SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | The Queen v Cockburn [No 2] |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 337 |
Hearing Date(s): | 14 October 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 20 October 2015 |
Before: | Refshauge ACJ |
Decision: | 1. Joseph Cockburn is convicted of demanding money by menaces on 12 April 2014. 2. Joseph Cockburn is convicted of taking someone else’s motor vehicle dishonestly without consent on 12 April 2014. 3. Joseph Cockburn is convicted is assault on 12 April 2014. 4. Joseph Cockburn is released on bail, subject to the following conditions: 1. That he accept supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him; 2. That he complete the Karuna phase of the residential rehabilitation program at Karralika Programs Inc and any additional residential program at the facility for which he is suitable and which is recommended; 3. He consent to the Officer in Charge of Karralika providing any information about his participation in its programs, his progress and his behaviour to the person supervising him; 4. If he is discharged from or leave that program before it is completed, he report in person within one working day to the Registrar of the Supreme Court with a view to having his bail reviewed; 5. Once he completes the Karralika program, he notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions of his completion and of where he is to reside; 6. After he leaves Karralika, he reside at either Lot 38 Wharf Road, Surfside, New South Wales, until he returns to court, and during that period, report to the officer in charge of Bateman’s Bay police station each Tuesday and Friday, or, if agreed by the person supervising him, he reside at an address in Canberra, in which case he is to notify that address to the Director of Public Prosecutions and report to the officer in charge of Civic police station each Tuesday and Friday; 7. He refrain from consuming illicit drugs; 8. He submit to urinalysis when the person supervising reasonably requires it. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – judgment and punishment – sentencing – deferred sentence order – demanding money by menaces – taking someone else’s motor vehicle dishonestly without consent – assault – additional offences – riding in someone else’s motor vehicle dishonestly without consent – intentionally damaging property – theft – driving whilst disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence – using a motor vehicle with a thing to deceive as a number plate – drug use – offender seeking rehabilitation |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 32(2) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 318(1), 318(2), 308, 321, 403 |
Cases Cited: |
Continue reading R v Cockburn (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Cockburn (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 337
- Case
- [2015] ACTSC 337
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate sentencing options for Cockburn, who had shown a willingness to engage in rehabilitation programs. The court considered the principles of sentencing under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which included the need to deter Cockburn and others from engaging in similar criminal conduct, to rehabilitate the offender, and to provide just punishment. The court also had to balance these principles with the need to ensure public safety and to consider the personal circumstances of Cockburn, including his expressed desire for rehabilitation and his history of drug use.
The court's reasoning focused on the need to impose a sentence that would provide an opportunity for Cockburn to address the underlying issues contributing to his offending, while also ensuring public safety. The court concluded that a deferred sentence order was appropriate, under which Cockburn would be released on bail subject to specific conditions. These included supervision, completion of a rehabilitation program, abstaining from drug use, and regular reporting to police. The court ordered that Cockburn was to reside at a specified location and report to police as required, and that he submit to urinalysis at the direction of his supervising officer. This decision aimed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
The final orders of the court included the conviction of Joseph Cockburn on the charges brought against him, and the conditions under which he was to be released on bail pending the completion of his rehabilitation program. Cockburn was to notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions upon completing the program and was to report to police as required. The court also ordered that Cockburn refrain from consuming illicit drugs and submit to urinalysis when required.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Joseph Cockburn is convicted of demanding money by menaces on 12 April 2014.
2. Joseph Cockburn is convicted of taking someone else’s motor vehicle dishonestly without consent on 12 April 2014.
3. Joseph Cockburn is convicted is assault on 12 April 2014.
4. Joseph Cockburn is released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
1. That he accept supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him;
2. That he complete the Karuna phase of the residential rehabilitation program at Karralika Programs Inc and any additional residential program at the facility for which he is suitable and which is recommended;
3. He consent to the Officer in Charge of Karralika providing any information about his participation in its programs, his progress and his behaviour to the person supervising him;
4. If he is discharged from or leave that program before it is completed, he report in person within one working day to the Registrar of the Supreme Court with a view to having his bail reviewed;
5. Once he completes the Karralika program, he notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions of his completion and of where he is to reside;
6. After he leaves Karralika, he reside at either Lot 38 Wharf Road, Surfside, New South Wales, until he returns to court, and during that period, report to the officer in charge of Bateman’s Bay police station each Tuesday and Friday, or, if agreed by the person supervising him, he reside at an address in Canberra, in which case he is to notify that address to the Director of Public Prosecutions and report to the officer in charge of Civic police station each Tuesday and Friday;
7. He refrain from consuming illicit drugs;
8. He submit to urinalysis when the person supervising reasonably requires it.
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.