sentencing orders allowed to him, including the parole he was granted with respect to the Code offence by committing the offence of murder.
103 A 2013 supervision report observed the following of his commitment to rehabilitation:
"Mr Stein's response to supervision has been borderline. During his period of supervision he has entered Odyssey House on three occasions for detoxification and he self-discharged from the facility twice. He also entered South Pacific Private Hospital but was made to leave when they found a used syringe in his bag. He finally did complete the two week programme at the Sydney Clinic. He agreed to continue with out-patient relapse prevention groups, but this didn't eventuate."[1]
104 The offender claimed to the author of that note, 11 years ago, that he wanted to set up a wood and metal working business. He was making broadly the same claim to Dr Nielssen when the doctor saw him earlier this month, without any evidence that he has ever established a business at any time, or derived any income from it. His source of income appears to have been a Disability Benefit or other government welfare payment,[2] and support from his mother.
105 The breach of prison discipline noted in Ex. SA.6 supports the conclusion that the offender has continued to use illicit drugs in custody, at least until July 2023, when he was penalised for refusing or failing a drug sample.
106 The complete lack of remorse, coupled with the offender's singular failure to achieve any degree of rehabilitation from drug use, despite the extensive support given to him, suggests that he has limited to no prospects of improving himself in the future. Other aspects of the case relevant to the question of penalty also have a bearing on his prospects for the future, including the question of his future dangerousness.
- Protection of the Community
107 The Crown argues that the offender will continue to present a danger to others into the future, and the community must be protected from him. The offender points to the absence of any prior convictions for offences of violence, and the length of any non-parole period likely to be imposed upon him, to submit that he is unlikely to pose a threat to others on his eventual release from custody.
