R v Curtis (No 3)

The case before the court involved Matthew Curtis, who was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2013 and subsequently subject to a Good Behaviour Order in 2016. The matter before the court was Curtis’s breach of that order by failing to complete community service induction or the ordered hours. The court was tasked with considering the appropriate sentencing and conditions for a new Good Behaviour Order. The legal issues that arose centred on the breach of a Good Behaviour Order, the proper sentencing for the original offence, and the conditions for a new Good Behaviour Order, including the requirement for community service.

The court confirmed Curtis’s conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and cancelled the previous Good Behaviour Order. It sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment, which was to commence on 13 October 2016, with consideration for pre-sentence custody. The sentence was suspended for 12 months starting from 27 April 2017. The court imposed a new Good Behaviour Order with specific conditions, including a probation condition under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for a period of 12 months, a requirement to perform 30 hours of community service, and a mandate to contact ACT Corrective Services to arrange for the completion of community service. The court recommended that ACT Corrective Services treat the community service condition as a continuation of the previous order, thereby exempting Curtis from additional induction.

The court issued several orders, including the confirmation of the conviction, cancellation of the previous Good Behaviour Order, imposition of a suspended sentence, and the establishment of a new Good Behaviour Order with specific conditions. The court recommended that ACT Corrective Services consider the new community service condition as a continuation of the previous order, and not require Curtis to undergo any further induction. This decision ensures that the court’s orders are both just and practical, considering Curtis’s previous breach and the requirements of the law.