Legal Research
Cases
R v Crawford (No 4)

R v Crawford (No 4)

Case [2021] ACTSC 209 2 July 2021

Criminal Liability

Sentence

Cancellation of Order

Rehabilitation

Unjust Enrichment

Risk to the Community

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Crawford (No 4)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 209
Hearing Date(s):	2 July 2021
DecisionDate:	2 July 2021
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Decision:	1. The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order made on 7 September 2020 and amended on 23 October 2020 be cancelled. 2. The convictions and sentences imposed on 7 September 2020 for the offences to which Mr Crawford has pleaded guilty be confirmed. 3. It be declared that under s 80ZE of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) the total sentence is four years imprisonment, to commence on 13 February 2021 and end of 12 February 2025. 4. A non-parole period of two years, commencing on 13 February 2021 and ending on 12 February 2023, be set. 5. The Good Behaviour Order made on 7 September 2020 be cancelled.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order - Cancellation of Order - Childhood Disadvantage – Failures to commit to Residential Rehabilitation - Imposition of Original Sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 12A Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 145(b) Sentencing (Drug and Alcohol Treatment Orders) Legislation Amendment Act 2019 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 R v Crawford (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 367 R v Crawford (No 3) [2020] ACTSC 369 R v Dowling (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 210 R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Peter Michael Crawford (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel C Muthurajah (Crown) C Duffy (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 349 of 2019 SCC 170 of 2020

REFSHAUGE AJ

Introduction

The Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List of the ACT Supreme Court was established to administer the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Orders (Treatment Orders) created by s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act), which is an important sentencing option for courts to impose on those offenders who are dependent on the consumption of alcohol or illicit drugs and whose dependency contributes substantially to the commission of the crimes for which the offender is to be sentenced.

As Treatment Orders were only introduced into the Sentencing Act by the Sentencing (Drug and Alcohol Treatment Orders) Legislation Amendment Act 2019 (ACT) which commenced on 9 October 2019, they are a relatively recent creation and, to date, only three participants have actually graduated successfully through the three phases of the regime established by the Orders. The List, of course, was established as a form of Drug Court and these have been in operation since, at least, 1989 globally and 1999 in Australia, though the first Treatment Orders were not made in this Territory until 15 January 2020.

As this is a relatively new sentencing disposition for the Court to use, there are many offenders who may have tried…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Crawford (No 4) [2021] ACTSC 209
Case: [2021] ACTSC 209
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crawford (No 4) was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory before Refshauge AJ on 2 July 2021. The primary issue before the court was the cancellation of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order imposed on Mr Peter Michael Crawford, who had pleaded guilty to 15 offences, all but two of which were offences of dishonesty. The court was required to determine whether the grounds for cancellation, as set out in section 80ZE(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), were satisfied.

The grounds for cancellation were that Mr Crawford was unwilling or unlikely to comply with a condition of a Treatment Order, that the continuation of the Treatment and Supervision part of the Treatment Order would not likely achieve the objects of the Treatment Order, and that Mr Crawford posed an unacceptable risk to the safety or welfare of a person. The court found that all three grounds were made out on the balance of probabilities. Mr Crawford had left residential rehabilitation facilities on two occasions, failed to report as required, and committed further offences in Victoria. His neurological condition and lack of motivation also contributed to the court's decision.

In light of the findings, the court cancelled the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order and imposed the original sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. The court also cancelled the Good Behaviour Order made on 7 September 2020. The decision took into account the offender's childhood disadvantage but concluded that the offender's repeated failures to engage in rehabilitation justified the cancellation of the Treatment Order and the imposition of the original sentence.

Orders