SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Myers (a pseudonym) (No 5) |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 109 |
Hearing Date: | 11 April 2024 |
Decision Date: | 12 April 2024 |
Before: | Baker J |
Decision: | See [31]. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Breach of Good Behaviour Order – breach by commission of several further offences – young offender – disadvantaged background – young person already sentenced for new offences constituting breach – 12 month Good Behaviour Order imposed. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 86, 110 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ch 8A Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310 |
Cases Cited: | DPP v JJ (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 74 DPP v Myers (a pseudonym) (No 4) [2022] ACTSC 308 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 |
Texts Cited: | Public Defenders (NSW), The Bugmy Bar Book Project (online, last updated March 2024). |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Thomas Myers (a pseudonym) ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel M Morrisroe ( Crown) S Beckedahl ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Hugo Law Group ( Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 61 of 2022 |
BAKER J:
Introduction
The young person, Thomas Myers (a pseudonym), has come before this Court in relation to a breach of a suspended sentence imposed by Elkaim J on 9 November 2022, in respect of an offence of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CC CAN2021/781) (the original offence).
The young person was released from custody pursuant to a suspended sentence on 8 April 2023 and entered into a twelve month Good Behaviour Order at that time.
Less than three months later, on 2 July 2023 the young person breached the conditions of the suspended sentence by committing two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm by way of joint commission (CC CAN2023/926 and CC CAN2023/927) (the first breach offences). One month later, on 22 August 2023, the young person again breached the suspended sentence by committing a further count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm by way of joint commission (CC CAN2024/184) (the second breach offence). The young person pleaded guilty to each of the breach offences and was sentenced in the Childrens Court on 5 March 2024.
I must now cancel the order and either re-impose the suspended sentence or resentence the young person.
Background
The original offence
The circumstances of the original offending are briefly set out in the judgment of Elkaim J on the original sentence: DPP v Myers (a pseudonym) (No 4) [2022] ACTSC 308.
In brief, on 4 March 2021, the young person (who was then 14 years old) and at least one other male met the victim…
Continue reading DPP v Myers (a pseudonym) (No 5)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Myers (a pseudonym) (No 5) [2024] ACTSC 109
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to impose a custodial sentence or a Good Behaviour Order for Myers' breach of the previous order. The Court had to consider the objectives of sentencing, including general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation, as well as the principles of proportionality and parity. Given Myers' youth and disadvantaged background, the Court had to balance these factors against the seriousness of the breach and the need to uphold the rule of law.
The Court found that a custodial sentence was not appropriate, given Myers' age and the fact that he had already been sentenced for the new offences that constituted the breach. Instead, the Court imposed a 12-month Good Behaviour Order, with conditions that included regular check-ins with a community corrections officer and participation in a rehabilitation program. The Court noted that this sentence would provide an opportunity for Myers to address the underlying issues contributing to his offending behaviour, while also upholding the rule of law and deterring future breaches.
The Court's final orders included the imposition of a 12-month Good Behaviour Order on Myers, with conditions that he regularly check in with a community corrections officer and participate in a rehabilitation program. Myers was also required to pay a fine and a victim surcharge. The Court's decision reflected a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account the seriousness of the breach, Myers' background, and the need to promote rehabilitation and uphold the rule of law.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [31].
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.