SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Druett |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 56 |
Hearing Date: | 29 February 2024 |
Decision Date: | 01 March 2024 |
Before: | Loukas-Karlsson J |
Decision: | See [80]-[85] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drive motor vehicle at police – drive unlicensed – low objective seriousness – prospects for rehabilitation – application of Bugmy principles – suspended sentence imposed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 29A Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 86, 107, 108 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 at [12] Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; 1 ACTLR 299 Director of Public Prosecutions v Clarke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 261 Director of Public Prosecutions v Holder (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 167 Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Director of Public Prosecutions v Manns (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 405 Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; 248 CLR 483 Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 R v Anquetil [2021] NSWCCA 59; 373 FLR 1 |
Texts Cited: | Bugmy Bar Book, Incarceration of a Parent or Caregiver (November 2019) |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions M Druett ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel T Kelliher ( DPP) S Lynch ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 1 and 2 of 2024 |
LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:
Introduction
1․On 17 January 2024, Mr Druett (the offender) pleaded guilty to the following offence:
(a)An offence of drive motor vehicle at a police officer, contrary to s 29A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment.
2․On 17 January 2024 the offender also plead guilty to the following transferred charge for which he is also to be sentenced:
(a)A charge of drive unlicensed, contrary to section 31(1) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 20 penalty units.
3․I note at the outset two matters. First, though the offence is described as “drive motor vehicle at police” the facts in this case do not in fact involve driving at police. It is not the prosecution’s position that the offender drove at police, but rather having driven…
Continue reading DPP v Druett
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- DPP v Druett [2024] ACTSC 56
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 56
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the application of Bugmy principles to the sentencing of Druett. The principles outlined in Bugmy v The Queen highlight the importance of considering the unique circumstances of Indigenous offenders and their potential for rehabilitation when determining a sentence. The court had to assess whether these principles warranted a different approach to sentencing compared to non-Indigenous offenders in similar situations.
In delivering its judgment, the court found that the principles of Bugmy warranted a departure from the usual sentencing approach. Given the low objective seriousness of the offence and Druett's prospects for rehabilitation, the court deemed a suspended sentence appropriate. The court considered Druett's background, including his Indigenous status, and concluded that a suspended sentence would best serve the interests of justice. The court also noted that such a sentence would provide Druett with an opportunity to avoid a criminal record and reintegrate into society without the immediate consequences of imprisonment.
The final orders of the court reflected the reasoning outlined above. The court imposed a suspended sentence on Druett, taking into account the Bugmy principles and the specific circumstances of the case. This decision aimed to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation and the unique considerations applicable to Indigenous offenders.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [80]-[85]
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.