R v Celeski - [2022] ACTSC 229

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Celeski
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 229
Hearing Date:	30 August 2022
Decision Date:	30 August 2022
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	The offender is referred to the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List at 11:15 am on 23 September 2022 for eligibility assessment.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Where
offending occurred while offender was subject to a good
behaviour order – where the offender is a drug addicted person – where prospects of rehabilitation are low – offender referred to
Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 114C Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 603 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) ss 42, 249 Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (ACT) ss 26, 36
Cases Cited:	R v Celeski [2020] ACTSC 310
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
David Celeski (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
E Wren (Crown)
P Edmonds (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Paul Edmonds & Associates (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 174 and 175 of 2022
Elkaim J:

1. On 13 July 2022, the offended pleaded guilty to the following offences:
(i) CC2022/1384: Unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm contrary to s 42(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). The maximum penalty is
10 years’ imprisonment.
(ii) CC2022/1385: Possession of ammunition contrary to s 249(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $1,600.
(iii) CC2022/3327: Trafficking in a controlled drug, namely heroin contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is
$160,000 and/or 10 years’ imprisonment.
(iv) CC2022/1387: Trafficking in a controlled drug, namely methamphetamine contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum
penalty is $160,000 and/or 10 years’ imprisonment.
(v) CC2022/1392: Possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum
penalty is $32,000 and/or two years’ imprisonment.
(vi) CC2022/6748: Possessing a declared substance, namely 1,4 butanediol contrary to s 36 of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act
2008 (ACT). The maximum penalty is $32,000 and/or two years’
imprisonment.
(vii) CC2022/6749: Supplying a declared substance, namely 1,4 butanediol contrary to s 26(1) of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act
2008 (ACT). The maximum penalty is $80,000 and/or five years’
imprisonment.

2.       The offender is also in breach of several good behaviour orders with suspended sentences, namely:
(i)       Burglary – CC2016/1268 – 12 months’ imprisonment
(ii)      Damage property – CC2016/1271 – 8 months’ imprisonment
(iii)    Dishonestly ride in motor vehicle – CC2016/1994 – 6 months’
imprisonment
(iv)     Theft – CC2016/1267 – 4 months’ imprisonment
(v)      Obstruct territory official – CC2016/551 – 2 months’ imprisonment
(vi)     Obstruct territory official – CC2016/1270 – 2 months’ imprisonment
(vii)    Two offences of possessing a drug of dependence – CC2016/1997 and CC2016/1998 – 2 months’ imprisonment each

3. The Local Court in Queanbeyan identified the offender as an habitual offender in 2009. Both before and…

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 Celeski

Details

AGLC: R v Celeski [2020] ACTSC 310
Case: [2022] ACTSC 229
Decision Date: 30 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Celeski, was before the court in relation to a criminal matter. The specifics of the offence are not detailed in the text, but it is clear that the case revolves around Celeski’s breach of a good behaviour order, compounded by his drug addiction and low prospects of rehabilitation. The court handling the case was not explicitly named, but given the context, it was likely a lower court with jurisdiction over criminal matters in Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing approach for an offender who has breached a good behaviour order while struggling with drug addiction and has a low likelihood of rehabilitation. The court had to consider whether the standard sentencing principles should be applied or if there was a need for a more specialised approach, potentially involving referral to a Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List.

In deciding the matter, the court recognised the unique challenges posed by Celeski’s situation. The offender’s drug addiction and the associated low prospects for rehabilitation were significant factors that warranted special consideration. The court determined that a referral to the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List would allow for a comprehensive eligibility assessment, potentially leading to a more tailored and effective rehabilitation program. Consequently, the court ordered that Celeski be referred to the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List for further assessment.

The final orders of the court were straightforward, mandating that Celeski be referred to the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List at 11:15 am on 23 September 2022 for an eligibility assessment. This referral aims to address the underlying issues contributing to the offender’s criminal behaviour and to explore rehabilitative options that could be more beneficial than a standard punitive sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is referred to the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List

at 11:15 am on 23 September 2022 for eligibility assessment.

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.