R v Bell - [2020] ACTSC 37

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Bell
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 37
Hearing Date:	15 January 2020
DecisionDate:	15 January 2020
Before:	Walker AJ
Decision:	15-months imprisonment with 12 months to be served as a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. See [25]-[28]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – drug and alcohol sentencing list – drug and alcohol treatment order – order granted – property damage – minor theft
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 318(1), 321, 403 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 12A, 33, 80O, 80S
Cases Cited:	R v Pang [2014] ACTSC 319 R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; 169 A Crim R 581 DPP v O’Neill [2015] VSCA 325; 256 A Crim R 469
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Kimberley Bell (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel J Hiscox (Crown) M Jones (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sarah Boxall Legal (Defendant)
File Numbers:	SCC 329 of 2019 SCC 330 of 2019

WALKER AJ (ex tempore):

Summary of charges

Kimberley Bell is charged with one count of taking a motor vehicle without consent (CAN2019/10585) contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Code) which, on conviction, carries up to five years imprisonment and a fine of up to $80,000, one count of minor theft (CAN2019/12857) contrary to s 321 of the Code which carries up to six months imprisonment and a fine of up to $8,000, and one count of damaging property (CAN2019/10879) contrary to s 403 of the Code which carries up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $240,000.

Ms Bell was also charged with one count of menacing driving. I am not to deal with that today as at the conclusion of these proceedings that charge will be withdrawn.

Ms Bell initially entered not guilty pleas to the summary charges and then to the charge of damage property which was laid in the Magistrates Court a few weeks later. Following a review of the brief of evidence, Ms Bell entered pleas of guilty to each of the charges in the Magistrates Court and was committed for sentence on the damage property charge and for assessment of her suitability for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order pursuant to s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act). The remaining charges were transferred for sentence as related charges.

Evidence

The evidence available to me on sentence consists of the statement of facts, photographs of the damage caused at 9 De Chair Street in Deakin, the offender's criminal history, a suitability assessment report dated 10 January 2020 under the hand of Ms Leah Robinson of the Alcohol and Drug Service, a letter from Wayback Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre dated 10 January 2020 under the hand of Theresa Mutafa, the client co-ordinator, a suitability assessment report dated 10 January 2020 under the hand of Ms Alex Durant, social…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Bell

Details

AGLC: R v Bell [2020] ACTSC 37
Case: [2020] ACTSC 37
Decision Date: 15 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bell, was convicted of property damage and minor theft, and was brought before the court for sentencing. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the offences committed by the appellant. The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant was suitable for a drug and alcohol treatment order and what the appropriate sentence should be in light of the appellant's history of substance abuse and mental health issues.

The court noted that the appellant had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues, and that these factors had contributed to the commission of the offences. The court also considered the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the appellant was suitable for a drug and alcohol treatment order and that this would provide the best opportunity for rehabilitation and to address the underlying issues that had contributed to the commission of the offences. The court sentenced the appellant to 15 months imprisonment, with 12 months to be served as a drug and alcohol treatment order.

The court emphasised the importance of addressing the underlying issues that contribute to criminal behaviour and noted that the drug and alcohol treatment order provided an opportunity for the appellant to address these issues and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The court also noted that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and took into account the appellant's history of substance abuse and mental health issues.

The court ordered that the appellant be imprisoned for a total of 15 months, with 12 months to be served as a drug and alcohol treatment order. The court also ordered that the appellant pay a fine of $500 and be subject to a three-year good behaviour bond upon release from custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

15-months imprisonment with 12 months to be served as a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. See [25]-[28]

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.