Director of Public Prosecutions v Wyatt (No 2)
[2025] ACTSC 295
•11 July 2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Wyatt (No 2) |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 295 |
Hearing Dates: | 18 June 2025, 1 July, 8 July 2025, 11 July 2025 |
Decision Date: | 11 July 2025 |
Before: | Christensen AJ |
Decision: | See [11] |
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 – participant has completed 14 months of treatment and supervision – where participant’s mental health condition interferes with capacity to comply with treatment order – primary need moving forward is securing long-term housing – participant otherwise 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 80ZE |
Cases Cited: | DPP v Wyatt [2024] ACTSC 142 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions Scott Wyatt ( Participant) |
Representation: | Counsel G Meikle; J Churchill ( DPP) C Duffy; K McGowan ( Participant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT ( Participant) | |
File Number: | SCC 23 of 2024 |
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
EX TEMPORE (REVISED):
1․Scott Wyatt is a participant in the drug and alcohol sentencing list, having been sentenced to a drug and alcohol treatment order on 3 May 2024: DPP v Wyatt [2024] ACTSC 142.
2․Mr Wyatt was sentenced in respect of an offence of aggravated robbery committed in October 2023 at an Australia Post store. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment. After having regard to time served in presentence custody, a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order) was imposed for a period of 1 year, 8 months and 29 days. The treatment and supervision part of the order was for a period of 18 months, to be from 3 May 2024 until 2 November 2025.
3․Mr Wyatt’s compliance with treatment and supervision has been mixed, but largely positive. There have been occasions of lapses with substances, but he has throughout maintained a commitment to abstinence, and he has not further offended. He completed a rehabilitation program, and he recommenced employment for a period. He graduated to phase two of treatment and supervision. However, he has also throughout the order had difficulties managing his mental health condition. This had meant his ability to comply consistently with the onerous requirements of a treatment order has been challenging.
4․His most recent challenges in that regard led to a provisional cancellation of the treatment order pursuant to s 80ZE(1)(e) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). Mr Wyatt’s housing situation had become unstable following a mental health episode, and he was returned to custody while possible treatment options were explored. The outcome of those enquiries is that it is apparent that Mr Wyatt’s primary needs moving forward in the community are no longer directed towards alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs. His primary need at this stage is securing long-term housing in the community that will enable him to access his supports, including community mental health supports. Addressing these matters will best address Mr Wyatt’s current criminogenic risks, and secure community protection.
5․On his behalf, a review of the treatment order pursuant to s 80ZH of the Sentencing Act is sought. I am satisfied that in the circumstances of Mr Wyatt’s mental health condition it is in the interests of justice to conduct such a review. It is sought on Mr Wyatt’s behalf to amend his treatment order to commence the good behaviour component of the order. This is submitted to be appropriate because Mr Wyatt no longer requires the intensive supervision provided under the treatment and supervision component of the treatment order, but that a level of ongoing supervision in the community would be of benefit.
6․The prosecution does not oppose an amendment occurring, recognising that the participant has now completed some 14 months of treatment and supervision and that there has been positive progress in his rehabilitation. The prosecution caution though as to a release from custody, and the implications for community safety, in circumstances where Mr Wyatt’s long term housing situation is not settled.
7․The challenge for Mr Wyatt is that he is unable to arrange long term housing, utilising supports available to do so through NDIS, while in the custodial environment. His attempts to do so have been met with a response that he needs to be in the community to facilitate this.
8․The treatment team have made comprehensive enquiries as to housing options for Mr Wyatt. The finalisation of the review has been delayed while those enquiries have been occurring. Those enquiries have led to an outcome where Mr Wyatt has available to him short-term accommodation with his biological father. His father is reported to be “very supportive” of having his son reside with him. His father assures Community Corrections that Mr Wyatt would be safe with him, and Mr Wyatt’s mother supports this as an appropriate housing situation.
9․The issue becomes whether it is appropriate to amend the order at this time, in circumstances where Mr Wyatt has short term housing available, but long term housing is not secured. The alternative is that Mr Wyatt remains in custody purely because the ideal housing situation is not available to him. The detention of a vulnerable person whose sentence order and progress in rehabilitation does not otherwise merit fulltime imprisonment is contrary to what should occur in our society. Indeed, to continue Mr Wyatt’s detention in custody for only that purpose would be ultimately detrimental to Mr Wyatt’s continued rehabilitation, and, by extension, community protection. It could result in him being released into the community at the conclusion of his sentence, on 31 January 2026, without any supervision, and still without long-term housing available to him.
10․Rather, if released from custody today under an amended order, Mr Wyatt has a suitable short term housing solution available to him. He will also have the supervision and oversight of Community Corrections to compel his engagement with NDIS with a view to securing long term stable housing, and to ensure engagement with his community mental health team. In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that it is appropriate to amend the order as sought. He is to be regarded as having achieved non-graduate completion of the treatment order.
Orders
11․For those reasons the following orders are made:
(1)A review of the treatment order dated 3 May 2024 and last amended on 18 March 2025 is conducted pursuant to s 80ZH of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
(2)The suspension of the sentence of imprisonment under the custodial part of the drug and alcohol treatment order made on 3 May 2024 and last amended on 18 March 2025 is reinstated.
(3)I amend condition 7 of the treatment order dated 3 May 2024 and last amended on 18 March 2025 as follows:
(a)Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Scott Wyatt 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, 12 July 2025, until the end of the total sentence, 31 January 2026, with the additional probation condition that 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.
| I certify that the preceding eleven [11] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen. Associate: Date: 14 July 2025 |
0