District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sam Michael Booth [2018] NSWDC 250 Hearing dates: 6 September 2018 Decision date: 12 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [60] Catchwords: Aggravated robbery; intimidation (domestic violence related) Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Personal and Domestic Violence) Act 2007 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: Baradi v R [2018] NSWCCA 143 Diaz v R [2018] NSWCCA 33 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Veen v R (No 2) 1998 164 CLR 465 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown Solicitor) Sam Michael Booth (Offender) Representation: Solicitors: A Horowitz (Crown) R Thomas (Offender) File Number(s): 17/312261 Publication restriction: Nil REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1. The offender, who was born on 28 September 1991, is being sentenced in respect of two offences that occurred between 14 October 2017 and 16 October 2017. The offences are as follows: 1. Sequence 1 - Aggravated robbery pursuant to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment. There is no Standard Non-Parole Period. 2. Sequence 5 - Intimidation pursuant to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Personal and Domestic Violence) Act 2007 ("C(P&D)A"). The maximum penalty for this offence is five years imprisonment and there is no Standard Non‑Parole Period proscribed. 1. The offender was arrested on 17 October 2017 and has been in custody since that date. 2. The offender has asked that three matters be dealt with on a Form 1 in respect of the charge of aggravated robbery. They are as follows: 1. H 66236443/Sequence 2 – detain person without consent with intent to commit serious indictable offence. 2. H 66236443/Sequence 3 – Common assault 3. H 66236443/Sequence 4 – Intimidation The offender has admitted his guilt in respect of each of these three matters on the Form 1. The sentence hearing 1. The sentence hearing took place on 6 September 2018 at Lismore District Court. The Crown sentence summary (Ex A) included a statement of Agreed Facts which may be summarised as follows. 2. The offender, aged 26, and the victim aged 21, became involved in an intimate relationship in September 2017. The victim had an 18 month old son from a previous relationship. She was at work on 14 October 2017 when the offender sent her a text asking her to come home at about 10pm. The victim returned to their home, however, the offender was not there. The victim found $600 of her own money missing from the premises. She rang the offender asking about the money and he said he would be home soon. When he arrived, he told the victim that he was concerned that friends he had over may steal it and returned $550 to her. He said he would pay back the missing $50. 3. An argument ensued between the offender and victim and the victim decided to leave the premises. She told the offender that the relationship was over. When she opened the door to leave, the offender slammed the door shut and pushed her to the floor. He then shut all the windows to prevent neighbours from hearing anything. The victim attempted to calm the offender down and said to him, "This is not you". The offender reacted by pushing the victim into the kitchen and saying words to the effect of: "Cunt, do you want to see a robbery?" 1. The victim ran to the front door. The offender again pushed her to the floor and was on top of her, preventing her from moving. The offender had a knife in his hand and the victim pleaded with him to stop what he was doing. The offender continually asked her where the money was and placed his hands over her mouth forcefully to stop her from squealing. At some stage the offender's fingers went into her mouth and she bit them. She received minor scratches to her face. The offender punched the victim to the face causing pain to her lip. The offender placed the knife against the victim's throat, which caused visible grazing. The victim continued to struggle to break free, and rolled over onto her stomach. The offender pulled the victim's hair back and placed the point of the knife against the victim's throat, again saying words to the effect of: "This is a robbery cunt. Give me the money." 1. The victim could feel the knife digging into her throat. She relented and stated she would get the money if he let her go, however, the offender refused. The victim received a small cut to the middle of her throat from where the offender held the knife against her throat. She feared that he would kill her. During the struggle, the victim received cuts to her shoulder and collarbone from the knife, together carpet burns to her back and arms from struggling with the offender. 2. The offender let the victim get up, after she told him she would get the money. She retrieved the $550 and gave it to him. The offender asked for the rest of it and the victim stated that that was all she had. She began crying and for the next half an hour, the offender stated that he would kill the victim and her 18 months old son and her family by shooting them if she went to the police. A short time later, the offender left with the money. 3. The victim left and went to her mother's place. The police were contacted. When spoken to by the police, she was visibly scared, upset and shaking, due to reporting the incident. 4. On Sunday 15 October 2017, the offender sent a text message to the victim. The victim replied by text that her whole body was bruised and the offender replied by text stating, "I'm so sorry I feel like shit. Can I drop your money off?" The victim informed the offender that she was at Tweed Heads Hospital and the offender replied, "Really, I'm so sorry". She then sent photographs of her injuries to the offender. 5. On Monday 16 October 2017 at 2.30am, the offender sent the victim a series of text messages, "What's doing are you okay???", "Hello" and "hi". He then sent a text message of a picture of a person holding a rifle. This was the conduct comprised in Sequence 5 (intimidation offence). 6. On Tuesday 17 October 2017 the offender was arrested at Burleigh Heads, Queensland, and was later extradited to New South Wales. The Queensland Police Service executed a search warrant at premises where the offender was staying, and seized a rifle which was believed to be the one depicted in the text image referred to. 7. The offender was formally interviewed and denied the allegations and provided an alibi from Saturday afternoon until his arrest on Tuesday 17 October 2017. 8. Exhibit A contained a certificate from Dr A Aftab which set out the following injuries suffered by the victim: "A healing superficial point laceration was noted on her suprasternal notch. A 2cm graze/superficial laceration was noted under her chin. Mild bruising (3cm diameter in total) was present on her left posterior ribs, laterally around her T12 vertebral level, associated with mild tenderness (2/10 severity), likely to be soft tissue related. No fractures were palpated. Her chest expanded normally and auscultation revealed bilateral entry, with no underlying respiratory concern. Mild diffuse bruising was noted to her right anterior lateral thigh, just inferior to her ASIS. The hip, however, examined normally. She had a full range of motion and walked with a normal gait. On examination of her mental state, the victim appeared calm, though understandably distraught about recent events. She was clear and consistent in her version of events. She denied any suicidal ideation, or feelings of anxiety/depression, and voiced sensible plans for her future." 1. Exhibit A also included the offender's criminal antecedents. On 23 October 2009, the offender had been sentenced in the District Court at Lismore in respect of an offence of aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence. He was sentenced to a period of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months commencing on 23 October 2009 and expiring on 21 January 2011. The remarks on sentence of the sentencing judge are included in Ex A and set out the serious nature of the offending, during which, the offender brandished a replica pistol. In respect to that offending four other offences were taken into account on a Form 1. 2. I have disregarded other offences recorded in the Children's Court, however, on 3 March 2015, the offender was sentenced in the Local Court in respect of five offences which occurred on 10 January 2014. There were two offences of common assault, two of use intimidation/violence to unlawfully influence person, and one offence of affray. On each count, the offender was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment commencing on 30 September 2014. Subsequent to his release, he has had further traffic offences. The offender's evidence 1. The offender tendered a statement by his sister, Larrissa Booth (Ex 1). That letter stated that the offender's parents separated when he was a toddler and he and his siblings remained in their mother's care. The offender's mother re‑partnered when the offender was four years of age, and he and his siblings witnessed domestic violence between their mother and step-father on a regular basis. The offender had been well behaved until his early high school years when his behaviour deteriorated into serious delinquency. He was sentenced into juvenile detention following the armed robbery offence in 2008. Following his release, he lived with his sister for over a year during his parole. He was drug-free and did well, however, he returned to live with friends in Tweed Heads and then his behaviour deteriorated in what his sister suspected was drug abuse. The offender's mother had died in 2013 and this affected him significantly. 2. Ms Booth stated that she would be willing to have the offender come and live with her when he is released from custody, and he had told her that he no longer wants to be the person who never has a job or any qualifications. The offender's submissions 1. The solicitor for the offender relied on a thorough written outline of submissions. She conceded that whilst the principal offence charged is aggravated robbery pursuant to s 95(1), rather than armed robbery pursuant to s 97(1), the guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, is the starting point in the sentencing process. It was submitted that the offender here was a young offender, however, being 26 years of age at the time of the offence, it was conceded that he was at the higher end or slightly above the range of young offenders envisaged in Henry. 2. In respect of the offender's criminal history, it was submitted that he was convicted of the offence of armed robbery with dangerous weapon when he was 16 years of age, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 15 months, served in a juvenile detention centre. He was released to parole in early 2010. He had other offences in the Children's Court, however, as an adult, he had also been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months in 2014 for offences of common assault, affray and intimidation. Other offences including driving offences and assaults in Queensland in 2011. 3. It was submitted that the use of the knife here was a relevant consideration. The knife was placed against the victim's throat on two occasions in what appears to have been a short space of time. It was submitted that there was a small cut to the middle of the throat and visible grazing occasioned to the victim. 4. It was submitted that there was no evidence of any real planning. Further, there was more than limited violence, given the offender held his hand over the victim's mouth, punched her face, pulled her hair and pushed her to the ground. He also made threats to kill. 5. It was acknowledged that the victim was vulnerable and that the offences occurred in the context of domestic violence in the victim's own home, where the offender detained the victim for a period of time. 6. It was submitted that the sum of $550 taken was not a significant amount of money. It was also submitted that the plea of guilty here was limited by a strong Crown case. However, the guideline judgment was based on a late plea of guilty and the adjusted range is between 3 years and 3 years and 9 months for an early plea. It was submitted here that the Crown case was not strong and that the offender had denied the allegations when interviewed by police. However, there was some evidence by way of text messages to support the victim's version. 7. The solicitor for the offender referred to the following aggravating factors pursuant to s 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("CSPA"): (c) Use of a weapon which was an aggravating factor because it did not form part of the offence, however, caution should be given so as to not double count as it is taken into account in the guideline judgment. In respect of Count 2, the weapon was involved in the intimidation charge and involved a use of a photo of a firearm sent to the victim. (d) The offender's previous criminal history. The offender submitted that the aggravating factor of prior convictions should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the proportionality principle in Veen v R (No 2) 1998 164 CLR 465, namely, that the prior record "cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of the penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence". It was further submitted that the offender's prior criminal record could be used to determine where in the objective range the sentence falls, and that it is a subjective matter adverse to the offender in that the offences are not an uncharacteristic aberration. It was submitted that it does not, however, reflect a continuing attitude of disobedience to the law requiring a more severe penalty due to a need to consider more significantly retribution, deterrence and protection of society. (eb) Committed in the home of the victim. It was conceded this is an aggravating factor, but caution should be given so as to not double count this aspect, having regard to the vulnerability of the victim as set out in the Henry guideline. (f) Gratuitous cruelty. The offender submitted that this aggravating factor was not made out. The offences, by their nature, were violent, and the facts did not disclose protracted violence, nor torturous intent, which were required for this aggravating factor to be present. 1. The offender submitted the following mitigating factors pursuant to s 21A(3): (b) The offence was not part of a planned or organised criminal activity. It was submitted that the offences were committed in the context of a breakdown of a domestic relationship. The facts disclosed spontaneous aggression and anger rather than any planned criminal activity. (k) The plea of guilty which entitled the offender to a 25% discount on sentence. 1. With respect to the objective seriousness of the offending here, it was submitted on behalf of the offender that the offence was more serious than an offence envisaged by the Henry guideline. Here, the aggravating circumstances and reckless infliction of actual bodily harm, which involved minor cuts to the victim's neck, shoulder and collarbone, carpet burn to her back and arms, and further visible grazing. The further aggravating circumstances of deprivation of liberty was subject to a separate charge of an offence of detaining pursuant to s 86 and was taken into account on the Form 1. The intimidation offence that occurred on 16 October 2017 was a separate offence and should not be considered as an aggravating feature of the aggravated robbery offence. It was conceded that the court would be entitled to consider some degree of accumulation between the two offences, having regard to the principle of totality. 2. Finally, it was submitted that the court should consider a finding of special circumstances to allow appropriate supervision and rehabilitation of the offender. 3. In her oral submissions, the solicitor for the offender conceded this was a more serious case than the guideline judgment. The written submissions were rehearsed, and it was submitted that the criminal history was not an aggravating factor when considered in its entirety. In respect to the objective seriousness of the offending, the offender submitted that he had entered a plea of guilty to recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm, and as such the offending was not intentional. It was conceded that there were limited subjective features to be taken into account here. The court would consider the statement of the offender's sister (Ex 1) in determining whether special circumstances should be found. That statement outlined the offender's upbringing and his exposure to alcoholic abuse and domestic violence from an early age. He also had involvement with juvenile justice at an early age and had spent significant periods in custody, which gave rise to a need for a lengthier period on parole to address his drug use and anti-social behaviour. 4. It was further submitted that between 28 February 2014 and November 2014 the offender had been in custody on offences of which he had then been acquitted. He had therefore spent more time in custody than demonstrated by his criminal history. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that it was open to find that he was affected by drugs at the time, for example, the victim had said to him, "This is not you". This may explain why his behaviour had escalated. The court was then taken to comparative cases which demonstrated an upper range of sentence of between 7 and 8 years, with non‑parole periods between four and half and 5 years. The Crown submissions 1. The Crown also relied on a thorough written outline of submissions which included submissions on general principles of sentencing and the application of the guideline judgment in R v Henry, supra. The Crown submitted that the present offence was substantially objectively more serious than the typical case described in the guideline because of the following aggravating factors: * The offence was in the context of domestic violence * The offence took place in the victim's own home * There was in fact use of a knife (which could have brought the matter under s 97(1)) * There were actual injuries inflicted on the victim with the knife and otherwise * There was a significant period of detaining the victim (Form 1 matter) * There were additional threats to kill the victim, her 18 months old child and her family if she reported the matter to police (Form 1 Intimidation) * There was a significant amount of money taken * It cannot be said that the offender was in the category of "young offender" at 26 years of age * The offender had a significant criminal history with custody for matters of violence, including robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon for which he was sentenced when he was 18 years of age, notwithstanding the offence was committed when he was still 16 years of age. 1. There was also further intimidation of sending the victim the photograph on 16 October 2017 of the offender holding a firearm. This was the second count for sentence. In respect of that count it was submitted that the presentation of a firearm was a seriously aggravating feature, particularly having regard to the earlier threat to kill the victim, her 18 month old child and her family. It was submitted that there should be some accumulation in sentences, given that the intimidation offence took place the following day, whilst the victim was in hospital being assessed and treated for the injuries inflicted by the offender, who had threatened to "come ova" (sic). The Crown relied on the aggravating factors set out above, and the mitigating factor of the early plea of guilty. It was submitted that if drug addiction was raised on behalf of the offender, it was not a mitigating circumstance. 2. The Crown also referred to Judicial Commission statistics and comparative cases. It was submitted that there should be an emphasis on both specific and general deterrence in cases of violence where there was a domestic context and use of weapons. 3. In his oral submissions, the Crown rehearsed the written submissions outlined above. The prior offending as a juvenile was relevant here, given that a firearm was used by the offender in that offence. This would affect his prospects of rehabilitation, given that some nine years later he still had recourse to a firearm for the purpose of Count 2. Notwithstanding that there was no Victim Impact Statement here, the court would accept that the offending had a significant impact on the victim, relying on s 29 of the CSPA. 4. In respect of gratuitous cruelty, the Crown accepted that it had to prove the infliction of suffering for its own sake beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, it had done so by the Agreed Fact that the offender had placed his fingers into the victim's mouth. He had done so having announced that he was committing a robbery. 5. With respect to the offender's drug use, it was submitted there was not a great deal of evidence as to his history of drug use. In any event, it did not amount to mitigating circumstances but may provide some explanation for his offending. 6. Finally, the Crown submitted that the offending here was objectively very serious, surpassing the Henry guideline, and that both general and specific deterrence were important in the sentencing process. Determination 1. In the guideline judgment of Henry, supra, Spigelman CJ at [162] identified the category of case upon which the guideline was based. It involved the following features: 1. Young offender with no or little criminal history 2. Weapon like a knife, capable of killing or inflicting serious injury 3. Limited degree of planning 4. Limited, if any, actual violence, but a real threat thereof 5. Victim in a vulnerable position such as a shopkeeper or taxi driver 6. Small amount taken 7. Plea of guilty, the significance of which is limited by a strong Crown case. 1. The Court identified a range of sentences for such a case of 4-5 years for the full term, with aggravating and mitigating factors justifying a sentence above or below the range. At [170] Spigelman CJ said as follows: "In addition to factors which may arise in any case, for example, youth, offender's criminal record, cooperation with authorities, guilty plea in the absence of a strong case, rehabilitation efforts, offence committed whilst on bail et cetera, a number of circumstances are particular to the offence of armed robbery. These include: (i) Nature of the weapon (ii) Vulnerability of the victim (iii) Position on a scale of impulsiveness/planning (iv) Intensity of threat, or actual use of force (v) Number of offenders (vi) Amount taken (vii) Effect on the victim(s)." 1. The guideline judgment also took into account a guilty plea of limited value. That should be understood to involve a late plea of guilty for the purpose of the application of Henry, which remains as a matter to be taken into account, or a "guide" and not a starting point for the purpose of sentencing. 2. It is clear, as was conceded by the offender, that the offending here is more serious criminal conduct than outlined in the guideline judgment. I do not accept that at 26 years of age the offender was a "young offender", nor do I accept that his criminal history was limited in the way advocated. He had a previous conviction for armed robbery where he used a replica firearm and was sentenced at 18 years of age. In addition, he had served a sentence of imprisonment of 6 months in 2014 for offences of violence and intimidation. 3. Aggravating features of the offending here were the use of the knife as a weapon, which was actually used to inflict injuries on the victim, to her neck, shoulder and collarbone. The offence also occurred in the home of the victim and I take into account the further injuries caused to her, namely, the carpet burns and abrasions. I do not, however, find that the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt there was gratuitous cruelty involved, notwithstanding that there was more than limited violence, including cutting the victim's throat, punching the victim in her face, pulling her hair, pushing her to the ground and the threats to kill her, her child and her family. 4. I further find that the victim was vulnerable in that the offences occurred late at night in her own home in the context of domestic violence. 5. I find that there was the sum of $550 taken and it was not a significant amount of money, however, it clearly was important to the victim, having been set aside for rent of her premises. 6. I find the objective seriousness of the offending for an offence pursuant to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 was within the mid-range for such an offence, but at the lower end of the mid-range. It constituted very serious offending. 7. In respect of the offence of intimidation, which occurred on 16 October 2017, I find that by sending a photograph of a person holding a rifle, in the context where the offender had threatened to kill the victim, her child and family members the previous day, amounted to objectively serious offending within the mid-range of an offence pursuant to s 13(1) of the C(P&DV)A 2007. 8. There is little in the way of subjective factors to take into account here. The statement of the offender's sister, Ex 1, was not the subject of sworn evidence, nor subject to cross-examination. It is clear that the offender had lapsed into serious delinquency during his high school years, that is demonstrated by his being sentenced to juvenile detention in respect of what was, on any view of it, a very serious armed robbery involving the use by the offender of a firearm. Whilst his abuse of prohibited drugs may provide some explanation by way of background to the offending, it does not amount to a mitigating circumstance. 9. I certify that I have taken into account the three offences on the Form 1 in respect of Count 1, the charge of aggravated robbery pursuant to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act. Those offences were as follows: Detain person without consent with intent to commit a serious indictable offence Common assault Intimidation 1. In the context of the domestic violence in which those offences were committed, each represented serious offending and they must lead to some accumulation on sentence. 2. The antecedent criminal history of the offender here is relevant because it included offences of a similar nature involving violence and the use of weapons. I have regard to what the High Court said in Veen v R (No 2) 1998 164 CLR 465 at [47], where the plurality said: "The antecedent criminal history of an offender is a factor which may be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed, but it cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence. The antecedent criminal history is relevant, however, to show that the incident offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or, whether the offender has manifested in his commission of the instant offence, the continuing attitude of disobedience to the law. In that case, retribution, deterrence and protection of society may all indicate that a more severe penalty is warranted" The offender's criminal history here does not entitle him to any leniency on sentencing. 1. I have had regard to the maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment for the offence pursuant to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act and the maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment for the offence of intimidation pursuant to s 13(1) of C(P&DV)A. The maximum penalties for each offence are guideposts in the sentencing process. 2. Also important here are both general deterrence and specific deterrence. A clear message must be sent by the court to like-minded members of the community that such serious offending in a domestic context will lead to charges being laid in respect of offences for which the Parliament has proscribed very long periods of imprisonment as maximum penalties and the courts will impose lengthy custodial sentences in appropriate cases. Specific deterrence is also important in that the offender must understand that his offending here warrants condign punishment. 3. Whilst there was no Victim Impact Statement relied on by the Crown pursuant to s 29(3) of the CSPA, the absence of such statement does not give rise to an inference that the offence had little or no impact on the victim. Clearly, it would have been a terrifying ordeal for her. The appellate authorities have made it clear that there is a requirement for powerful denunciation by the community of domestic violence offences – see Baradi v R [2018] NSWCCA 143 at [101], especially where such violence could only be described as "brutal, cowardly and inexcusable" – see Diaz v R [2018] NSWCCA 33 at [3]. 4. I have taken into account the offender's early plea of guilty and he is entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence. The offender has otherwise demonstrated no remorse for his conduct. I find the text messages sent following the first offence, but before the offence of intimidation in which he stated he was sorry, were entirely disingenuous. 5. I have also had regard to the principles of proportionality, totality and the avoidance of double punishment referred to in Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 at [45]. I find that in relation to the offence of intimidation, given that it occurred a day after the aggravated robbery, pursuant to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act, and involved the use of a photograph of a person holding a firearm, so as to emphasise the threats previously made by the offender to kill the victim, her child and family, there must be some partial accumulation of the two offences. 6. I intend to sentence the offender in respect of the offence of intimidation, pursuant to s 13(1) of the C(P&DV)A to a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 months commencing on 17 October 2017. 7. In respect of the offence of aggravated robbery pursuant to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act, I intend to sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment of 6 years, to commence on 17 June 2018. The total sentence will therefore be 6 years and 8 months, and the non-parole period will be 5 years commencing on 17 October 2017 and terminating on 16 October 2022. 8. I decline to make a finding of special circumstances in this case. There is insufficient evidence before me upon which to make such a finding based on the offender's needs for rehabilitation either for drug and alcohol abuse, or anger management. In any event, the sentence I propose will provide him with a lengthy period of supervision by applying the statutory ratio of non‑parole period to head sentence. Orders 1. I make the following orders: 1. You are convicted of the offence of intimidation pursuant to s 13(1) of the C(P&DV)A 2007. 2. I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 months commencing on 17 October 2017 to be served partly concurrently with other offences. 3. You are convicted of the offence of aggravated robbery pursuant to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. 4. I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 6 years to be served partly concurrently with other offences. The total term will be 6 years and 8 months. 5. I sentence you to a non-parole period of 5 years to commence on 17 October 2017 and to terminate on 16 October 2022. 6. There will be a balance of term of 1 year and 8 months commencing on 17 October 2022 and terminating on 16 June 2024. 7. I have certified the matters taken into account on the Form 1. 1. You should understand that release to parole is not automatic. The State Parole Authority will hold a hearing sometime before that date and decide whether they are going to release you to parole on that date or some later date. You should understand that your parole will be subject to stringent conditions, one of which is not to commit offences whilst on parole. Other conditions will include things such as who you associate with, where you live and doing what your parole officers direct. If, during the time you are on parole, you breach any condition of parole, the State Parole Authority will revoke your parole and you will have to go back to gaol to serve the balance of your sentence. ********** 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: 12 September 2018