R v Campbell
[2017] ACTSC 73
•28 February 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Campbell |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 73 |
Hearing Date: | 28 February 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 28 February 2017 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | Sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of good behaviour order – failure to comply with supervision – illicit substances detected in urinalysis sample – suspended sentence imposed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110(2) |
Parties: | The Crown (Crown) Coral Anne Campbell (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Ms L Taylor (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 267 of 2011 |
MURRELL CJ:
The offender is before the Court for a breach of a good behaviour order that I imposed on 21 September 2015. On that occasion, I resentenced her following a breach of a good behaviour order imposed by Higgins CJ.
Procedural history
On 8 February 2013, Higgins CJ sentenced the offender for the offences of aiding and abetting an armed robbery and riding in a motor vehicle that had been taken without consent. The sentence imposed for the latter offence had been served. In relation to the former sentence, his Honour sentenced the offender to 24 months' imprisonment which was backdated. The unexpired portion of 12 months was suspended and a good behaviour order was made for three years to 7 February 2016.
The offender came before me for a significant breach of the good behaviour order and admitted the breach. On 21 September 2015, I noted that she had completed about two-thirds of the good behaviour order and I was considering resentencing her to one-third of the original sentence. I sentenced her to four months' imprisonment to be suspended upon her entering into a good behaviour order for 12 months. The offender was warned that she must undertake drug testing “without any excuse and when required” and that it was “very, very, very likely” that if she breached her good behaviour order in any significant way, she would be required to serve four months of full-time imprisonment.
Between 21 September 2015 and 31 March 2016, the offender more or less complied with supervision, attending appointments on about seven occasions and failing to attend twice.
However, from April 2016, her compliance with supervision deteriorated. The offender failed to attend appointments on 5 May 2016 and 10 June 2016. She did attend on 13 May 2016 and 15 June 2016 when, incidentally, she was verbally abusive. The offender failed to attend as directed for drug testing on three occasions between April and June 2016. She did attend on 7 June 2016, three weeks after she had been directed to attend on 13 May 2016. On that occasion, the testing returned positive results for opiates, amphetamine, methylamphetamine, benzodiazepine and cannabis.
On 27 June 2016, breach action was initiated. When the breach action came before me on 6 July 2016, the proceedings were adjourned to 13 July 2016 to enable the offender to seek legal advice.
On 13 July 2016, Ms Campbell did not appear and a warrant was issued. I am informed that the reason that she did not appear was that she feared being returned to custody because she was concerned about interacting with certain inmates. She also felt that her domestic circumstances were stable and positive. In particular, she was seeing a lot of her daughter and had part-time employment.
The offender was arrested on 9 December 2016. Fortunately, it was on the warrant and not due to re-offending. Her bail was revoked on the same day by Penfold J.
On 12 December 2016, the offender came before me. I found the breach established, cancelled the good behaviour order, refused bail and stood the matter over to 28 February 2017 for resentence. It was thought that the offence of failing to appear before me on 13 July 2016 might be joined with the current matter, but the matter was kept in the Magistrates Court. The offender pleaded guilty and has been sentenced for that offence to three months’ imprisonment from 9 December 2016 to 8 March 2017.
Subjective circumstances
10. The pre-sentence report is not particularly helpful to the offender. It notes that, since 9 December 2016, she has been subject to disciplinary action in custody on two occasions. These actions have related to attitudinal problems on the part of the offender.
11. The pre-sentence report recounts relevant background information. It also states that the offender does not like being subject to a probation condition. She finds it difficult to maintain positive relationships with probation officers. That submission has also been made to me.
12. The author of the pre-sentence report assessed the offender as being of medium to high risk of general re-offending, despite her supportive family and stable accommodation. She has an ongoing substance abuse problem and lacks pro-social peers. Socially, she is relatively isolated and she has what the author of the report describes as "antisocial values and attitudes". The author goes on to state: “She would require a significant attitude change to be able to comply with further [good behaviour orders].”
13. The author confirms that the offender would benefit from interventions to address substance abuse and antisocial attitudes, but notes that the offender herself does not feel that such interventions are necessary.
Sentence
14. There is nothing to change to the view that I expressed in September 2015 that any significant breach would probably result in the offender serving four months of the sentence that was imposed. The offender's lawyer has not strongly submitted otherwise.
15. The real issue is how that sentence should sit with the three month sentence imposed for the offence of failure to appear. There is some relationship between the two matters. I propose to commence the four month sentence halfway through the current sentence.
16. I have already cancelled the good behaviour order. Pursuant to s 110(2) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), I now impose the suspended sentence of four months’ imprisonment; it is to be served from 22 January 2017 to 21 May 2017.
| I certify that the preceding sixteen [16] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell. Associate: Date: 3 April 2017 |
0
0
1