R v Beath-Williams

[2019] ACTSC 80

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Beath-Williams

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 80

Hearing Date:

29 January 2019, 28 March 2019

DecisionDate:

28 March 2019

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [15]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – theft – re-sentence for prior conviction – breach of suspended sentence – suitable for Intensive Correction Order

Legislation: 

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 311

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110

Cases:

R v Beath-Williams [2018] ACTSC 162

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Andrew Beath-Williams (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr C Wanigaratne (Crown)

Mr H Jorgensen (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 258 of 2018; SCC 207 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

1. On 3 October 2018, the offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of burglary with intent to steal and one count of theft.

1. The offences and their maximum penalties are:

(a)Burglary (CC 2018/7782) contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), 14 years imprisonment, a fine of $210,000 or both.

(b)Theft (CC 2018/7783) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), 10 years imprisonment, a fine of $150,000 or both.

1. Both these offences occurred on 5 June 2018. The burglary charge relates to the offender entering the rear loading dock area of an Aldi Supermarket and then subsequently the main shopping area of the Supermarket. The theft charge relates to the offender stealing a selection of bottles of alcohol inside the store which had a total value of $119.95. These events were captured on CCTV footage.

1. Upon conviction of these offences, the offender will be in breach of a 12 month Good Behaviour Order. On 31 May 2018, I sentenced the offender to a term of 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended immediately upon the condition that the offender enter into a 12 month Good Behaviour Order: R v Beath-Williams [2018] ACTSC 162. I note that these current offences occurred only approximately two-months after this sentence was imposed.

1. Pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the court once satisfied that an offender has breached their good behaviour obligations must cancel the good behaviour order and either:

(a)  impose the suspended sentence imposed for the offence; or

(b)  re-sentence the offender for the offence.

1. The offender first came before me in respect of these matters on 29 January 2019 when he sought an adjournment and referral for an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) assessment. The Crown did not oppose this application. The ICO assessment has now been completed and the offender has been assessed as suitable.

1. The assessment report, dated 26 March 2019, is very useful both in setting out relevant features about the offender and also suggesting an appropriate way to deal with him. This offender has an appalling record and he does not do very well with obeying good behaviour and like orders.

1. I should say at this stage that the attitude of the Crown has been of great assistance to me in this matter and has resulted in these reasons being perhaps more brief than would have otherwise been the case. I thank the Crown for its realistic approach.

1. The offender was born in Canberra in 1997. He has seven half siblings but is only in contact with the three siblings on his mother’s side. He gets on well with his mother and she has agreed to let him reside at her house.

1. The two offences are combined in that they arise from the same criminal expedition. They did not add much by way of value, but I will make a reparation order. What is more disappointing about this silly conduct is that it resulted in a breach of the good behaviour order that I imposed when suspending the offender’s prison sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in May last year. The sentence was suspended to give the offender an opportunity to change the track of his life. That he should abandon his efforts so soon does not speak well of his fortitude and desire to be a law-abiding person.

1. On the other hand the ICO assessment report refers to the offender expressing “appropriate victim empathy and offered insight into the impact the victims of the offences, including the owners and employees of the business, as well as the general public. It is noted that his ability to offer insightful reflection has developed since the completion of the above-mentioned PSR”.

1. The report continues:

Mr Beath-Williams is a young man with a significant criminal history which appears to be linked to alcohol abuse and association with anti-social peers. To his credit, Mr Beath-Williams has secured employment and appears to be working hard to address his criminogenic risk factors by ceasing alcohol consumption and severing association with anti-social peers. He has engaged enthusiastically in this assessment process and has complied with the supervision component of his most recent Good Behaviour Order.

1. I intend to follow the report’s recommendations and impose an intensive corrections order. As far as the breach of the GBO is concerned, it would be completely counter-productive both to the offender’s interests and the imposition of an ICO if he were to be returned to prison.

1. I will deal with the breach of the GBO in the same manner as the two subject offences. This seems the most pragmatic manner in which to achieve the purpose of affording the offender the maximum chance of rehabilitation but at the same time recognising that his breach has resulted in an actual penalty.

Orders

1. I make the following orders:

(a)In relation to the offence of Burglary with intent to steal (CC 2018/7782) the offender is sentenced to an Intensive Correction Order for a period of 12 months provided that during this period, on conditions set by the Director General of Corrective Services, the offender is not to consume alcohol, he is to reside with his mother at 2 Bailes Court, Wanniassa, and is to abide by a curfew between the hours of 10:00pm and 6:00am.

(b)In relation to the offence of Theft (CC 2018/7783), the same sentence as that set out in 15(a) above is imposed.

(c)I make a reparation order in the sum of $119.95, payable to ALDI Foods Pty Ltd & ALDI Pty Ltd trading as ALDI Stores.

(d)In relation to the beach matter of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (XO 2018/31339), the good behaviour order is cancelled. The offender is re-sentenced to an Intensive Corrections Order on the same conditions as set out above.

I certify that the preceding fifteen [15] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: 28 March 2019