R v Daquinta (No 2) - [2019] ACTSC 19

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Daquinta (No 2)
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 19
Hearing Date:	29 January 2019
DecisionDate:	29 January 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [12]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – trafficking in a controlled substance – breach of a good behaviour order – damaging property – negligent driving – breach of a protection order – offence committed at the end of a good behaviour order – good behaviour order and suspended sentence in the Magistrates Court – absence of further offending conduct – unavailability of periodic detention orders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	R v Daquinta [2014] ACTSC 131
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Daniel Daquinta (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel P Dixon (Crown) J Ong (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 218 of 2013

MOSSOP J:

Daniel Daquinta was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance, namely, methylamphetamine (CC2013/4228). On 24 April 2014, he was sentenced by Refshauge J: see R v Daquinta [2014] ACTSC 131. He was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. That sentence was suspended after he had served six months and three weeks by way of periodic detention. He was required to enter an undertaking to be of good behaviour for three years from the date of sentence.

Between 3 and 26 February 2017, Mr Daquinta breached the conditions of a protection order and hence committed an offence which put him in breach of the good behaviour order imposed by Refshauge J. For this offence (CC2017/3814), on 18 July 2017 he was given a 12 month good behaviour order by a magistrate. On 8 September 2017, I dealt with the breach of the good behaviour order imposed by Refshauge J by resentencing Mr Daquinta to a good behaviour order of two months. Although the reasons that I gave at the time were not before me today, it is clear that I had regard to the fact that the breach of the protection order offence occurred at the very end of the 36 month good behaviour order imposed by Refshauge J. The bench sheet records matters which indicate that I proceeded as I did because it was not open to reimpose the period of periodic detention because that was no longer a sentence which was available. It was for that reason and the fact that the period of periodic detention had already been served that I imposed on the resentence a sentence which, taken out of context, would have been manifestly too lenient.

Mr Daquinta was, however, unable to comply with that short good behaviour order, committing two offences on 26 October 2017. Those offences occurred at a time when he was affected by methylamphetamine. They involved reversing his vehicle into an exit gate of a self-storage facility so as to knock the gate off its rails and knocking…

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 Daquinta (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Daquinta (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 19
Case: [2019] ACTSC 19
Decision Date: 29 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Daquinta (No 2) involved the defendant, Daquinta, who was before the court for sentencing on various charges. The defendant had previously been subject to a good behaviour order and a suspended sentence in the Magistrates Court. The charges included trafficking in a controlled substance, breaching a good behaviour order, damaging property, negligent driving, and breaching a protection order. The offending occurred at the end of the term of the good behaviour order. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence given the defendant's history, the nature of the recent offences, and the fact that there had been no further offending conduct since the original sentence was imposed.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriateness of the sentencing options available under the circumstances, particularly the unavailability of periodic detention orders. The court had to consider the objectives of sentencing, which include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. It also needed to balance the defendant's prior good behaviour during the term of the good behaviour order against the gravity of the recent offences. The court's reasoning involved weighing the defendant's criminal history and the specific details of the current charges to determine an appropriate and proportionate sentence.

The court held that, given the defendant's lack of further offending conduct and the nature of the recent offences, the imposition of a custodial sentence was not warranted. Instead, the court opted for a sentence that would reinforce the seriousness of the offences without unduly punishing the defendant for past compliance with the good behaviour order. The court also considered the potential for rehabilitation and the need to prevent future offending. The final orders reflected the court's decision, which focused on community-based penalties that would serve the objectives of sentencing effectively.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [12]

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.