R v Brymer
[2017] ACTSC 243
•11 August 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Brymer |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 243 |
Hearing Date: | 11 August 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 11 August 2017 |
Before: | Penfold J |
Decision: | See [7] and [8] below. |
Catchwords: . | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of good behaviour order by re-offending – drive while disqualified – offender re-sentenced. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110 |
Cases Cited: | R v Brymer [2016] ACTSC 194 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Johneric Brymer (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr M Fernandez (Crown) Mr B Shelton (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 74 of 2016 |
Background
On 17 July 2017, I sentenced Johneric Brymer to nine months imprisonment fully suspended for an offence of arson which was identified at the time as being of low-end seriousness (R v Brymer [2016] ACTSC 194). In conjunction with suspending that sentence, I made a 12-month good behaviour order. Three months later Mr Brymer committed an offence of driving while disqualified as a first offender, which put him in breach of the good behaviour order I made.
Under s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), I must cancel that good behaviour order and impose the suspended sentence, or re-sentence Mr Brymer.
Current circumstances
Since I sentenced Mr Brymer in July last year, he has become a father, has established an apparently sound relationship with the child's mother (who was in one sense the victim of the original offence for which I sentenced Mr Brymer), and has also undertaken significant drug rehabilitation through Karralika. I understand that he has been providing clean urines since January this year.
[Since Mr Brymer left Karralika,] the family is now reunited. The relevant authorities have noted the close bond between Mr Brymer and his son and Mr Brymer's integral role [in the care of the child].
Breach offence
The breach offence, driving while disqualified, is not an insignificant offence, but there do not seem to have been any particular aggravating circumstances to this example of the offence. Accordingly, I can see no reason for imposing the nine-month sentence that I suspended in July last year. Rather, I shall cancel the good behaviour order and re-sentence Mr Brymer.
Sentence
Mr Brymer, please stand.
I note the offence of driving while disqualified committed in October 2016, and cancel the 12-month good behaviour order that I made on 7 July 2016. I order that the security of $1,000 given under that good behaviour order is not to be enforced.
Next, noting the conviction I recorded on 7 July 2016, I re-sentence you, for the offence of arson, to imprisonment for nine months. That sentence is again to be immediately suspended, and I order you to sign a good behaviour undertaking for a period of nine months, which will be subject to the core conditions only, and in doing that I note, Mr Brymer, that you are already subject to a longer good behaviour order with core conditions imposed by the Magistrates Court. If you breach that longer order by re-offending while my good behaviour order is still in force, then you will be in trouble under this good behaviour order as well.
So what that means in terms of the good behaviour order I have just made is that for the next nine months – and I have cut it down to nine months which is the minimum I can do for a nine-month sentence – you just need to keep out of trouble and not re‑offend. If you do re-offend, you are still at risk of serving some, or all, of that nine‑month sentence in full time custody. Do you understand all of that?
MR BRYMER: Yes, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: All right. You may sit down.
| I certify that the preceding eleven [11] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Penfold. Associate: Date: 5 September 2017 |
0