R v Horne [2017] ACTSC 36 (10 February 2017)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Supreme Court of the ACT

Case Title:	R v Horne
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 36
Hearing Date:	7 December 2016
Decision Date:	10 February 2017
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	Luke Andrew Horne be convicted of aggravated burglary committed on 21 January 2016. Luke Andrew Horne be sentenced to two years imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2017. Luke Andrew Horne be convicted of theft committed on 21 January 2016. Luke Andrew Horne be sentenced to 13 months imprisonment to commence on 10 April 2018. That is a total sentence of two years and three months. That sentence be suspended from 10 February 2017 for two years and three months. Luke Andrew Horne be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for two years and three months, with the following conditions: (a) a probation condition that he accept supervision, by the Director-General or her delegate, for a period of two years, or such a lesser period as the person supervising him deems to be appropriate, and that he obey all reasonable directions of that person, especially as to rehabilitation for illicit drug use; and (b) that he undergo urinalysis when reasonably required within the next 12 months by the person supervising him. Luke Andrew Horne be directed to report to the office of ACT Community Corrections, Level 1, 249 London Circuit, Canberra City, before 5:00pm 10 February 2017. Luke Andrew Horne be directed to pay compensation in the sum of $4171 within 2 years to Mr John Muehlki.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – aggravated burglary – theft – intent to steal – consideration of breach – long gap in criminal history – prospects for rehabilitation – particularised subjective circumstances – specific deterrence – general deterrence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33, 36 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311(1)(a), 312
Cases Cited:	Ashdown v The Queen [2011] VSCA 408 ; 219 A Crim R 454 Bugmy v the Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 Markarian v the Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610 Rees v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 6 R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 73 R v Ellis (1993) 68 A Crim R 449 R v Fleet (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 11 December 2012) R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220 R v Kelly [2016] ACTSC 281 R v Kristiansen [2015] ACTSC 159 R v McMahon [2014] ACTSC 280 R v Ogilvie (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 381 R v Pogson [2012] NSWCCA 225; 82 NSWLR 60 R v Simonds [2013] ACTCA 13 R v Spencer [2014] ACTSC 364 R v TM [2014] ACTSC 394 R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luke Andrew Horne (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr P Bevan (Accused)
	Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bevan & Co (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 164 of 2016

1. On 22 August 2016, I sentenced Ian William Kelly to imprisonment for a total period of two years and nine months for offences of aggravated burglary and theft committed on 21 January 2016. The sentence also included a term of imprisonment which had been suspended and for which I was required to cancel a Good Behaviour Order made when that sentence of imprisonment was suspended because those offences breached that order. See R v Kelly [2016] ACTSC 281.

2. The circumstances of aggravation of the burglary he committed was that Mr Kelly was in company at the time of the burglary. The co-offender was Luke Horne, who now appears before me for sentencing for the same aggravated burglary and associated theft.

3. Aggravated burglary is an offence contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) which provides for a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $300 000) and 20 years imprisonment.

4. Theft is an offence against s 308 of the Criminal Code, for which the maximum penalty provided is 1000 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $150 000) and 10 years imprisonment.

5. The statutory penalties are required to be observed by the courts as a yardstick of the seriousness of the offences committed. See Markarian v the Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at 372; [30]- [31]. Thus, these offences are serious offences; the aggravated burglary is a very serious offence.

6. The Crown tendered a Statement of Facts which tender was not opposed and the Statement admitted into evidence. From that Statement I can make the following findings.

7. Shortly after midnight on 21 January 2016, Mr Kelly and Mr Horne attended some apartments in Griffith, ACT, entering a courtyard at the south of the premises through an unlocked gate.

8. They used a large flat-bladed screwdriver to manipulate the locking mechanism of a secure door which led from the courtyard to the foyer of the apartments and, as a result, gained entry to that foyer. Their actions were captured by closed circuit television which was recording on the premises.

9. Having entered the building, they proceeded to the underground car park which contained a number of locked storage containers.

10. They entered one of the storage containers and stole a road bicycle, a mountain bicycle, an electric guitar within a hard case, and an amplifier; these goods had a total value of approximately $8350.

11. Shortly after, they left the building through a door, which led from the underground car park to the entry and exit ramp for vehicles. Again, their activities were recorded through closed circuit television as they left the building.

12. Following the report of the incident, police viewed the footage from the closed circuit television and identified Mr Horne by a tattoo on his left arm. They obtained a search warrant for his premises, which was executed on 19 April 2016, and police seized two items of clothing matching that seen on the closed circuit television footage as having been worn by Mr Horne.

13. During the execution of the warrant, Mr Horne made a number of admissions to the facts of the offences, including that he had been in the company of his uncle, Mr Kelly. It was this information which enabled police to identify Mr Horne’s co-offender and Mr Kelly was later arrested.

14. The Statement of Facts is not clear, but Mr Horne was served with a summons and, accordingly, I assume he was not arrested. He is not said to have served any period in custody for these offences.

15. He appeared in the ACT Magistrates Court on 7 July 2016 and sought an adjournment.

16. On the adjourned occasion, he entered a plea of guilty and was committed to this Court for sentence. He has adhered to his plea of guilty.

17. I have already noted above (at [5]), that aggravated burglary is a very serious offence, judged by the maximum penalty it attracts. It has the same serious consequences to the community as does the offence of burglary but with the added circumstance of aggravation, which in this case, as I have already noted above (at [2]), was that Mr Horne was in company when he committed the burglary.

18. In R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 at [48]- [51], I explained the gravity of the offences of burglary and theft, which are a serious problem for our community. People should be able to feel safe in their homes and know that their property, for which they may well have worked hard to acquire, and sometimes which has more than monetary value to them, is secure.

19. In this case, the property may well have had particular value as recreational vehicles and musical instruments. The loss of property, in any event, also causes inconvenience if only in the need to make claims on insurers to replace it. Any payout by insurance companies has a wider effect on the community by the inevitable raising of premiums.

20. Intrusion into private places by the trespass in a burglary or aggravated burglary can often disturb victims who will feel violated. This is more significant, of course, when there is more than one offender where the offender is in company.

22. Ordinarily, the burglary of residential premises, as opposed to the burglary of commercial premises, is a more serious version of the offence. See R v Simonds [2013] ACTCA 13 at [54]. In this case, although the premises were residential premises, the fact that it was a separate, basement garage in to which Mr Horne and Mr Kelly trespassed may somewhat reduce the seriousness of the trespass when compared to, for example, a trespass into the living areas of residential premises. Nevertheless, tenants are likely to visit the garage from time-to-time, including at late hours.

23. Other than this, the offence was a relatively unremarkable version of the offence, with no particular aggravating features, apart, perhaps, from the use of the screwdriver. It was, nevertheless, still a serious offence.

24. The theft was a serious example of the offence because of the value of the property that was stolen. See R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220 at [27], [31]. The owner was deprived of some quite valuable property and the loss of which would likely have interfered with his recreational activities to a disturbing degree, although I did not have a Victim Impact Statement to confirm this.

25. There was no information suggesting that any of the property had been recovered but there was a claim for compensation, which suggests that it was not. Mr Horne’s circumstances made it unlikely that he could pay much compensation and, as the claim for compensation suggests that the owner has no insurance for the stolen goods, it makes the loss somewhat more personal and a greater loss for the owners. Nevertheless, where there is insurance the courts should not ignore the problems for insurers and, indeed, the rest of the community, from the indemnity they provide when offences such as this require the victims of theft to call upon that indemnity.

26. The circumstances that led to Mr Horne committing the offences were a little unclear. From the material available to me, I am able to find Mr Horne had a drug debt from his use of methylamphetamine. He was unable to pay it. It appears that his uncle, Mr Kelly, suggested the burglary as a way of obtaining the necessary funds. Mr Horne, however, agreed to participate and did not resile from his responsibility for the offence.

27. In the Pre-Sentence Report prepared for the sentencing, Mr Horne claimed that he had been using methylamphetamine for a few days prior to the commission of the current offence and lack of both sleep and food contributed to his behaviour.

28. Nevertheless, Mr Horne acknowledged the negative impact of his offending behaviour on the victim and expressed regret for his actions.

29. I had a Pre-Sentence Report and an Assessment Report from the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Services (CADAS). Mr Horne gave evidence before me twice; the first was sworn evidence, whilst the second was not sworn. From this material, I can make the following findings.

30. Mr Horne was born about 32 years ago in Charleville, Queensland, the youngest of his four brothers and one sister. He was exposed to frequent drug and alcohol abuse, as well as physical abuse perpetrated by his older brother. His mother drank heavily and was almost certainly alcohol dependent. At the age of 11, his father died of emphysema. His stepfather perpetrated domestic violence on his mother and, indeed, his mother inflicted violence on him.

31. Mr Horne was evicted from the family home at age 13 and spent the majority of his formative years “couch surfing” between friends’ houses, although he did spend some periods back in the family home. This seriously disadvantaged childhood is relevant to his sentencing: Bugmy v the Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at 592-3; [37], 594-5; [43]-[44].

32. It appears, that despite the violence that he says his mother inflicted on him, he has maintained a positive relationship with her and, indeed, his stepfather, although he has limited contact with his four brothers and his sister.

33. Mr Horne has had one significant past relationship which lasted for approximately seven years, although it ceased about 10 years ago. He has an 11 year old daughter who resides with his former partner in Canberra. He has no contact with his former partner but has regular weekend contact with his daughter, though this is problematic because of the unsuitable environment of his present government flat. He has sought to relocate to premises more suitable for his daughter and, indeed, himself.

34. Mr Horne completed Year 7 at school but left the formal education system part way through Year 8. He has limited numeracy and literacy skills, though he has engaged through the Canberra Institute of Technology to develop those skills, but he has not actually fully completed any course. His numeracy and literacy have improved over the years due to self education.

35. Mr Horne has had a sporadic casual employment history as a fencer and a roof plumber and, more recently, as a fishmonger in 2015, although that lasted for about three months. He is currently in receipt of Centrelink Newstart benefits and has been for the past seven years. He has, however, recently obtained some casual employment with a removalist firm, which is promising.

36. One of the serious problems for Mr Horne is that his mother has been diagnosed with throat cancer and he has found it very difficult to deal with that problem. He has been her carer, although recently, when she had to undergo an operation in Sydney, there was no accommodation for Mr Horne. He could not be there to support her through the surgical procedure. This has had a significant effect on him.

37. Mr Horne has a long alcohol and drug history. He first began drinking alcohol when he was 13, probably encouraged through his home environment. At age 17, however, he ceased all alcohol consumption and told the CADAS officer that he does not drink at all now. That is to his credit and suggests that he has the capacity to reform if he puts his mind to it.

38. He first used cannabis when he was 16, soon using daily up to 2.5 grams until he was about 25. When he was 21, his daughter was born and he began reducing his use and, indeed, at age 26, he was completely abstinent. He returned to smoking cannabis upon learning of his mother’s diagnosis of cancer, and is said to be using about half a gram daily to assist with his sleep. He has continued to use cannabis sporadically, but accepted that he needs to find other ways to deal with his sleeping problem.

39. The main drug problem that Mr Horne has is the use of methylamphetamine, which he first used at age 21, and was soon injecting one point daily. In the last 12 months, however, he has moderated his use substantially and said that he had used in that time on a total of five occasions, with the last occasion being five months prior to when he spoke to CADAS staff in late November 2016. He says that he has not used since, but he is aware of the risk of relapse and is seeking assistance from a number of drug rehabilitation agencies.

40. The Drug Screening Tool (DAST 10) administered on 29 October 2016 by ACT Corrective Services indicated that his drug related risk was moderate, with further interventions required.

41. Mr Horne applied for admission to the Karralika Therapeutic Community, an agency I have described in R v Kristiansen [2015] ACTSC 159 at [12]- [14]. He was assessed on 14 December 2016 but was found to be unsuitable, mainly because of concerns about his capacity to participate in group work within the Program. He was referred to the Arcadia House Program (which I have described in R v Spencer [2014] ACTSC 364 at [25]- [28] and R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 at [40]- [41]).

42. He has made contact with Directions, a respected drug and alcohol rehabilitation agency, which conducts the Arcadia House facility. After assessment, however, it was suggested that he participate instead on one-on-one counselling. It was also suggested that some encouragement for his reform progress would be achieved if he were required to undergo urinalysis from time-to-time. He has consented to this.

43. Unfortunately, his first counselling session could not be scheduled until 14 March 2017. It is a matter of great regret that limited resources have reduced the access drug addicted persons have to drug and alcohol rehabilitation services. It provides a real challenge for the courts, who are faced with offenders, whose reform is, as French CJ has pointed out in Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 at 537; [32], the surest guarantee of the protection of society, that such offenders cannot be provided with assistance in reaching that result when they are ready to do so and so are likely to be at risk of relapse before then, to the detriment of the community.

44. Mr Horne has also deliberately tried to avoid those of his associates who use drugs and engage in criminal conduct. Indeed, for this reason, he has not recently attended Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. This is a problem for which there is no easy solution. While it is desirable that he avoid such associates, it is risking relapse to avoid support for his rehabilitation and abstinence.

45. Mr Horne has an unenviable criminal history. It must, however, be considered carefully. He has a record of 35 offences dealt with in 11 court appearances. These include 23 offences of dishonesty, four offences of damaging property, and five traffic offences. Three of the dishonesty offences are offences of burglary. He has breached recognizances on five occasions. It is a record consistent with his drug use and history of unemployment. It is not a propitious record and would ordinarily limit greatly the leniency that could be afforded to Mr Horne.

46. The most recent offence, however, was committed on 13 January 2007, and the most recent offence of dishonesty on 20 March 2002. He has committed only three relatively minor offences (judged by the penalties imposed) since March 2002. Such a gap is a significant matter, as pointed out by the Court of Appeal in Rees v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 6 at [2].

47. This suggests that Mr Horne has become relatively law abiding, despite his use of methylamphetamine, and that his offending was associated with his youth and when he was using drugs more regularly and heavily. Such a gap, especially here of a decade and more, so far as dishonesty offences are concerned, does show some rehabilitation and the prospects of Mr Horne being able to avoid relapse into significant criminality. This is a very relevant matter on sentence. His record should not simply be a matter of adding up the number and type of offences, but putting it into a temporal context as well as considering any de-escalation of the seriousness of offending.

48. While that does not reduce the seriousness of the offences, it does suggest that he has the capacity to be rehabilitated, especially if he applies the strength of character that has enabled him to pause from his use of drugs to achieve a more permanent solution.

49. There is no tariff for burglary or aggravated burglary, as explained by Burns and Lander JJ in Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 at [15]. Nevertheless, I pointed out at [51] in the same decision, without contradiction, that the sentences in this Court for burglary of residential premises generally range from imprisonment for one year to two years and six months. This, of course, is not for the offence of aggravated burglary, which is a more serious offence.

50. Although it is important to bear in mind that sentencing statistics can only give a very general picture of the “collective wisdom of ... judges” (R v Ellis (1993) 68 A Crim R 449 at 460), and must be viewed with care, they can, as noted in Ashdown v The Queen

[2011] VSCA 408

; 219 A Crim R 454 at 511;

[151]

(31), “throw some light on sentencing patterns for a particular offence, and thus provide some window on the accumulated experience of sentencing judges”.

51. The ACT Sentencing Database has captured to date 93 sentences for the offence of aggravated burglary. Of these, 49.5 per cent were sentences of full-time imprisonment, 29 per cent were sentences of imprisonment that were fully suspended, and 5.4 per cent were simply Good Behaviour Orders.

52. The terms of imprisonment ranged from six months (22 per cent) to four years and six months (6.5 per cent) with most sentences in the range of two years to two years and six months (39.2 per cent). A brief inspection of the sentencing remarks for those offenders receiving a sentence of less than two years show particular circumstances, such as being a young offender or experiencing restrictive conditions while in custody. See, for example, R v Fleet (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 11 December 2012); and R v TM [2014] ACTSC 394.

53. These do not provide the range of sentences that may be appropriate for the offences, but do provide helpful information on sentencing practice to which the Court is required by statute to have regard.

54. I have regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). For serious crime, such as this, punishment is required. It is also required that there be an element of general deterrence and denunciation in the sentence to be imposed.

55. Some element of specific deterrence is required to make it clear to Mr Horne that this relapse into criminal activity is unacceptable and that further offending risks him being subject to quite severe punishment.

56. On the other hand, there are obviously good prospects of his reform and there is a public interest interdicting this return to criminality before it escalates. See R v Pogson [2012] NSWCCA 225; 82 NSWLR 60 at 85-6; [115]. It seems to me that the opportunity to fashion a sentence that recognises the reform achieved, and the opportunity for this to continue, should be taken.

57. I note that his plea of guilty to both offences was entered in the Magistrates Court and on the second mention. This is both some evidence of remorse, which is consistent with the rehabilitative efforts that Mr Horne has made, as well as being of significant benefit to the administration of justice.

58. In addition, Mr Horne did admit to his participation in the offences when interviewed by police and, indeed, named his co-offender, Mr Kelly, who had not been identified when police viewed the CCTV footage. This constituted assistance to law enforcement authorities under s 36 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act and thus, entitled him to a lesser penalty than would otherwise have been imposed.

59. Associated with this is the assertion on behalf of Mr Horne, not contradicted by the Crown, that Mr Kelly was so disaffected with Mr Horne’s disclosure of him as the

co-offender that he was preparing to have some retribution visited on Mr Horne were he to be incarcerated.

60. This is, of course, problematic. The Court should not be unrealistic about the existence of some violence in prisons, as, indeed, they recognise that prisoners do have access to illicit drugs in prisons, even in the Alexander Maconochie Centre. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the corrections officers to ensure the safety of prisoners whose sentences they are required to administer: R v Ogilvie (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 381 at [14]. Indeed, as Weinberg J said in R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 73 at [15], when it was suggested that an offender should not be imprisoned because of a risk in prison, in that case an asserted risk of sexual assault or other forms of violence:

61. Nevertheless, in that case the submission for Mr Collins was of a more generalised proposition. Whereas here there is an allegation of a specific threat, which has some corroboration in the circumstances of the case.

62. What may be appropriate, and consistent with principle, is to accept that Mr Horne would have to serve any period of imprisonment in protective custody because of the threat of retribution for his disclosure and that would make his period of detention more onerous.

63. In any event, for the reasons I have mentioned, I consider that while a term of imprisonment is warranted, it is not inevitable that it should be served in full-time detention.

64. I take into account the matters set out in s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act to which I am required to have regard. So far as I know them, they are set out in these reasons.

65. I note that Mr Kelly was sentenced to imprisonment, for the offence of aggravated burglary, for two years and three months, and 15 months for the theft, accumulated as to four months on the other sentence. Both Mr Kelly and Mr Horne participated equally in the offences themselves, although I have found that Mr Kelly was the instigator; Mr Horne, it appears, nevertheless, to have followed willingly.

66. Mr Kelly had a much more serious criminal history, 225 offences, compared with Mr Horne’s record of 35 offences. Mr Kelly is older and is his uncle.

67. These are, therefore, significant differences which, despite the ordinary need for parity in sentencing co-offenders, justifies a different sentence to be imposed on Mr Horne.

68. I note that Mr Horne has been assessed as suitable for a community service work condition to a Good Behaviour Order, and that appropriate work is available. While that is an option that I seriously considered, it seemed to me, on balance, that it would return him to the company of people like his former associates, which would risk his return to drug use and crime.

69. The Crown suggested that I consider the making of an Intensive Correction Order. That has advantages. I note, however, that the Pre-Sentence Report assesses that any intervention through the supervision required under a Good Behaviour Order would be at a medium level. This, of course, does not contra-indicate an Intensive Correction Order.

70. I note, however, that Mr Horne has already engaged with Directions and he is “rehabilitation ready.” It seems to me that there is no need in this case to delay by the further eight weeks that would be required for assessment for an Intensive Correction Order, although in other circumstances, that may well be appropriate.

71. I accept that Mr Horne is remorseful – and this is corroborated by his efforts to address his drug use, his efforts to remain abstinent, and his expressed insight.

72. I note that frequently the sentence for theft that is committed when a burglary or aggravated burglary is committed with the intent to steal (s 311(1)(a) of the Criminal Code) is ordinarily made wholly concurrent with the sentence for the burglary or aggravated burglary offence because of the risk of double punishment, especially as to the relevant mental element, or because the sentence for the more serious offence adequately punishes the offender for the whole of the criminality committed, as I explained in R v McMahon [2014] ACTSC 280 at [94]. Of course, separate sentences must be imposed on each offence to meet proper sentencing principles: Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610 at 624; [46]- [47].

73. In this case, as with Mr Kelly, it seems to me that the value of the property stolen would mean that wholly concurrent sentences would not meet the whole of the culpability of Mr Horne.

2. I sentence you to two years imprisonment, to commence today 10 February 2017. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to two years and eight months imprisonment.

4. I sentence you to 13 months imprisonment, to commence on 10 April 2018 to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for aggravated burglary.

7. I require you to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for two years and three months, with the following conditions:

(a) a probation condition that you accept supervision, by the Director-General or her delegate, for a period of two years, or such a lesser period as the person supervising you deems to be appropriate, and that you obey all reasonable directions of that person, especially as to rehabilitation for illicit drug use; and

(b) that you undergo urinalysis when reasonably required within the next 12 months by the person supervising you.

8. I direct that you report to the office of ACT Community Corrections, at Level 1, 249 London Circuit, Canberra City, before 5:00pm today.

9. I direct that you pay compensation in the sum of $4171 with two years, to be paid out to Mr John Muehlki. Such payment to be made to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the ACT.

75. Mr Horne, that is the sentence I have imposed, but I am required to explain it to you, although with your history, you probably understand what has been said.

76. I have stated that the total criminality involved in this case was worth two years and three months in prison. But I am not going to send you to prison because of your circumstances. You are already addressing the issues that involved the commission of this offence – your drug use and your associations with anti-social people – which is commendable.

77. Secondly, the gap between your offending shows that you are committed to rehabilitation. You have shown that you have the strength of mind and the capacity to do that, so I have made a Good Behaviour Order. Therefore you have to sign an undertaking to comply with the conditions of that Good Behaviour Order, where there are three main conditions that I must explain to you – there are other conditions as well but you will be told about those by the relevant person.

78. The first is not to commit any further offences. If you commit any further offences you can be brought back to the Court, and it may not be me because I retire later this year, but during any of those two years and three months, if you commit an offence punishable by imprisonment then you can be resentenced for those offences as well as for these offences, and that may include being sent to gaol again.

79. Secondly, there is a probation condition, which has two aspects to it. That is a degree of supervision by someone at Corrective Services, and that is intended to try and keep you on the straight and narrow. In particular, that person can give you help and directions about how to address your illicit drug use, including some relapse prevention, which is important. If you are genuinely abstinent, as you say you are, then what you will want is some relapse prevention rather than just general information. Your counselling at Directions is a really good start for that, and that may be the continued direction that your probation officer will give you.

80. The second aspect is that a probation officer is also someone who has knowledge and an understanding of issues that you will face, and so it is someone who, if things are getting tough, that may be able to point you to agencies that might assist you with things such as employment; drug use prevention; and with relocating your housing. They do not have magic wands and cannot resolve everything, but they can point you in the right direction to where you may be able to get some assistance.

81. Do not avoid that, it is very male to think you can do it all on your own, but we all need assistance from time-to-time. I get it from counsel who are appearing before me, and from my associate, who assist me in the intellectual work that I have to do in making decisions. You may need assistance in things that you do in your life, and that is an opportunity for you – but they do have a control responsibility and are the ones who will report you if you breach your order. So it is a balancing exercise.

82. The third condition is that you must undergo urinalysis when reasonably required, and you have already consented to that, but the stakes are high. Cannabis will show up, and it will show up for three to four weeks after you have used it, so if you are genuine about rehabilitation, then you need to cut it completely out as well. I know cannabis is a less serious drug, but it is still illicit and cannot be countenanced, so you need to address that.

83. If you have trouble sleeping, go and see your General Practitioner. You know that there is also a good General Practitioner at Directions, who can assist you, as the proper approach is via prescribed medication, not illicit drugs. You need to report to ACT Corrective Services, which are now at 249 London Circuit. Report there today so that you can start the arrangements for the supervision.

84. Finally, I have made a direction that you pay compensation, $4171. It is a lot of money. What I suggest you do is to work out what you can comfortably pay weekly. If you can get that automatically deducted, then that is the optimal approach to take. You need to talk to the Registrar of the Supreme Court about that payment to try to get it paid as soon as you can.

85. Mr Horne, hopefully this is nothing more than a blip in your criminal activity. You have shown, over about a decade, that you can be a lawabiding citizen. That is important for you, so that you do not go to gaol, but it is important for your daughter who needs someone to look after her, and to be a role model for her, and you are not a role model if you are using drugs and you are burgling other people’s house’s, or other criminal activity.

86. I hope that the courts will not see you again. There is every chance they won’t, especially as you have already shown that you have lasted a decade without getting into trouble. You are older and are smarter now. You have support networks through Directions and some probation, for a period of time, so take advantage of your access to that. Most of all, I hope that you will take this opportunity that I am giving you.