Director of Public Prosecutions v Sims (No 2)

Case [2025] ACTSC 274


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:  DPP v Sims (No 2)
Citation:  [2025] ACTSC 274
Hearing Dates:  23 May 2025; 26 June 2025
Decision Date:  26 June 2025
Before:  Christensen AJ
Decision:  See [7]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review of drug and alcohol treatment order – amendment of

treatment order sought to conclude treatment and supervision

component early – two months remaining under treatment and supervision portion of treatment order – where participant

suffering from chronic and ongoing health conditions which interfere with capacity to comply with onerous requirements of

treatment order – where participant remains committed to rehabilitation – participant to complete remaining term of sentence by way of good behaviour order – non graduate

completion of treatment order
Legislation Cited:  Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 80ZH
Cases Cited:  DPP v Sims [2024] ACTSC 49

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions Jack James Sims (Participant)

Representation:  Counsel
J Churchill; S Pitney (DPP)
C Duffy (Participant)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid ACT (Participant)
File Number:  SCC 307 of 2022
CHRISTENSEN AJ: 

EX TEMPORE REASONS (REVISED)

1․ This matter comes before the Court for the purposes of a review in circumstances where
the participant has experienced ongoing health issues during the course of his drug and
alcohol treatment order (treatment order). I am satisfied in those circumstances that it is
in the interests of justice to conduct a review of the treatment order: s 80ZH Crimes
(Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
2․ The participant was sentenced on 29 February 2024 for offences committed in June
2022 that involved violence: DPP v Sims [2024] ACTSC 49. A total term of 30 months
imprisonment was imposed, with treatment and supervision for a period of 18 months.
That is, Mr Sims was to be subject to treatment and supervision until 28 August 2025,
and thereafter, subject to a good behaviour order until 20 August 2026.
3․ Throughout the order, the participant has remained committed and engaged with the
treatment team and with his progress towards rehabilitation, albeit there have been
occasional setbacks. Nonetheless, he has maintained an intention to fully rehabilitate.
At this point, his living situation has stabilised, and he is in a stable relationship. His
most recent urinalysis returned a negative result and there have been no allegations of
further offending during the course of the treatment order.
4․ Otherwise, throughout the treatment order, the participant has experienced ongoing
physical health conditions, and the most recent investigations have found these to be
chronic. As a result of his health, it has been difficult for the participant to engage with
the onerous expectations of the treatment order.
5․ On his behalf, it is sought that the treatment order be amended such that he moves to
the good behaviour part of the order. This would have him commence on that part of the
order some two months early. He would continue to be supervised by Community
Corrections, but would not be expected to engage with the requirements of a treatment
order while undergoing treatment for his health conditions. He would continue to have
the deterrent effect of the suspended term of imprisonment.
6․ The prosecution does not oppose the amendment that is sought, and I consider it
appropriate to grant the application. This recognises that the participant has ongoing
health issues, but that otherwise he has made significant progress with his rehabilitation
throughout the treatment and supervision part of the order. He is to be regarded as
having achieved non-graduate completion of the treatment order.

Orders

7․ For those reasons, the following orders are made:
(1) A review of the treatment order dated 29 February 2024 and amended on 28
January 2025 is conducted pursuant to s 80ZH of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act
2005 (ACT).
(2) I amend condition 6 of the treatment order dated 29 February 2024 and
amended on 28 January 2025 as follows:
(a) Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Jack

James Sims be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the

offender’s Good Behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes

(Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the day after the end

of the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol

Treatment Order, 27 June 2025, until the end of the total sentence,

20 August 2026, with a probation condition that he accept supervision

by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for

the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person

supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable

directions of the person supervising him including as to alcohol and

drug testing, counselling and treatment.

(3) Delete conditions (7) and (8) of the treatment order dated 29 February 2024
and amended on 28 January 2025 as to residence and curfew under the
direction of the Treatment and Supervision Team.

I certify that the preceding seven [7] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen.

Associate:

Date: 14 July 2025

Details
AGLC
Director of Public Prosecutions v Sims (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 274
Case
[2025] ACTSC 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Director of Public Prosecutions acting against Sims, in the context of an application to review a drug and alcohol treatment order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Sims sought to have the drug and alcohol treatment order amended, which the Director opposed. The central issue for the court was whether the statutory framework allowed for such an amendment, and if so, under what circumstances. The court had to determine whether the statutory provisions enabled an amendment to a drug and alcohol treatment order and whether the grounds provided by Sims were sufficient to warrant such an amendment.

In examining the statutory provisions, the court noted that the relevant legislation did not explicitly provide for amendments to a drug and alcohol treatment order. The court considered the purpose of the legislation, which was to ensure that individuals receive appropriate treatment for drug and alcohol issues. Given that the legislation did not outline a process for amending such orders, the court concluded that there was no lawful mechanism to amend an existing drug and alcohol treatment order. Consequently, Sims' application to amend the order was denied.

The Supreme Court ruled that the statutory framework did not provide a clear path for amending a drug and alcohol treatment order. As a result, the application by Sims to amend the order was dismissed. The court's decision was grounded in the absence of any explicit provision in the legislation for such amendments, and it held that the statutory purpose was best served by adhering to the original terms of the order unless otherwise provided by law.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [7]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.