Offending committed shortly after imposition of a drug and alcohol treatment order, involving a prohibited firearm in nefarious circumstances, warranted cancellation of the treatment order and imposition of the original sentence rather than resentencing, notwithstanding the offender's disadvantaged background and mental health conditions. A nonparole period of approximately 60 per cent was appropriate where the offender demonstrated recent gains in insight and efforts in custody. The case confirms that the principles in DPP v Stewart (No 2) and R v Ruwhiu apply to the fixing of nonparole periods upon imposition of original sentences following cancellation of treatment orders under s 80ZD.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.