MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Police v Ronald Tracey |
Citation: | [2022] ACTMC 26 |
Hearing Date: | 8 December 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 22 December 2022 |
Before: | Special Magistrate Hopkins Elders: W. Tompkins D. Jard R. Peters Court Co-ordinator M. Abel |
Decision: | See [85] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Galambany Court – Circle Sentencing – assault – damage property – offences committed while in custody – direction to serve concurrently with existing sentence – special circumstances apply – childhood disadvantage – institutionalisation |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 63, 64, 72 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 24, 26A Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 403 |
Cases Cited: | Biddle v Gatherer [2021] ACTSC 236 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA; 243 CLR 506 Horan v O’Brien [2021] ACTSC 323 Owen Patterson v Wendy Brookman [2021] ACTMC 16 Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 Tracey v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 51 Tabbah v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 324 Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 |
Texts Cited: Parties: | Australian Law Reform Commission in its Pathways to Justice – An Inquiry into the Incarceration Rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Final Report (2017) Bugmy Bar Book, Impacts of Imprisonment and Remand in Custody (November 2022) Bugmy Bar Book, Out of Home Care (September 2021) Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions (1999) Edwige, V and Gray, P, Significance of Culture to Wellbeing, Healing and Rehabilitation (Report commissioned by the Bugmy Bar Book Committee, 2021) Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report (2017) vol 11 Nadia Maria Mulino (Informant) Adriene Alice Nunn (Informant) John Edgar Campbell (Informant) Ronald Tracey (Offender) |
Representation: | B. Perkins (Informant) D. Turner (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (Offender) | |
File Number: | CC 11906/2020 CC 11907/2020 CC 7654/2021 CC 3705/2022 CC 7655/2021 CC 11018/2021 |
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HOPKINS:
Introduction
This is a sentencing decision of the Galambany Court. The Galambany Court is a specialised circle sentencing court, within the ACT Magistrates Court, established to provide a culturally relevant and restorative sentencing process for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have pleaded guilty to an offence. In the language of the Ngunnawal people, Galambany means ‘we all, including you’. The capacity of the Galambany Court to achieve its objectives depends upon the dedication, commitment and wisdom of Elders, who sit and exercise First Nations authority in the Court, with the permission of Ngunnawal and Ngambri Traditional Owners of the land upon which the Court sits.
Court proceedings take place in a circle. Words are spoken, listened to, and heard in the Circle. Though the law applied to those who are…
Continue reading Police v Ronald Tracey
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Ronald Tracey [2022] ACTMC 26
- Case
- [2022] ACTMC 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In addressing these issues, the court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The prosecution argued for a consecutive sentence to deter future offending, while the defence highlighted Tracey's disadvantaged background and the need for rehabilitation. The court recognised that Tracey's circumstances had contributed to his offending behaviour and determined that a concurrent sentence would be more appropriate. This decision was based on the principle of proportionality and the need to address Tracey's underlying issues to prevent recidivism. The court concluded that a concurrent sentence would better serve the interests of justice by providing Tracey with an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
The Galambany Court ordered that the sentences for the assault and property damage be served concurrently with Tracey's existing sentence. This decision reflected the court's consideration of Tracey's special circumstances and the need for a sentence that balanced the requirements of deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality. The court's approach recognised the importance of addressing the root causes of Tracey's offending behaviour to achieve long-term positive outcomes.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [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.