IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 23-00561
CR 23-00707

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
JORDAN SCICLUNA		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LAURITSEN	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	21 February 2024 and 21 March 2024	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 April 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Scicluna	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 462	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: 	Charges of burglary, theft, intentionally damaging property, persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail – no dishonesty offences in criminal history – diagnosis of mild intellectual disability – Bugmy – Verdins – remorse – prospect of rehabilitation uncertain – early plea of guilty – totality
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5(1), 16(3C).
Cases Cited:	DPP v Bowd [2019] VSCA 246; R v Cotham [1998] VSCA 111; Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160; Newton v The Queen [2023] VSCA 22; R v Verdins [2007] 16 VR 269; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
Sentence:	Total effective sentence of 24 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months' imprisonment.
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr D. Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Ms J. Willard	Papa Hughes Lawyers	

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1	Jordan Scicluna, I will sentence you to a total effective sentence of 24 months' imprisonment and I will set a non-parole period of 12 months' imprisonment.  I will declare the 207 days of your pre-sentence detention, excluding today, as time served under my sentences.
2	You pleaded guilty to eight charges of burglary, four charges of theft, seven charges of intentionally damaging property, a charge of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order and a charge of committing an indictable offence while on bail.  Initially, your case was heard with 
Mr Macklin, however, I dealt with Mr Macklin's case on 24 March 2024.
Circumstances
3	The circumstances of your offending in the indictment, C2114837 are those circumstances set out in the prosecution opening for plea, which is 
Exhibit A.  I state the number because Mr Macklin was the subject of a further indictment.  For the most part, both you and Mr Macklin offended together.  
Exhibit A divides your offending into eight episodes and for convenience, I will adopt that structure.
Episode 1
4	At about 12.05 am on 7 December 2021, both of you, that is you and Mr Macklin and a third person went to the Opalia shopping centre in Weir Views.  You got into a Telstra pit and cut all of the NBN cables.  This rendered inoperable the various services provided through the cables.  This constitutes Charge 1, a charge of intentionally damaging property.  
5	You then rang the nearby news agency 14 times to confirm the correct cables had been cut.  Both of you used a crowbar to force open the front door of the news agency causing damage and entered the premises.  Damaging the cables and the front door of the news agency constitutes Charge 1, a charge of intentionally damaging property.  The entry into those premises constitutes Charge 2, a charge of burglary.  Both of you then stole a CCTV system, a safe and $4,000 in cash.  This constitutes Charge 3, a charge of theft.
Episode 2
6	At about 1.55 am on 9 September 2021, both of you went to a Telstra pit near the Riddells Creek Hair and Beauty Salon.  You accessed the pit and cut the NBN cables, which rendered inoperable the services provided through the pit.  
7	Both of you and another male forced open the front door of the salon, causing damage to it.  It is the damage to the Telstra pit and to the front door which constitutes Charge 4, a charge of intentionally damaging property.  However, an alarm went off and you left.  In relation to you, Mr Scicluna, this constitutes Charge 5, a charge of burglary.
Episode 3
8	At about 11.15 pm on 18 September 2021, both of you went to The Centreway in Lara.  You got into three Telstra pits near to a business called Lara Lotteries.  You cut all the cables causing the various services to stop operating.  This constitutes Charge 6, a charge of intentionally damaging properly.  
9	Both of you forced open the rear door of the business premises and entered.  This constitutes Charge 7, a charge of burglary.  You stole multiple scratchy books, a safe containing $6,000 and various other items.  This constitutes Charge 8, a charge of theft.
Episode 4
10	At about 10.10 pm on 19 September 2021, both of you got into a Telstra pit near to The Village Food Store in Hillside.  You cut the cables, causing the services supplied by them to be inoperable.  This constitutes Charge 9, a charge of intentionally damaging property.  
11	You both forced open the front door and entered the premises of The Village Food Store.  In opening the door, you caused significant damage to an adjacent window.  You then used a saw, or something similar to a saw, in an unsuccessful attempt to break into an ATM.  The entry constitutes Charge 10, a charge of burglary.
Episode 5
12	Between 12.30 am and 3.30 am on 22 September 2021, both of you entered the premises of the Rue D'Fleur florist and giftware shop in Romsey through its roof.  This constitutes Charge 11, a charge of burglary.  You disabled through removal the telecommunications cables inside the shop.  This constitutes Charge 12, intentionally causing damage.  You then used a saw or something similar in an unsuccessful attempt to break into an ATM and causing an alarm to operate.
Episode 6
13	At about 1.45 am on 24 September 2021, both of you went to the premises of the Broadford News and Tats in Broadford.  After trying to enter through the roof, both of you forced an entry through a rear door using a crowbar, or something similar to a crowbar.  The entry constitutes Charge 13, a charge of burglary.  You stole $1,500 in cigarettes and $508 in cash.  This constitutes Charge 14, a charge of theft.
Episode 7
14	At about 5.05 am on 24 September 2021, you returned to the Opalia shopping centre in Weir Views.  Using a crowbar, you forced the front door of the Opalia News Express.  This constitutes Charge 15, a charge of intentionally damaging.  Once inside the premises, you stole a safe containing $2,500 in cash and 30 scratchy books.  Entering the premises constitutes Charge 16, a charge of burglary.  Stealing the cash and scratchy books constitutes Charge 17, a charge theft.
Episode 8
15	At about 2 am on 28th September 2021, both of you forced open a glass door to the Cobblebank Village Shopping Centre in Cobblebank and entered the premises.  This constitutes Charge 18, a charge of burglary.  You used a saw, or something similar, in an attempt to break into an ATM.  This attempt caused damage to the ATM and constitutes Charge 19, a charge of intentionally damaging property.
Investigation
16	Through various means, including the use of search warrants, the police identified both you and Mr Macklin as the offenders for these offences.  The search of Mr Macklin's home found, among other things, two resealable bags containing cannabis and that constitutes a charge against him, which is not a charge against you.  They also found a file of testosterone, which also constitutes a charge against him and not you.
Charge 22
17	The police looked at the records of your phone calls.  They revealed, between 1 and 22 September 2021, 207 phone calls and SMS messages were made to Eden MacDonald.  This contravened a condition of a family violence intervention order, where you were the respondent and prohibited from contacting Eden MacDonald.  The order was made on 26 June 2021.  Paragraph 34 of Exhibit A sets out the dates and the number of contacts on each date.  On 13, 16 and 21 September, there were 20 or more contacts on each of these days.
Criminal History 
18	You have appeared in a criminal court on five occasions between 26 February 2014 and 23 January 2020 and have been found guilty or convicted of 28 charges.  You have never previously been sentenced to imprisonment.  Your offending has mainly been violence and traffic related.  There have been no dishonesty charges.
Victim Impact Statement
Kerry Donnelly
19	It appears Kerry Donnelly was the owner of the Riddells Creek Hair and Beauty Salon.  She made an impact statement on 1 September 2023.  She was present when both of you left her business premises.  She thought one of you was holding something, 'long', and was terrified.  She could not open her business the next day and lost money as a result.  
20	Ms Donnelly has since sold her business and the building that housed it, as she does not want to experience another burglary.
Personal 
21	Mr Scicluna, you grew up in the Bacchus Marsh and Melton areas.  You have two older half-brothers and a younger sister.  Your parents separated when you were 13.  You and your sister stayed with your mother while your older brothers lived with your father.  Your father had a history of substance abuse and family violence, which was mainly directed at your mother.  However, you witnessed the violence to your mother and the injuries she suffered, which involved hospital admissions.  An intervention order was eventually obtained to protect her.  You have a good relationship with your mother and sister.
22	Your family struggled financially in your youth and required assistance from the Salvation Army for food and clothing.  You would often stay home to protect your mother, until your parents separated.  You reported involvement from the Department of Health and Human Services and spent a lot of your time with your paternal grandparents.  
23	You attended a primary school.  You struggled to read and write as well as doing arithmetic.  You repeated Grades 2 and 5 and had a teacher’s aid.  You then attended a secondary school in Melton, completing half of Year 10 before leaving.
24	At age six, you were diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and prescribed dexamphetamine, Ritalin and Catapres at different stages.  If you did not take your medicine in the morning, you would usually be sent home from school due to misbehaviour.  You stopped taking these medicines at the age of 17.
25	After school you did a pre-apprenticeship in the catering business of one of your brothers until you were 18.  It was the death of a close friend that caused you to use drugs.  You stopped working with your brother.  Since then, your employment has been on and off in the work of a plasterer and concreter.  You last worked as a concreter in 2019.  Since 2019, your main source of income has come through Centrelink.
26	When you were aged 17, you started the relationship with Jodie.  You were together for eight years.  You have a daughter, who is now nine.  Your relationship with Jodie ended when you started using more substances and your behaviour became aggressive and paranoid.  While in the community, you maintain regular contact with your daughter.
27	In 2013, you were involved in a motor vehicle accident.  You suffered bleeding on the brain and this is something which Mr Jackson makes significant reference in his two reports.
28	You did not have many friends during school and, as I said, your close friend died in a house fire.  He fell asleep with a lighted cigarette, which caused the fire.  You and another friend tried to put the flames out before the fire brigade arrived and you could hear your friend screaming.  You still have dreams and re-experience the scene.  You do not like fire and you find it hard to look at flames.  You have disturbed sleep as a result of these events.
29	In 2019 you were involved in another motor vehicle accident.  It was a very hot day.  You reported as being a 40-degree day.  You were intoxicated and were performing wheel stands on a motorbike.  The bike came out from underneath you and slid across the tarmac at 85 to 95 kilometres per hour.  You stopped when you hit the gutter.  You recall going to a friend's house 200 metres down the road before you lost consciousness.  You were taken to hospital by ambulance.  You were an inpatient for a few weeks. There was bleeding on your brain.  You did not attend outpatient appointments.  Since this accident, you have had difficulty concentrating and remembering.
30	Both of your parents were regular drug users.  At age 13, you started using cannabis. You used it on weekends until age 15 when you started using it daily.  At age 18, you stopped smoking cannabis and started using methamphetamines.  Oddly, the methamphetamine helped your attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in that you became focused and could socialise.  You used it mainly on weekends but after your close friend died, you started using it daily.  The drug made you paranoid and ultimately led to the breakdown of relationships as you would think your partner was having affairs.  You continued to use methamphetamine until your remand.
31	You drank alcohol from age 16 and with your drug use, would drink on the weekends with friends and later you drank daily having a 10-pack of bourbon premix per day.  You drank heavily until your remand in custody.
32	Regarding other drugs, you tried heroin at age 21 but did not use it often.  You started using GHB at age 25 and then from age 27 were using it daily.  Again, you were using at least 50 millilitres of GHB daily until your remand.  You report multiple overdoses on GHB and were taken to hospital.  You would be discharged when medically fit and report no loss of consciousness during your overdoses.  
33	You have never engaged in drug and alcohol counselling other than which formed part of a Community Correction Order.  You found this counselling useful initially but would quickly relapse into substance abuse once released back in the community.  You report attending upon counselling after the death of your friend and only went on two occasions.  You felt the counsellor was not helping you with your problems and no other intervention for this grief was explored.
34	You have been diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability and post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and a substance use disorder.  Mr Jackson, the neuropsychologist, considers your cognitive impairments are likely to be permanent, and I refer to this issue later.
35	You are on remand at Fulham Prison where you work in its grounds.  As I have been told by your counsel this morning, when you are ultimately released from custody, you intend to live with your aunt in the country town of Hopetoun, which is a considerable distance from Melton.  You wish to do so in order to avoid the antisocial contacts you might make in the Melton area.
Psychologist
36	Mr Warren Simmons is a psychologist.  He interviewed you on 11 September of last year at your solicitor's request.  You saw your childhood made you vulnerable to using drugs as your father and half-brothers used them, making it seem like normal behaviour. You are now an entrenched addict favouring methamphetamine and the real risk of resuming drug use is when released from custody.  Essentially, your reason for the dishonesty offences was to get money to buy drugs.  Your criminal behaviour arose as your addiction to methamphetamine arose itself.
37	Mr Simmons diagnosed you as suffering from a substance use disorder.  He saw symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder arising out of the death of your friend and an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. I will deal with Mr Simmons's observations about your prospects of rehabilitation later.
38	Mr Simmons thought you may have suffered an acquired brain injury.  He recommended an investigation by a neuropsychology.  Accordingly, your solicitors arranged for a neuropsychologist to interview you and that is, Mr Jackson.
Neuropsychologist 
39	Mr Jackson interviewed you on 8 December 2023 and he wrote two reports; an initial report and then a report dealing with questions raised.  These were questions raised by your lawyers.  He assessed your intellectual abilities in either the low average range, extremely low range or the borderline range.  He assessed your full-scale intelligence quotient at 67 which is consistent with a mild intellectual disability using the DSM-5 for mental disorders.
40	Mr Jackson considered you suffered a traumatic brain injury due to a motorbike accident in 2013.  He was influenced by the fact you suffered a subarachnoid haemorrhage. This injury led to ongoing cognitive impairments. The acquired brain injury may also be due to your longstanding substance abuse, including methamphetamine and alcohol.  Moreover, some of your cognitive deficiencies may be due to your attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.  Mr Jackson could not separate the extent to which these matters contributed to your current cognitive deficits, although he seems to place more responsibility on the accident and less on your substance abuse with the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder adding to the cognitive impairments.  As I have said, Mr Jackson considered your cognitive impairments were likely to be permanent.
41	On page 17 of his first report, Mr Jackson set out the effect of your impairments upon your day-to-day life.  He noted these impairments would be significantly worse if you were abusing substances.  Mr Jackson drew the link between your offending and the impairment in these terms; this appears at page 18 of his first report,
'As such, his offending behaviour was related to his drug use in the context of clear cognitive and behavioural impairments from several sources.'
42	From the perspective of the impairments, it is the impairment of your executive function of decision making which is related to your offending because once you think you have a good idea, this is according to Mr Jackson, you cannot consider other options.  You do not consider the consequences of your actions.  You have difficulty learning from your mistakes.  Not unnaturally, Mr Jackson recommended intensive psychological therapy.
Discussion
Purposes 
43	Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 sets out the purposes for which sentences may be imposed;
(a)	to punish the offender to the extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances;
(b)	to deter the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar character;
(c)	to enable an offender's rehabilitation to be facilitated;
(d)	to manifest the denunciation of the type of conduct the offender engaged in; and 
(e)	to protect the community from the offender.
44	Each of those sentencing purposes is relevant to your sentence.
Maximum penalties 
45	The maximum penalty for the offences for which you have pleaded guilty are: 
(a)	burglary, 10 years' imprisonment; 
(b)	theft, 10 years' imprisonment; 
(c)	intentionally damaging property, 10 years' imprisonment; 
(d)	persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, 5 years imprisonment or a fine of 600 penalty units;
(e)	committing an indictable offence while on bail, a fine of 30 penalty units or three months' imprisonment.
Nature and gravity of the offending
46	In relation to the eight episodes as were described in Exhibit A and which I have summarised, they occurred between 7 and 28 September 2021, a period of 
21 days.  This sort of behaviour used to be called a crime wave.
47	The prosecution rely upon a passage from the case of the DPP v Bowd, where the collective significance of the behaviour is discussed:
'It can be seen from Schedule 1 that, in most instances, a period of days or weeks elapsed between the individual burglaries.  It is clear, therefore, that DB had ample time to pause and reflect on his offending conduct.  Instead of desisting, however, he made a deliberate decision, each time, to persist with what he well knew was serious illegal activity.  In this sense, each new burglary and associated theft represented not only distinct criminality but distinct culpability.'
48	Each of the eight episodes involved planning.  It was submitted the planning lacked sophistication, but given the targets of your offending, I doubt much planning was necessary.  
49	The total of the property stolen in these burglaries was, principally, about $13,000 in cash, a CCTV system and cigarettes to the value of $1,500.  It is hard for me to give any value or any precise value to the scratchy cards.
50	For you, Mr Scicluna, much of the offending, including the family violence offence, was committed while you were on bail.  Apart from the offence itself, it brings into play s 16(3C) of the Sentencing Act, which I have drawn to your counsel's attention this morning and have received submissions in that regard.
Nature and gravity of the offending – persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order
51	In relation to the charge of persistent contravention of the family violence intervention order, the nature of gravity of that offence appears in these circumstances, or this is one factor that one takes into account, our Court of Appeal has made clear the need for persons to obey the conditions of family violence intervention orders.
52	As long ago as 1998, Charles JA in the case of R v Cotham said this:
‘Intervention orders must be strictly adhered to, and it is very much in the interests of the community that those against whom such orders are made be under no misapprehension that the courts will punish severely those who breach such orders.'
53	Here, the charge is persistent contravention and not a single contravention.  There are a large number of contraventions. However, they were contact by phone and not in person. There was no threat of violence or threat of aggression or coercive behaviour.
Bugmy
54	Mr Scicluna, you seek to apply the principle stated in the High Court decision of Bugmy v The Queen, which states in part:
‘…The experience of growing up in an environment surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may leave its mark on a person throughout life. Among other things, a background of that kind may compromise the person’s capacity to mature and to learn from experience. It is a feature of the person’s make-up and remains relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding that the person has a long history of offending.'
55	Those remarks were clearly directed at Mr Bugmy, but they have application to persons like you.
56	The underlying reason for assessing the consequences of a person's upbringing was made clear in the case of the DPP v Herrmann, a case to which your counsel this morning made passing reference:
‘It is the mark of a humane society that the moral judgment expressed through sentencing should take account of the lifelong damage that may result from exposure to violence or abuse or parental neglect in an offender’s formative years.'
57	Then, in the case of Newton v The Queen, the court there noted in Bugmy's case there were two ways in which childhood deprivation may be relevant to the assessment of moral culpability. They describe it as the general and the specific and I read out for the benefit of your counsel and Mr Brown this morning what they say about the general and what they say about the specific and your counsel made it clear it was the general that was being relied upon captured in this passage:
‘The circumstance that an offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may mitigate the sentence because his or her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way.'
58	So, with necessary alterations, you seek to apply the general way of approaching the principle in Bugmy, and I agree the principle applies to allow a degree of moderation of your moral culpability. I might say at this stage, because I am coming to Verdins in a moment, in effect, this principle overlaps one of the principles of Verdins' case, which I will now discuss.
Verdins 
59	In your case, Mr Scicluna, you rely on principles 1, to 5 as stated in the case of R v Verdins.  In fact, the case states six principles.
60	I accept your impaired mental functioning does reduce your moral culpability under the Verdins principle, but also under the Bugmy principle and I accept also Principle 1 applies to reduce the degree to which one would denounce your offending in these episodes.  Here, your impaired mental functioning does influence the sentence I will impose, but only in one respect.  It will lead to a shorter than a normal non-parole period.
61	Apart from the family violence offence, your offending relates to the need to buy drugs to feed your habit.  In part, it derives from your youth and the example your father and half-brothers gave to you in relation to using substance.  Committing these offences as an addict is hardly unusual.  An addiction born of a dreadful upbringing is also, unfortunately, not unusual in my experience of cases in this court and the Magistrates' Court.  Your addiction is not simply a product of the example of your father and brothers.  It is also a product of your impaired mental functioning.  To that extent, that impairment results in a modest reduction in the effect of the sentence and purpose of general deterrence and its modest because a great many like-minded people would identify with you and not the reverse.
62	Your inability to learn from your past mistakes, as identified by Mr Jackson, really emphasises the need for specific deterrence as a sentencing purpose rather than moderates it.  You may not have learned a lesson from your previous illegal behaviour but then your misbehaviour and the penalties imposed were minor compared with these offences and the penalties I will impose.  In this context, the sentencing purpose of protecting the community from you overlaps with the purpose of specific deterrence.
63	You submit Principle 5 applies.  Neither psychologist, and that is Mr Simmons and Mr Jackson, refers to the effect of imprisonment upon you.  Although a court could examine the symptoms of your condition and infer such an effect and that is really what Ms Willard was inviting me to do in her submission this morning.  However, the material is clearly insufficiently precise for me to do so and I'm not satisfied Principle 5 applies.
Prospects of rehabilitation 
64	Your criminal history contains mainly driving offences.  The present charges arise from your need to feed your addiction to primarily methamphetamine.  
65	The psychologist, Mr Simmons, considered you had prospects of rehabilitation because you lacked significant personality antisocial traits and your offending appeared related to your drug abuse.  
66	Your prospects are dependent upon your ability to abstain from the use of substances, particularly methamphetamine.  Apart from your time in custody, there is nothing to suggest you can, except your wish to obtain drug treatment, and also your wish to disassociate yourself from your previous antisocial peers by taking up residence with your aunt in Hopetoun.
67	I am not sure how this would play out, but certainly during the submissions you intended on release to return to employment with your brothers.  That may not be possible if you are living in Hopetoun but I take from all of that, you will try to obtain employment.
68	Your guilty pleas are evidence of your remorse.  Coupled with your expression of remorse to Mr Simmons, I consider you are remorseful for your offending.  
69	However, overall, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation remain uncertain.  The uncertainty lies principally in your addiction and your ability of overcoming it.  The addiction is long standing.  It has its roots in your psychological state, amongst other things.  Most of that is both long standing and untreated.  If treated, the process will need to be intense and persistent.  It will not be a short process.
Guilty pleas
70	You indicated an intention to plead guilty before a committal hearing was conducted.  No witness was needed to give evidence.  In terms of timing, they are early guilty pleas.  
71	There are several benefits of your guilty pleas.  They are an emphatic acknowledgment of your offending and they show the victims of your offending and anyone else that you committed the offences to which you pleaded guilty.
72	Second, they relieve the victims from the need to give evidence against you in a trial.  If such persons were called, I dare say it would have been a difficult task, but I suspect in a case like this the statements of the victims being the shop owners would probably have been read to the court or to the jury, but nevertheless it does relieve the possibility of victims giving evidence.
73	Third, you have assisted the criminal justice process.  You have removed your case from those needing a jury trial and allowed others to move forward.  This has avoided the delay and saved the time and expense of a trial.  Generally, jury trials are complicated matters involving 12 jurors and lasting more than a week.  Avoiding that is a considerable benefit to the criminal justice system.
74	Fourth, the crisis addressed in Worboyes v The Queen and other cases has quite plainly abated considerably.  On 5 May 2023, the World Health Organisation declared the virus no longer constituted a public health emergency and late last year, this court announced through its Chief Judge it had overcome the backlog of cases created by the pandemic.  It had reached the pre-pandemic level of pending cases.  But in another respect, the virus still disturbs the smooth running of jury trials in this court principally through the unavailability or loss of jurors and to a much lesser extent, pleading guilty still benefits the system in the way identified in the case of Worboyes and this is more so where your indication was given when the effect of the pandemic was more pronounced.
75	Overall, your guilty pleas entitle you to a sizable discount on the sentences, which would have been imposed if you had not pleaded guilty to the charges but had been found guilty after a trial.
Totality 
76	Your counsel relies on the principle of totality by inviting me to look at the overall period of your detention.  You were remanded in custody on new offending in May of 2023 and your bail of these charges was not revoked at that stage and she pointed to what is described or what is colloquially known as Renzella time as 189 days.  It can be used by me under the rubric of the principle of totality and that is how I do intend to use it.  It has a considerable effect on the sentences I would impose upon you and the non-parole period.
Conditions in custody 
77	I note you spent 78 days of your initial remand and 14 of those days were spent in isolation and the rest you were subjected to restrictions on contact with family and education and other programmes.
Sentence
78	Your counsel submitted I should place you on a community correction order.  However, even allowing for my ability to sentence you to a term of imprisonment and give you no credit for your pre-sentence detention, the total sentence or rather the community correction order with time served in effect or even with a larger sentence would still be inadequate.
79	So, I sentence you as follows:
(a)	Charge 1, a charge of intentionally damage property, three months imprisonment; 
(b)	Charge 2, a charge of burglary, 12 months imprisonment; 
(c)	Charge 3, a charge of theft, 12 months imprisonment; 
(d)	Charge 4, a charge of intentionally damage property, three months imprisonment; 
(e)	Charge 5, a charge of burglary, 12 months imprisonment; 
(f)	Charge 6, a charge of intentionally damage property, three months imprisonment;
(g)	Charge 7, a charge of burglary, 12 months imprisonment; 
(h)	Charge 8, a charge of theft, 12 months imprisonment;
(i)	Charge 9, a charge of intentionally damage property, three months imprisonment; 
(j)	Charge 10, a charge of burglary, 12 months imprisonment;
(k)	Charge 11, a charge of burglary, 12 months imprisonment; 
(l)	Charge 12, a charge of intentionally damage property, three months imprisonment; 
(m)	Charged 13, a charge of burglary, 12 months imprisonment; 
(n)	Charge 14, a charge of theft, 12 months imprisonment; 
(o)	Charge 15, a charge of intentionally damage property, three months imprisonment; 
(p)	Charge 16, a charge of burglary, 14 months imprisonment; 
(q)	Charge 17, a charge of theft, 14 months imprisonment; 
(r)	Charge 18, a charge of burglary, 12 months imprisonment; 
(s)	Charge 19, a charge of intentionally damage property, three months imprisonment; 
(t)	Charge 22, a charge of persistently contravene family violence intervention order, two months imprisonment; and 
(u)	Summary Charge 43, a charge of commit indictable offence whilst on bail, one month imprisonment. 
80	The base sentence is the sentence on Charge 16, which is a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment.
81	On each of the other charges of burglary, that is Charges 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 18, I will accumulate one month on each of those charges upon themselves and the base sentence and the entirety of the sentence on Charge 22, which will be two months, plus, the entire sentence on the Summary Charge 43, which is one month, will be served cumulatively upon themselves and upon the other sentences.
82	The total effective sentence is 24 months' imprisonment and I will set a non-parole period of 12 months' imprisonment. 
83	I will declare the 207 days of your pre-sentence detention excluding today as time served.
S 6AAA
84	If you have not pleaded guilty to these charges but were found guilty after a trial, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 36 months' imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period of 18 months' imprisonment.
‑ ‑ ‑