R v CR (No 2) - [2022] ACTSC 96

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v CR (No 2)
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 96
Hearing Date:	21 April 2022
DecisionDate:	2 May 2022
Before:	McCallum CJ
Decision:	Take no action.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Breach of good behaviour orders – Purposes of sentencing – where offender previously dealt with for breach of the same good behaviour obligations – where offences giving rise to second breach proceedings were committed during the same period of offending as the first – evidence of good rehabilitation since – whether offender should be resentenced to a term of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	R v CR [2021] ACTSC 93 R v QH; R v CR [2020] ACTSC 178
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) CR ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Dyason ( Crown) J De Bruin ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) LegalAid ACT ( Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 94 of 2020; SCC 95 of 2020

McCALLUM CJ:

CR is before the Court for breaches of three good behaviour orders imposed by Murrell CJ on 7 July 2020. He was sentenced for a total of nine offences on that date arising out of an attempt by a number of detainees to escape from Bimberi, the Territory’s youth detention centre. CR is now 18 but was a young person at the time those offences were committed. The three good behaviour orders were imposed in respect of three offences of common assault committed against custodial staff at Bimberi.

Murrell CJ gave comprehensive reasons for sentence: R v QH; R v CR [2020] ACTSC 178. In her assessment of the seriousness of the offences, her Honour described the three common assaults in respect of which the good behaviour orders were imposed as follows at [69]:

The assaults did not cause physical injury to the complainants. They did not involve an assault on a vulnerable part of the body such as the head. Nevertheless, the assaults would have been traumatic for the victims and any assault by a detainee on a member of the custodial staff is a serious matter.

CR was dealt with for breaches of his good behaviour obligations in a later judgment of Murrell CJ published on 14 May 2021: R v CR [2021] ACTSC 93. The breaches for which he was dealt with at that time were offences committed on 17 November 2020, for which he had been sentenced by Magistrate Cook on 22 April 2021. In relation to the three good behaviour orders for the three counts of common assault, her Honour noted the breaches but took no further action: at [24].

The matters that bring CR before the Court again today are separate breaches of his good behaviour obligations that occurred shortly before the offences dealt with by Magistrate Cook: one on 16 November 2020 and one in October 2020. It seems at least possible that, had all…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v CR (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] ACTSC 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The offender, CR, was before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for breaches of three good behaviour orders imposed by Murrell CJ on 7 July 2020. These orders were a result of CR’s previous sentencing for nine offences related to an escape attempt from Bimberi, the Territory’s youth detention centre. CR was a young person at the time of the offences, and the good behaviour orders were in respect of three counts of common assault against custodial staff. Murrell CJ had previously dealt with CR for breaches of his good behaviour obligations in May 2021, for offences committed in November 2020. The current breaches before the Court occurred in October and November 2020.

The legal issues the Court had to address included whether CR should be resentenced for the breaches given that the good behaviour orders had expired, and whether the Court should impose a term of imprisonment since CR was already in custody on other matters. The Court considered the purposes of sentencing, particularly the importance of rehabilitation for a young person, and the possibility that all the breaches could have been dealt with together by Murrell CJ, who might have taken no further action. The Crown argued for re-sentencing and imprisonment, but the Court focused on the potential for rehabilitation and the benefit of a fresh start for CR.

The Court reasoned that taking no action on the breaches was in the best interest of CR, considering his periods of positive rehabilitation and the opportunity for the Magistrates Court to deal with him based on his current circumstances. The Court concluded that it was appropriate to allow CR to approach the Magistrates Court with a clean slate, noting his mixed track record of rehabilitation and reoffending. The Court certified that the preceding sixteen numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment.

The final orders of the Court were to take no action on the breaches of the good behaviour orders. This decision allowed CR to approach the Magistrates Court with a fresh start, considering his current circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders