Director of Public Prosecutions v Roberts

[2023] ACTSC 67

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Roberts

Citation: 

[2023] ACTSC 67

Hearing Date: 

31 March 2023

Decision Date: 

31 March 2023

Before:

Mossop J

Decision: 

The application in proceeding dated 28 March 2023 is dismissed.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to adjourn sentencing hearing – extension of time sought to obtain psychiatrist’s report – evidentiary material inadequate – application dismissed

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions

Bradley Joe Roberts (Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

B Morrisroe (DPP)

M Keaney (Offender)

Solicitors

Director of Public Prosecutions

Matthew Adam and Associates (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 208 of 2021

MOSSOP J:

1⸳Today is 31 March 2023. Bradley Joe Roberts is due to be sentenced along with his two co-offenders on 6 April 2023. He applies for an adjournment of the sentencing hearing.

2⸳The affidavit in support of the application indicates that his current solicitor received a grant of legal aid on 21 March 2023. He has had a conference with his client on 27 March 2023. He has instructed the barrister who appeared for Mr Roberts at the trial to appear for him on the sentence. He says however:

7.I require further time to obtain further grants from Legal Aid for Counsel and a Psychologist’s report for the purpose of sentencing.

8.I require further time to adequately read and understand all the material and obtain instructions from Mr Roberts in relation to his sentence proceedings.

3⸳He seeks that the matter be adjourned for some 6 to 8 weeks.

4⸳Nowhere in the affidavit is there any explanation of what has happened between the jury’s finding of guilt, which occurred on 2 December 2022, and the date upon which he received a grant of Legal Aid. There is no explanation as to what has become of the solicitor who represented the offender during his jury trial. There is no explanation as to why he only received instructions when he did. There is no material that indicates why a psychologist’s report is necessary. However, I am told that he has in fact now obtained a grant of legal aid to allow for the obtaining of a psychologist’s report.

5⸳At present the court has one less judge than it should. This has the effect that dates for short matters, including sentences, are difficult to come by. There is therefore a premium so far as the disposition of the court’s overall caseload in the efficient conduct of sentencing proceedings. Particularly in criminal matters where the discipline of the potential for adverse costs orders is lacking, the efficient disposition of the work of the court requires the cooperation and professional diligence of practitioners appearing in such matters. As I have pointed out previously, there is unfortunately a miasma of drowsy procrastination washing over practitioners in the criminal jurisdiction of this court.

6⸳In the present case, the evidentiary material before the court is inadequate. It is conclusory in its terms. It fails to provide the court with an adequate picture of what has happened in order to permit it to make a proper decision as to how to deal with the sentencing of Mr Roberts and his co-offenders. There is certainly not adequate information to permit an assessment of the merits of his application for an adjournment.

7⸳Courts will generally be sympathetic to practical problems that arise for diligent practitioners who are doing their best to comply with orders made and dates set by the court. If an indulgence such as an extension of time or a vacation of a hearing date is required, then the practitioner seeking it should fully disclose the circumstances which give rise to it. Only then will the practitioner be fulfilling the important duty owed as an officer of the court.

8⸳I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to adjourn the sentencing proceedings of Mr Roberts to a future date. Time has been set aside for that hearing. There is clearly an advantage in hearing all of the submissions made by the co-offenders at the same time. It may be that at the sentencing hearing it becomes clear that Mr Roberts would be disadvantaged if some further expert material was not put before the court for the purpose of sentencing. However, I am not presently satisfied that this is the case. The application for an adjournment will therefore be dismissed. If at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing it is clear that he would be prejudiced by some inadequacy in the preparation of his case on sentence, then an application can be made at that point for some further indulgence.

9⸳As a consequence, the application in proceeding dated 28 March 2023 is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding nine [9] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop.

Associate:

Date: 11 April 2023