R v Campbell
[2021] ACTSC 359
•14 December 2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Campbell |
Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 359 |
Hearing Date: | 10 December 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 14 December 2021 |
Before: | Refshauge AJ |
Decision: | (1) Aaron James Campbell be convicted of aggravated robbery on 4 August 2021 and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months, to commence on 9 November 2021 and end on 8 March 2024. Had he not pleaded guilty, he would have been sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment. (2) A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Aaron James Campbell for two years from today, 14 December 2021, until 13 December 2023 in respect of the offence of aggravated robbery of which he has been convicted and for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months. (3) It be noted that the conviction for the offence of aggravated robbery has been recorded and the sentence imposed, which conviction and sentence be hereby incorporated into the custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. (4) The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be hereby suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from today, 14 December 2021, until 13 December 2023. (5) Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Aaron James Campbell be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the day after the end of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, namely 14 December 2023, until the end of the total sentence, namely 8 March 2024, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services, or his delegate, for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to urinalysis, counselling and treatment. (6) For the treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order: (a) The core conditions of the order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) are hereby imposed; (b) Aaron James Campbell be directed to travel directly from the Court today to Karralika Programs Inc. and admit himself to the residential drug rehabilitation program of that facility by 1:00 pm today, 14 December 2021; (c) Aaron James Campbell be directed to complete the residential drug rehabilitation program at Karralika Programs Inc., to not leave the facility until he has completed the course and to comply with all the directions of the person in charge of the program and all the rules of the program and the facility; (d) Should Aaron James Campbell leave or be discharged from the program before completing it, he is to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00 pm on the next business day with a view to having his Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order reviewed; (e) Aaron James Campbell undertake any program, treatment or counselling, urinalysis or case management that may be required by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that Team about where he resides, with whom he associates and his attendance from time to time; and (f) Aaron James Campbell comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance in Court in person or by electronic means. (7) Aaron James Campbell be directed to appear by electronic means in Court on Friday 17 December 2021 at 12:30 pm. (8) Aaron James Campbell be directed to attend the Court Registry before he leaves the Court today to sign a sealed copy of this Order and an undertaking to comply with the Order and any obligation under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for the period that this order is in place. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated Robbery – Subjective Circumstances – Sentence of Imprisonment – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing Act) 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 12A, 33, 46K, 46J, 80W, 80Y, 80ZA Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 85 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 4(2) |
Cases Cited: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Aaron Campbell (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel M Dyason (Crown) C Duffy (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 221 of 2021 |
REFSHAUGHE AJ:
Introduction
Aaron Campbell has pleaded guilty to an offence of aggravated robbery for which he must now be sentenced.
In the sentencing proceedings, Mr Campbell sought that a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (Treatment Order) under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) be made.
This requires that the Court proceed to sentence Mr Campbell in the traditional way and then, if the sentence is within the statutory limits of that section, decide whether a Treatment Order should be made: R v Slattery [2021] ACTSC 154 at [3].
At the sentencing hearing, the Court admitted the Crown Tender Bundle which was tendered without objection. There was no challenge to the contents of most of the documents in it, although some modifications were made to some of the reports.
The documents in the Tender Bundle were the documents of committal, an Agreed Statement of Facts, Mr Campbell's Criminal History and the screen capture of some CCTV footage of the place of the offence and the knife used in the offence.
It also contained the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessments (Suitability Assessments) prepared under s 46J of the Sentencing Act. These were the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment dated 24 November 2021 prepared by ACT Corrective Services and the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List Suitability Assessment Report, also dated 24 November 2021, of the Alcohol and Drug Services of Canberra Health Services with a Case Plan.
In the submissions, some evidence was adduced. While s 4(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) applies to exclude the rules of evidence in that Act where no direction is made by the Court, the common law applies: see R v Bourchas [2002] NSWCCA 373; 133 A Crim R 413 at 428; [61]. Thus, a degree of informality in the adducing of evidence in sentencing proceedings is desirable, but fairness still applies. Often, the issue arises when counsel commence a section in submissions by “I am instructed that”.
It is appropriate where evidence is adduced in submissions, usually after counsel for the relevant parties have been invited to indicate that they have no further evidence, to inquire of counsel for each other party whether there is any challenge to that evidence which would require it being adduced in a more usual way. This would include, where appropriate, cross-examination or the opportunity to adduce contrary material being provided: see R v Bourchas at 428; [61]. As noted there, however, cooperation between the parties is desirable and to be encouraged.
There was no challenge to any of the material adduced in this way and it is taken into account. The Court was assisted by the written and oral submissions of Mr M Dyason, counsel for the Crown and the submissions of Ms C Duffy, counsel for Mr Campbell.
From this material, the Court makes the following findings.
Facts
At about 8:12 pm on 4 August 2021, Mr Campbell entered a supermarket at the O'Connor shops. He took some items from the shelves, including a phone charger worth $15 and left without paying for them.
The owner of the supermarket saw him do so, followed him out of the store and chased him down the street. When the owner attempted to confront Mr Campbell, Mr Campbell hit him in the face with a closed fist, causing him to stumble backwards and retreat into the supermarket.
A bystander in a parked car saw what was happening and also tried to apprehend Mr Campbell outside a nearby hotel, but as he approached Mr Campbell produced a 10 cm. fishing knife out of the bag he was carrying. The bystander attempted to kick Mr Campbell, but Mr Campbell swung at him with the knife, narrowly missing the bystander's neck. It caused a small hole in the back of the hoodie-style sweater the bystander was wearing when it connected with him, but it did not pierce his skin.
Mr Campbell then dropped the knife and fled. The bystander chased him across the park and then returned to where the fight had taken place. Police were alerted and obtained CCTV footage of the incident, which had clearly recorded the incident from multiple angles. They found no visible injuries on the owner of the supermarket. He had clearly not given Mr Campbell permission to take the items without paying, nor to assault him, as the events show.
On 10 August 2021, Mr Campbell approached police in City Walk in Civic and surrendered to them, saying he was wanted by police. He was arrested and conveyed to the Watchhouse where police bail was refused. At the time, Mr Campbell showed distinct signs of intoxicating substance use.
The proceedings
Mr Campbell was initially charged with three separate offences, not including an offence of aggravated robbery, when he appeared in the Magistrates Court. He was remanded in custody.
On 21 September 2021, however, apparently after some negotiations, the Crown declined to proceed with all of those charges and replaced some or all of them with the charge of aggravated robbery, to which he pleaded guilty on that day and was committed for trial to this Court. He was further remanded in custody.
It was clear that he was intending to seek a Treatment Order and the Magistrates Court ordered an Eligibility Assessment (as to which, see R v McHughes [2021] ACTSC 92 at [7]), which was provided.
This was the earliest that Mr Campbell could have entered the plea to that charge and entitles him to a significant discount.
Although Mr Campbell has been in custody since he was arrested, he faced two outstanding charges, an assault occasioning actual bodily harm and damaging property worth less than $5,000. No details were provided of those charges but, from the material that was provided, it appears that they were unrelated offences and on 8 October 2021, he was sentenced for these offences to imprisonment for three months to end on 9 November 2021. Thereafter, he remained in custody on these charges until today, 14 December 2021, a total of 36 days.
In this Court, Mr Campbell maintained his plea of guilty and Suitability Assessments were ordered and the proceedings listed for sentence.
The offence
Section 33(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act requires a court sentencing an offender to consider the “nature and circumstances of the offence”. In order to do so, the court must find the facts of the offence, which has been done, must have regard to the maximum penalty of the offence and must consider the relevant factors that the current sentencing practice identifies as relevant to the objective seriousness of the offence.
The maximum penalty, the High Court has regularly reminded sentencing judges, is a required consideration and very important: Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37; 395 ALR 193 at [19]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at 434–5; [10]. It has the force of a legislative mandate. It invites a comparison between the offence actually committed and the worst possible case and it provides, taken and balanced with all other relevant factors, a yardstick.
Aggravated robbery is contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) which prescribes a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment or a fine of $400,000 or both. It is, thus, a very serious offence.
It can, of course, be committed in various ways and, in order to find the objective seriousness of this particular crime, it is important, as well as mandated under s 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act, to have regard to the various aggravating or mitigating factors. These can be identified by the current sentence practice of sentencing judges and Courts of Appeal considering sentencing appeals.
In the case of aggravated robbery, the same offence in New South Wales, though named armed robbery, has been considered by a guideline judgment: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346. In that judgment (at 380; [162]), the Court identified features which allowed a determination of the objective seriousness of each individual offence. The Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal in R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 at [74] accepted that these were relevant in this jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal has also considered that they are of persuasive authority: Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 at [49].
The weapon is important. Here, it was a knife, which is capable of not just inflicting serious harm, but even of death. As Higgins CJ said in R v Griggs [1999] ACTSC 22 at [41], “a knife is always loaded”. See also R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 at [38]. This is a serious factor aggravating the offence, but not more than a relatively typical case of the offence.
There was some actual violence used. In the case of the owner of the supermarket, this was a punch to his head, a vulnerable part of the body, but neither he nor the bystander, who was slashed with the knife, apparently cutting a hole in his jumper, suffered any actual significant injuries, though the owner must have experienced pain and probably some soreness. The Court cannot make a better finding as there was neither medical evidence nor any Victim Impact Statement.
The amount stolen was of a low value. There is no discernible planning or premeditation in the offence; it seemed an opportunistic crime.
Mr Campbell was alone and there were no co-offenders.
The owner of the supermarket, however, was in a relatively vulnerable position being in the store late at night. There was no evidence of any other employees or customers there, though there was the bystander, so it was not quite the situation of vulnerability of some such offences.
Subjective circumstances
In addition to the nature and circumstances of the offence, the Court is required to consider the subjective circumstances of an offender who is to be sentenced: s 33(1)(h), (i), (m)–(p) and (t) of the Sentencing Act.
Mr Campbell was born approximately 22 years ago, one of three children to his parents. He never met his biological father who is not part of his life. His mother re-partnered when he was 10 years old to a man with two daughters, but he was abusive. Mr Campbell experienced family violence. His mother was an alcoholic. He became so disturbed at home that he would punch holes in the walls of his home [redacted for legal reasons]. Accordingly, he left home when he was 14 years old. He has become estranged from his family because of his drug use and crime.
He has had some work, but the only information provided to the Court was of carpet laying for two months before his arrest.
He has significant debts of $9,000, including unpaid fines. He appears to have had some employment in custody.
He had a personal relationship, but only for five months. He has no dependents.
Mr Campbell started drinking alcohol briefly, but he does not drink much. He is a tobacco smoker.
He started using cannabis socially when he was aged 12 or 13, but his use soon escalated so that by about age 15 he was consuming three grams a day. He now smokes weekly, particularly to help him sleep and “come down” from the use of other drugs.
He used MDMA/Ecstasy when he was 16 years old, but mainly opportunistically and ceased use about two years ago.
He has used heroin a few times, but only because “it was there”. He has used some non-prescription drugs from time to time and methadone in 2020, but not for about six months now.
Mr Campbell reported that he first used methamphetamine at the age of 15 and has used it regularly since then. He smoked methamphetamine initially and progressed to intravenous use for the past two years, using half a gram of methamphetamine daily. His last reported use was in August 2021, before he was remanded.
Mr Campbell has had no significant alcohol and other drug treatment. He did spend two months in a facility conducted by the Ted Noffs Foundation, but ran away before the program ended. He has had three counselling sessions at Directions Health Services, but as a condition of his parole to which he was then subject.
He was homeless for a significant period. Recently he was housed in the Justice Housing Program, but that is no longer available to him immediately.
He has completed some programs in custody, including “Keeping Well”, “Goal Setting” and “Introduction to Recovery”.
For a young man, he has a significant and worrying criminal record. [Redacted for legal reasons].
As an adult, he has 18 offences on his record. Most are dishonesty offences, but there are some violence offences, including possession of a knife, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and contravening a Family Violence Order.
Sentencing practice
As noted above, sentencing practice is a factor required to be considered by a court sentencing an offender: s 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act.
An aspect of this has been dealt with above (at [22]–[31]), but here the focus is on the kind of sentence to be imposed and the range of sentences that have been imposed in current times.
Prior sentences are not, of course, precedents, but regard to sentencing practice can assist to ensure consistency; an important sentencing value.
In R v Lovelock [2014] ACTSC 229 at [13], Murrell CJ noted that current sentencing practice in the ACT Supreme Court is that a common sentence for the offence of aggravated robbery is three years imprisonment. This is no mandatory sentence, of course, and a number are for lesser or longer terms of imprisonment. For example, in R v Lovelock [2020] ACTSC 376 at [43]–[49], the Court considered four decisions in which sentences of between two years and two years and nine months and 15 days imprisonment were imposed.
In this case, the Crown filed a helpful table of five recent decisions, in each of which a knife was used. The sentences ranged from 13 months and two weeks imprisonment to three years imprisonment. Each case had its own particular circumstances. Thus, in R v Murphy [2021] ACTSC 94, Mr Murphy was on conditional liberty at the time, which may have explained the sentence of imprisonment for three years, whereas Mr Campbell was not on conditional liberty at the time of his offending.
In R v LM [2021] ACTSC 71, LM pleaded guilty to three offences of aggravated robbery. He entered a relatively late plea, though after a Criminal Case Conference. One offence was an attempt only as he did not actually steal anything. In the other offences, he stole $539.78 and $1,384.27 respectively. He had a long history of drug use but, while there was no indication in the sentencing remarks about it at all, the Crown asserted that he had a “significant criminal history”. While three offences were committed, the Court made the sentences run with significant concurrency so that the total period of imprisonment was four years and nearly nine months, with a non-parole period of two years and 10 months. This was more serious than the case of Mr Campbell.
In R v Percival [2018] ACTSC 230, there were four offences, including one at the very supermarket which Mr Campbell robbed. In three of the robberies a larger amount of money was involved than involved in this case: $550, $1,000 and $750. The other offence resulted in no money being taken and so was also an attempted aggravated robbery. There was no actual violence and Mr Percival had a limited criminal history. The sentences ranged from 18 months imprisonment to 27 months imprisonment which, prior to the discount for the plea of guilty, was of two years imprisonment up to three years imprisonment. His criminal record was not particularly serious and he showed remorse and insight. He had taken positive steps towards rehabilitation. The repetition made the offences serious and the money stolen was also more than Mr Campbell stole.
In R v Bennett [2015] ACTSC 36, Ms Bennett robbed a service station of $230, pointing the knife that she had at the employee and threatened violence. She was 37 years old and had a “not insignificant” criminal history, but not including any very serious matters. The sentence was of three years imprisonment, but partially suspended after serving a little over six months with a lengthy Good Behaviour Order including substantial drug rehabilitation. This was a much larger amount of money and an older offender. There were some similarities in this case with that of Mr Campbell.
Consideration
The difficult task of sentencing by synthesising all the relevant factors, which sometimes point in different directions, is made a little easier by the legislative mandate in s 7 of the Sentencing Act of the purposes for sentencing.
Thus, for a serious offence such as this and one which significantly disturbs the community and harms the victim, punishment must play a substantial role. The sentence must also make it clear that the offence is inexcusable, thus denouncing it and deterring others from committing like offences. Here, the sentence can also protect the community.
The sentence must make clear to Mr Campbell that such offending behaviour is not acceptable and recognise the harm done to the victims, even in the absence of Victim Impact Statements.
In this case, Mr Campbell is still a relatively young man: see R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362 at [44]–[48]. This provides that, generally, rehabilitation plays an important role regardless of the seriousness of the offence: R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18 at [39]–[40].
Mr Campbell's childhood must also be taken into account. In this case, it was a disadvantaged childhood which would have affected his capacity to learn the boundaries and skills of appropriate behaviour. Both counsel agreed that this was relevant and moderated his moral culpability.
The plea entered by Mr Campbell was at the earliest time. It is to be accepted that the Crown case was very strong and approaching an overwhelming case, but a significant discount is still to be afforded him for the plea. It was, too, demonstrative of remorse which is reinforced by what he told the authors of the Suitability Assessments. In one, it is reported, “he claimed to accept responsibility for his actions and was able to articulate the cost of his actions to the victim, community and himself”. In addition, he surrendered to police and did not have to be arrested and expressed a desire to address his drug dependency.
As well as these matters, the Court takes into account the nature and circumstances of the offences as they have already been described and Mr Campbell's personal circumstances as they have also been described. It is noted that this offence is of a type that seriously affects the community and the effect on the victims, as far as the impact can be assessed in general terms, is taken into account: see R v JM [2014] ACTSC 380 at [51], R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [42].
Mr Campbell was solely responsible for the offending, for which he has taken responsibility as noted above (at [59]).
Nevertheless, the seriousness of the offence means that no other sentence than a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate: s 10 of the Sentencing Act.
[His Honour then spoke directly to the offender]
Mr Campbell, please stand.
The orders of the Court are as follows:
(1) You are convicted of aggravated robbery on 4 August 2021 and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months, to commence on 9 November 2021 and end on 8 March 2024. Had you not pleaded guilty, you would have been sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment.
You may be seated.
Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order application
The Court now turns to the question of how that sentence of imprisonment should be served. In particular, as noted above (at [2]), Mr Campbell has sought a Treatment Order. In order to decide that, the Court must ascertain whether he is eligible and, if so, whether it is appropriate that such an Order be made.
The eligibility is set out in s 12A(1) and (2)(a) and (c) of the Sentencing Act. The Court shall address these issues. Mr Campbell has been convicted on his plea of guilty to an offence that is an eligible offence.
As the sentence of imprisonment is for two years and four months, which is greater than the minimum period set out in s 12A(1)(b), namely one year, and less than the maximum permitted for a Treatment Order, namely four years imprisonment, that eligibility criterion is met. The Court is also satisfied that Mr Campbell is not subject to another sentencing order within the meaning of that section.
Although Mr Campbell was, when he was arrested, homeless, he has been a resident in the ACT since, it appears, at least 2017, given that all offences since then were committed in Canberra and none in New South Wales. He has a further connection with Canberra since he lived here prior to relocating to Batemans Bay, New South Wales, in 2003. He will, if given a Treatment Order, be accommodated in the residential drug rehabilitation facility conducted by Karralika Therapeutic Programs Inc. for 12 months and some transitional accommodation is available after that. The Court is satisfied he is, on the balance of probabilities, likely to remain in the ACT given his personal circumstances.
The Suitability Assessments of ACT Drug and Alcohol Service indicated that he likely had a severe substance abuse disorder and, on the basis of the description of his use in both of those Suitability Assessments, the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he is dependant on a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, and probably cannabis.
In the light of this, the assessment of his intoxication assessed by the police and the report to the authorities of the Suitability Assessments of his use of drugs at the time of the offence, none of which was challenged, the Court is satisfied also on the balance of probabilities that his dependence substantially contributed to him committing the aggravated robbery offence.
Mr Campbell has signed a form, tendered without objection or challenge, that has given informed consent to the making of a Treatment Order and, after an explanation of that Order has been given and he has had an opportunity to ask any questions about the Order and those questions have been answered, which answers he says that he has understood, that eligibility criterion is also met.
Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that he is eligible for a Treatment Order to be made.
The Suitability Assessments are a really important part of consideration for whether a Treatment Order is to be made. Mr Campbell was polite and cooperative with preparation of the Assessments and he seems to have provided good details of the background and his activity.
The Court has carefully read those Suitability Assessments. They have been prepared in a professional, comprehensive and thoughtful way. Both recommended that Mr Campbell was suitable for a Treatment Order. There is no other evidence that might be contrary to those recommendations.
The Alcohol and Drug Service has prepared a comprehensive Case Plan which shows that a Treatment Order is an appropriate way for Mr Campbell to serve the sentence of imprisonment, if suspended, and that there are appropriate arrangements for the administration of that Case Plan.
The Court is not aware of any indicators of unsuitability for a Treatment Order, as set out in table 46K of the Sentencing Act, that would require or make it appropriate that the Court decline to make a Treatment Order.
Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that Mr Campbell is suitable for a Treatment Order. The Court is satisfied that it is appropriate that one be made.
The sentence imposed on Mr Campbell commenced on 9 November 2021 and will, if a Treatment Order is made, be suspended from today. That the sentence is partially suspended in this way does not mean that Mr Campbell is not eligible for a Treatment Order, given the reasoning set out in R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 at [91]–[111].
Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order
[His Honour then spoke directly to the offender]
Mr Campbell, please stand again.
The orders of the Court are as follows:
(2) A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for you for two years from today, 14 December 2021, until 13 December 2023 in respect of the offence of aggravated robbery of which you have been convicted and for which you have been sentenced to two years and four months imprisonment.
(3) It be noted that the conviction for the offence of aggravated robbery has been recorded and the sentence imposed, which conviction and sentence be hereby incorporated into the custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
(4) The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be hereby suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from today, 14 December 2021, until 8 March 2024.
(5) Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) you are required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the day after the end of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, namely 14 December 2023, until the end of the total sentence, namely 8 March 2024, with a probation condition that you accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services, or his delegate, for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising you considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising you, including as to urinalysis, counselling and treatment.
(6) For the treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order:
a. The core conditions of the Order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) are hereby imposed;
b. You are directed to travel directly from the Court today to Karralika Programs Inc. and admit yourself to the residential drug rehabilitation program of that facility by 1:00 pm today, 14 December 2021;
c. You are directed to complete the residential drug rehabilitation program at Karralika Programs Inc., to not leave the facility until you have completed the course and to comply with all the directions of the person in charge of the program and all the rules of the program and the facility;
d. Should you leave or be discharged from the program before completing it, you are to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00 pm on the next business day with a view to having your Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order reviewed;
e. You are to undertake any program, treatment or counselling, urinalysis or case management that may be required by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that Team about where you reside, with whom you associate and your attendance from time to time; and
f. You are to comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance in Court in person or by electronic means.
(7) You are directed to appear by electronic means in Court on Friday 17 December 2021 at 12:30 pm.
(8) You are directed to attend the Court Registry before you leave the Court today to sign a sealed copy of this Order and an undertaking to comply with the Order and any obligation under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for the period that this order is in place.
Mr Campbell, that is the formal part of the proceedings and although your record is not as bad as some that I have seen in this Court, you have been around the Courts enough to probably understand most of what I have said. It is mostly about you anyway, but also about the very serious offence you committed. It is a very serious offence which ordinarily would result in a lengthy term of imprisonment. I have indicated, taking everything into account, that two years and four months would be the term that you would serve, were you to be required to serve a sentence of imprisonment. For a young man, that is a long period of time.
I do not require you to serve any more of that sentence of imprisonment because I have made a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, based on your willingness to address your drug and alcohol dependency. You will be dependent on drugs forever, but your ability to manage it and, in particular, be abstinent and not lead to crime, is something that can be achieved. The evidence shows, and a number of people who graduate from this Court having completed the program for such an Order show, that it can be achieved.
It will be hard work. A dependency is not easy to get on top of and it is very easy, when things get tough, to slip back to the way that you were before and take some drugs to dull the pain or to just make you chill out. Hopefully you are committed to this, hopefully you will put the effort in, but there will be times of difficulty. If you can successfully meet those challenges and address them, then you will be stronger for that and that will help you in your journey to, hopefully, a drug and crime free life.
You are a young man. You have got your whole life ahead of you to be able to address that sensibly without drugs which addle your thinking, without being in and out of gaol, which is no place to serve your life, and to be able to do what you really want to do in life. Perhaps that is to have a family, get a job, and to do something that will make you feel worthwhile and which you will see as being worthwhile, instead of just the revolving door of in and out of gaol. That will be a very good objective and a very good way to proceed.
It will be long and it will not be easy, but you are in the right place. This Court will support you and there are some expert people in, and supervised by, the Treatment and Supervision Team, who will assist you to do that. Karralika has a good reputation and a good record for addressing these issues and that will be a really good start. You will get some assistance from peers in there; people who have gone through the same program and will help you go through it too.
One of the most important things, though, is that you must be honest. That is both honest with the people that you are dealing with, but also honest with yourself. Have a fair assessment of what you have done. It is hard to live thinking that you have done bad things or that you have made mistakes, so it is very easy to cover those over and minimise them to yourself. Be honest with yourself and that will also make you strong and that will also help you to address this dreadful pernicious drug dependency that has led you to where you are today.
One of the really important things is when things get tough, do not run away and hide. That is not a good thing to do when Karralika gets tough. Face up to it. Do not just run away but, if you do, come back to the Court. You will have to be penalised in some way for that breach of the Order that said you stay there until you complete it, but if you come back, then we can look at options that may be available. It may be possible for you to go back there. It may be possible for you to go somewhere else, or it may be possible for you to continue your rehabilitation in some other form.
If you do not come back, those options are highly unlikely. You will be arrested. We have had, I think, almost every absconder arrested now, so you will not be free for a very long time. You might be free for a few months at the maximum, because you will not have addressed your dependency, and that will lead you back into crime inevitably. I do not say that we will not penalise you. That penalty might mean a term of imprisonment and might ultimately mean I have to cancel the Order, but at least there is a real opportunity to try and restore you back to the work of your rehabilitation.
I hope we do not have to worry about all that. I hope that you will be committed. Most of the people who come for this do stay for the length of the period in a rehabilitation program, do complete the program and do find that they are much better people for themselves and, of course, for their community and their family.
You will see me quite a few times. In the first few months you will have to see me mostly through AVL because you are in a residential rehabilitation facility for about 12 months. That is an opportunity for you to discuss with me any of the issues that you have and I will discuss with you any of the issues that have been drawn to my attention. That might mean some sanctions, or it might mean some congratulations. Sometimes, if you have done really well, we even give you a clap in this Court and say you have done well.
That is an opportunity also for you to raise things with me that might be challenging you. There might be some issues in the rehab that you need to work through. You will have lawyers. Ms Duffy will continue to appear for you, for your assistance and you can always talk to her. You will have case managers and you can always talk to them and your counsellors, of course, but sometimes there are things that you want to raise with me.
Judges have a lot of power, particularly when we deprive you of your liberty, but it is not unlimited. I cannot solve everything, but it is amazing how, by activating the Treatment Team and making representations and dealing with issues, a lot of issues can be resolved. If you do not raise them, they tend to fester and if they fester, they get bigger and you cannot address them. If you raise them early, then we can address them.
Mostly in the rehabs when you are on AVL there will be other people around. That might cause you some difficulty. You might want to make an issue about some treatment that you have received and you may not want to raise that in the presence of some of those people. Speak to your lawyer and we can make arrangements for you to be heard in a closed Court.
That does not mean that the lawyers, including the prosecution and the Treatment Team will not be here. They are part of the Court for the purposes of this, but other participants in the program and perhaps the staff will not be there, so you can talk confidentially about that. I am not encouraging you to do that. It is an option that is available to you. Take those options, raise the issues and certainly address any difficulties.
You will find that you will get a lot of support and most of the issues you will be able to address yourself. An ability to do that will also make you stronger and make you better able to manage your drug dependency when ultimately you are released back into the community.
You may be seated.
| I certify that the preceding ninety-eight [98] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Acting Justice Refshauge Associate: Date: |
6
19
4