JB v Geoffrey Hyde

[2013] ACTSC 216

JB v GEOFFREY HYDE
[2013] ACTSC 216 (18 October 2013)

APPEAL – Appeals from the Childrens Court – appeal against sentence – appeal on the ground of manifest excess – appeal upheld
EVIDENCE – Documentary evidence – Childrens Court – desirability of marking documentary evidence as exhibits

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Ch 8A
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 361(1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 216, Part 3.10, Div 3.10

Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) (2010) 5 ACTLR 151
Grimshaw v Mann [2013] ACTSC 189
Grooms v Toohey (2012) 7 ACTLR 1
Ledson v Taylor [2010] ACTSC 42
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v BB [2013] ACTSC 58
R v King (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 29 June 2012)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM THE CHILDRENS COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 68 of 2013

Judge:             Refshauge ACJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              18 October 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 68 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          

ON APPEAL FROM THE CHILDRENS COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JB

Appellant

AND:GEOFFREY HYDE

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge ACJ
Date:  18 October 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be allowed. 

1. The sentence on matter CH 536/2013 be set aside.

1. In lieu, JB be sentenced to four months imprisonment from 14 September 2013. 

1. That sentence be suspended on 22 November 2013 and JB be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months from 22 November 2013 with a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him including directions as to counselling or treatment for alcohol and drug offences or as directed.

1. Sentencing is a difficult judicial task.  It has become much more complicated also by reason of the legislation that now regulates it.  An additional challenge is when there are, as here, multiple offences for which a partial concurrency is appropriate.  That challenges the sentencer further.  See R v King (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 29 June 2012).

1. This process is also a challenge when the offender is a young person to which the special provisions of Ch 8A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005(ACT) applies.

1. The appellant, JB, was born in 1996 and was, at the date on which he committed the first of the series of offences relevant to the subject offences in this appeal, just 16 years old;  he remained that age until the end of that series.  The series of offences spanned from 29 November 2012 to 22 May 2013 and these constituted breaches of good behaviour orders which needed curial attention in the sentencing.