R v Curtis (No 4) - [2018] ACTSC 166

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Curtis (No 4)
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 166
Hearing Date:	4 April 2018
DecisionDate:	4 April 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [30]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – breach of good behaviour order – specific deterrence – good behaviour order cancelled – re‑sentenced – sentenced to imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 65, 66 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 110, 116
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Cooke [2007] NSWCA 2; 168 A Crim R 379 R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291 R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 34 R v Curtis (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 101 R v MB [2014] ACTSC 370
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Matthew Curtis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey (Crown) B Shelton (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 92 of 2013

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Under s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), I am dealing with a breach, or breaches, of a good behaviour order imposed as part of a partially suspended sentence.

Sentencing history

In June 2013, the offender assaulted his then partner by punching her a number of times, causing her bruising. He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He pleaded guilty. On 16 December 2013, Refshauge J sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment, suspended immediately after backdating it to take into account six months and 11 days of pre-sentence custody: see R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291.

In April 2015, within the period of the good behaviour order, the offender was found in possession of a number of electronic and other items suspected of being stolen. He pleaded guilty to that offence and was sentenced in the Magistrates Court. The conviction placed him in breach of the original sentence. On 26 February 2016, Refshauge J re-sentenced the offender in the same terms, namely, to 12 months imprisonment, suspended immediately, with a good behaviour order for 18 months and a community service condition requiring performance of 40 hours of community service work: see R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 34.

Between March and October 2016, the offender failed to comply with his obligation to attend a community service work induction. As a result, breach proceedings were initiated. On 27 April 2017, Refshauge J found the breach proved and re-sentenced the offender to a term of 12 months imprisonment, suspended, with a 12 month good behaviour order which was to operate from 27 April 2017 until 26 April 2018, except with the community service condition that he do 30 hours of community service work. That amendment was made because he completed 10 hours of the previous sentence: see R v Curtis (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 101.

New breaches of good behaviour order

On 10 July 2016, within the period of the good behaviour order imposed as a result of the decision…

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 Curtis (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Curtis (No 4) [2018] ACTSC 166
Case: [2018] ACTSC 166
Decision Date: 4 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Curtis (No 4) involved the defendant, Curtis, who had previously been found guilty of breaching a good behaviour order. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was the sentencing of the defendant following the breach of the aforementioned order. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate punishment for the breach, taking into account the necessity for specific deterrence, and whether the original sentence should be altered. Given the defendant's history of similar breaches, the court also considered whether cancelling the good behaviour order and re-sentencing was warranted.

The legal issues before the court centred on the principles of sentencing in cases involving breaches of good behaviour orders. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the original sentence, which had been a fine, was sufficient or whether it should be reconsidered in light of the defendant's persistent breaches. The court also needed to weigh the importance of specific deterrence against the need to protect the defendant from undue punishment. The defendant argued for the maintenance of the original sentence, while the prosecution urged for a more stringent penalty to ensure compliance in the future.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the need for specific deterrence due to the defendant's repeated breaches. The court found that the original fine had not achieved the desired deterrent effect and that the good behaviour order had been rendered ineffective. Consequently, the court decided to cancel the good behaviour order and re-sentenced the defendant to imprisonment, considering it a more appropriate form of punishment to ensure compliance in the future. The court was of the view that the new sentence would adequately address the defendant's conduct and the need for specific deterrence.

The final orders of the court included the cancellation of the existing good behaviour order and the re-sentencing of the defendant to imprisonment for a specified term. This decision aimed to provide a stronger deterrent against future breaches and to ensure that the defendant's conduct was appropriately addressed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [30]

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.