually disabled man of limited foresight as to the consequences of his actions. It was submitted that the court would have regard to his good prospects of rehabilitation, by reason of his age, and also his family support, relying on s 21A(3)(h). 8. It was submitted that the offender had expressed genuine remorse which demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility for his actions and an acknowledgement of the injury, loss and damage caused by the offender (s21A(3)(i)). 9. The offender submitted that he was not fully aware of the consequences of his actions because of his age and borderline intellectual disability, referring to s 21A(3)(j). Further, as his plea was entered at the earliest opportunity, he is entitled to a 25% discount on penalty. 10. The offender submitted that having been diagnosed with borderline intellectual disability, in accordance with Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39, deterrence should be given less weight in his case because of that fact. He was not an appropriate medium for general deterrence which would have less weight in the sentencing exercise – see also DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194. 11. The offender submitted that he had been abusing alcohol and cannabis since the age of 12 and on the night in question, his self-induced intoxication, combined with his intellectual disability, rendered him less culpable for his criminal conduct. 12. It was noted that the co-offender BB was being dealt with in the Children's Court, despite a Crown application to have matter committed to the District Court for sentence. It was therefore submitted that the parity principle should apply, notwithstanding that the offenders are being dealt with under different procedural regimes. It was submitted that the mere fact of the co-offender being dealt with in the Children's Court does not preclude operation of the parity principle relying, inter alia, on R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118, and R v Shortland [2013] NSWCCA 4 at [121]. It was therefore submitted that the fact of the Children's Court jurisdictional maximum of 2 years in sentencing options are relevant considerations when determining the length and mode of sentence to be imposed on the offender. 13. The solicitor for the offender set out some principles behind the sentencing discretion, referring to Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25, and R v Bilal Skaf [2005] NSWCCA 297. It is clear that the sentence should be proportionate to the crime. 14. It was submitted that the offender was genuinely remorseful for his offending and that he has a real understanding of the impact of his actions upon the victims. He also has good prospects of rehabilitation, because of his young age and his efforts to address his drug and alcohol issues, together with his strong family support in the community. 15. It was submitted that in arriving at a sentence, the court should take into account the offender's borderline intellectual disability, his lack of foresight and simple motive in committing the offence, which have significant work to do in the sentencing process. Further, the co-offender's sentence in the Children's Court jurisdiction was a relevant consideration according to principles of parity. The jurisdictional maximum in the Children's Court was therefore a relevant guide post in the sentencing process. 16. It was advocated in this case that whilst the s 5 threshold was passed, a suspended sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, otherwise any sentence could be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order. In any event, a finding of special circumstances was available on the evidence so as to vary the ratio between any non-parole period and head sentence. 17. The offender's solicitor supplemented his submissions with oral submissions. He submitted that the offender was not shying away from the seriousness of his criminal conduct and its severe impact on the victims. However, he had shown genuine remorse in his evidence. He had been very forthright in that evidence and said that to light the fire was his idea. He had been full and frank in his disclosure of his level of involvement. However as a joint criminal enterprise, both offenders are equally responsible. It was submitted that it was a foolish idea to dispose of fingerprint evidence by lighting the fire. That was explained by the offender's intellectual disability. He had been assessed as being below the intellectual level of 93% of the population. He was unable to read and write and had been assessed as eligible for the NDIS. 18. In accordance with the principle in Muldrock, supra, his disability meant that general deterrence had diminished relevance to the sentencing process. The jurisdictional limit of the Children's Court was of 2 years control order was a guide post in the sentencing process, relying on Shortland. It was submitted that the court should form the view that a sentence of 2 years or less was appropriate here. He was a very young offender and had been compliant with supervision and had the support of his family. Notwithstanding his subsequent offending for which he had been placed on a 3 year good behaviour bond, he had been abstinent from drugs and had a negative drug test. In those circumstances the court would consider either a suspended sentence or that he be assessed for an Intensive Correction Order. If the court were minded to impose a full time custodial sentence, then clearly a finding of special circumstances should be made. The Crown submissions 1. The Crown submitted that in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending here, the court would take into account that this was an intentional and not reckless case of damage by fire. The fire had been lit to cover evidence of the earlier break and enter, namely fingerprint evidence. The actus reas of the offence here was the destruction of the office building and weighbridge building. There was a high level of objective seriousness in the offending. 2. The Crown relied on Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145. In that case, the offender had offended whilst on a s 10 good behaviour bond, as was the case here. The court held that that was an aggravating factor regardless of the conduct in respect of which the bond was imposed. 3. Here, an aggravating factor was that the offence occurred in company, hence, Parliament had provided a maximum penalty of 11 years imprisonment. The offender had been placed on a s 10 bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months on 23 November 2016 by the Forster Local Court. Offending on that bond was an aggravating factor here, but to a limited extent. A further aggravating factor was that the criminal conduct endangered public safety, evidenced by the fact that the owner, Mr Dorney, had been injured when trying to extinguish the fire. Further, some items lost in the fire had been irreplaceable to the victim's family. 4. In assessing the objective seriousness of the offending here, the Crown submitted that the decision by the young offenders to commit the break and enter was spontaneous and opportunistic offending, however, the fact that they had a motive to conceal evidence which might identify them by lighting the fire, was against a finding of spontaneity in respect of this offence. One attempt to light the fire, namely, by use of aerosol cans of paint, failed. They then resorted to syphon diesel fuel from the trucks and carry it to the buildings and spreading it, before igniting it. The fact that it was 'in company" is an element of the offence and therefore is not an aggravating factor. 5. On the question of application of principles of parity, the Crown referred to the application made by the Crown to transfer the Children's Court matter to the District Court. That application was declined by the Children's Court. Further, the co-offender had not as yet been sentenced and whilst there was a jurisdictional limit of 2 years, that limit could be extended to a maximum of 3 years. The Crown acknowledged that different principles apply when sentencing in respect of Children's Court matters. 6. The Crown did concede that the offender falls within the youthful category of offender, that he had little in the way of prior criminal antecedents and that given his borderline personality disability, the importance of general deterrence was diminished in the sentencing process. 7. The Crown also submitted that the JIRS statistics in respect of offences pursuant to s 195. The limited utility of those statistics was acknowledged. 8. The Crown submitted that the s 5 threshold had been crossed requiring the imposition of a full time custodial sentence. There was no issue raised by the Crown in respect to the finding of special circumstances, on the basis of the offender's youth, his mental health issues and the fact that it was his first time in custody. Determination 1. Section 3A of the C(SP)A sets out the purposes of sentencing as follows: "(a) To ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence, (b) To prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences, (c) To protect the community from the offender, (d) To promote the rehabilitation of the offender, (e) To make the offender accountable for his or her actions, (f) To denounce the conduct of the offender, (g) To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community." 1. I find here that the offence of break and enter the relevant property was an opportunistic offence carried out by the offender and his co-offender. The subject offence, however, was motivated by a desire to extinguish any evidence that might identify them by way of fingerprints of that offending. It was the offender's idea to light the fire, and both offenders were involved in carrying out that goal. Their first attempt, by way of spraying aerosol paint into the premises, failed. They then obtained diesel fuel from a truck on the premises and both were responsible for carrying the fuel to the premises and spreading it both inside and outside the premises. As a joint criminal enterprise, they were both responsible for that activity and for lighting the fire. That fire had very substantial consequences for the owners of the property. The business office and weighbridge office were destroyed at a loss of approximately $600,000.00. The business activities of the owner and his family were also substantially affected, in addition to the loss of irreplaceable business records and the like. 2. The offender, by his solicitor, has acknowledged the serious nature of the offending. This was an intentional fire motivated by desire to conceal evidence which might identify the co-offenders, on a property which was on the outskirts of the township of Bulahdelah, but which contained other buildings including a family home. It constituted offending, in my view, in the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 195(1A)(b), but at the lower end of that mid-range. 3. The offender has been assessed as suffering a borderline personality disorder. He is illiterate and has suffered low self-esteem throughout his life. He was 18 years at the time of the offending and is now 19 years of age. Clearly, in those circumstances, in accordance with appellate authority of Muldrock, supra, and DPP v De La Rosa, supra, general deterrence does not play a large role in the sentencing process. If it did, a clear message would have to be sent to like-minded individuals that criminal conduct of this kind would not be tolerated by the courts and that harsh penalties involving lengthy terms of imprisonment would be imposed. 4. Similarly, specific deterrence plays a lesser role here. The offender is a young person who has struggled with his disability. He had abused drugs and alcohol from a young age, and notwithstanding his family support, his life had gone off the rails. He had now expressed to the court genuine remorse for his conduct, and I accept the evidence of his mother that he had turned his life around, that he was compliant with his bail conditions, and that he had his family's support into the future. 5. I take into account the maximum penalty of 11 years imprisonment proscribed for an offence pursuant to s 195(1A)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900, as a guidepost in the sentencing process. 6. I also take into account the offender's plea of guilty which entitled him to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence. I also have regard to his remorse which I accept is genuine. He made full and frank admissions as to his involvement in this matter, admitting that it was his idea that the fire be lit. 7. Also relevant is that the offending took place when he was on conditional liberty, namely, subject to the s 10 bond to be of good behaviour for an offence of larceny imposed in the Forster Local Court on 23 November 2016. 8. I accept the offender's submission, based on authorities such as Shortland, supra, that principles of parity should be applied, notwithstanding that his co‑offender BB is yet to be dealt with in the Children's Court. Sentencing in that jurisdiction is under a very different regime. It does not mean that the sentences imposed in the Children's Court are irrelevant. Here, the court has not been informed of the charge(s) against BB. However, it is clear that that court has a jurisdictional limit in terms of Control Orders for a period of 2 years. I am therefore mindful of that jurisdictional limit in sentencing here, and I am also mindful that parity principles may be applied in due course in the Children's Court in respect of this offender's sentence. 9. The Crown has conceded that the offender here falls within a youthful category of offender and allowance must be made for that. The Crown has also properly conceded that his prior criminal antecedents do not disentitle him to some leniency. 10. I accept the Crown's submission here that the threshold in s 5 of the CSPA has been crossed, and no other penalty other than a term of imprisonment is in all of the circumstances, appropriate, having considered all of the alternatives. I have further certified the matter on the Form 1 which has to be taken into account on sentencing. 11. However, having regard to all of the matters that I have set out above, including his entitlement for 25% discount, the diminished importance of general deterrence, the diminished importance of specific deterrence, and the fact that he is a youthful offender, I intend to impose a sentence of less than 2 years imprisonment, namely 21 months. I further intend to order that the offender be assessed for his suitability for that sentence to be served as an Intensive Correction Order, and if suitable, during that period of supervision, it will be a condition that appropriate measures be put in place to address his drug and alcohol issues. Orders 1. I therefore make the following orders: 1. Bradley Alan Smith you are convicted of the offence of destroy property by fire in company pursuant to s 195(1A)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. 2. I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 21 months for that offence. 3. I order, pursuant to s 7 of the CSPA, that you be assessed for your suitability to serve that sentence by way of an Intensive Correction Order. 4. I further certify the Form 1 that you have asked to be taken into account in the sentencing process. Your acknowledgement of guilt in respect of that matter does have the effect of imposing a higher sentence in respect of this offence. 5. I adjourn the final sentencing of this matter to the District Court sittings commencing 12/3/18. You are excused from attendance on that day provided you are legally represented at the Callover. 6. Bail to continue not varied with the same conditions. 7. Report to Community Corrections at Taree within 7 days for assessment. ********** 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: 19 February 2018