R v Crawford (No 2) - [2020] ACTSC 367

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Crawford (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 367
Hearing Date:	16 October 2020
Decision Date:	16 October 2020
Before:	Refshauge AJ

Decision:	1.	The proposed amendment to the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be refused.
2.	Mr Crawford be remanded in custody until 21 October 2020, to consider whether the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order should be revoked, or whether some other order should thereafter be made.

Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to Amend Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – proximity of hearing date to application to amend drug and alcohol treatment order – failure to comply with treatment order obligations – availability of residential rehabilitation – application to amend drug and alcohol treatment
order refused
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12A, 80ZJ
Cases Cited:	Burton v The Queen (1974) 3 ACTR 77 R v Chatfield (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 397 Saga v Reid and Collett [2010] ACTSC 59
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
Peter Michael Crawford (Participant)
Representation:	Counsel
H Roberts (Crown) T Kelliher (Participant)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Participant)
File Numbers:	SCC 349 of 2019; SCC 170 of 2020
REFSHAUGE AJ:

1.       On 7 September 2020, Peter Crawford was convicted of 15 charges, mainly dishonesty offences including such serious offences as aggravated burglary. He has a serious and extensive criminal history.
2.       He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, but that was suspended when I made

a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (a Treatment Order), under s 12A of the Crimes
(Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act).
3.       Part of the treatment and supervision provisions in the Treatment Order were that he admit himself to the Karralika Therapeutic Community (Karralika), and to participate in the program and complete it. He was to remain in that facility and comply with the directions of the facility and the program until it was completed.
4. On 16 September 2020, he left Karralika after an argument, apparently about smoking. The Treatment Order required him to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00 pm on the next business day after he exited from Karralika. That would have been on 17 September 2020. He did not report. A warrant was issued under s 80ZJ of the Sentencing Act.
5.       Mr Crawford was not arrested for some considerable time. He admitted himself to Calvary Hospital, suffering some problems, and was subject to surgery thereafter. He appears to have been admitted to Calvary Hospital on or around 5 October 2020. At

the time, he was described by staff at the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital as ‘highly
intoxicated’, on what was described to be ‘a cocktail of illicit substances’.
6.       As a result of advice received that he was in Calvary Hospital, Mr Crawford was then arrested by police on 7 October 2020, under the warrant.
7.       On 9 October 2020, I remanded him in custody…

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 Crawford (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Crawford (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 367
Case: [2020] ACTSC 367
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crawford (No 2), the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was asked to amend a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order that was imposed on Peter Michael Crawford, who had a history of criminal activity. Mr Crawford was convicted on 7 September 2020 of multiple charges, including aggravated burglary, and was sentenced to four years in prison, which was suspended with the condition that he comply with a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The Treatment Order required Mr Crawford to participate in the Karralika Therapeutic Community program, but he left the facility and failed to report to ACT Corrective Services as required. Mr Crawford was later arrested and was before the Court seeking an amendment to the Treatment Order so that he could live with his mother in the community while the Court considered whether the Treatment Order should be revoked.

The Court was required to consider whether it should amend the Treatment Order to allow Mr Crawford to live with his mother in the community while the Court considered whether the Treatment Order should be revoked or some other order made. The Court had to balance the need for rehabilitation and the risk of reoffending with the need to ensure that Mr Crawford complied with the conditions of the Treatment Order.

The Court refused to amend the Treatment Order and remanded Mr Crawford in custody until the hearing of the application to revoke the Treatment Order. The Court noted that Mr Crawford had given no explanation for his failure to comply with the Treatment Order and had not explained what he did during the 21 days he was at large. The Court also noted that there were suggestions that Mr Crawford may have engaged in illegal activity during that time. The Court held that the matter of whether to vary the Treatment Order was finely balanced but ultimately refused to amend the Treatment Order at that time.

Orders