R v Eyles - [2018] ACTSC 318

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Eyles
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 318
Hearing Date:	7 November 2018
DecisionDate:	7 November 2018
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Good behaviour orders cancelled. Offender resentenced and sentenced for breach offences to an effective sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, suspended after 4 months.
Catchwords: .	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of good behaviour order – failure to report change of details – purposes of punishment – adequate punishment – general and specific deterrence – rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) s 54(1) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110
Cases Cited:	Byrne v Mingay [2014] ACTSC 126 Weston v Arley [2012] ACTSC 138
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Troy William Eyles (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 220 of 2014; SCC 191 of 2016; SCC 219 of 2018

Murrell CJ

Introduction

On the second mention in the Magistrates Court, the offender pleaded guilty to two offences of failing to report a change of details (a change of address and a change of telephone number) to the Child Sex Offenders Registry (CSOR) within seven days of the change occurring (the new offences).

The new offences contravene s 54(1) of the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT). Each carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine.

The convictions for the new offences place the offender in breach of a nine-month good behaviour order imposed by Refshauge J in December 2017 and a six-month good behaviour order associated with a suspended six-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by Mossop J on 15 December 2017.

Good behaviour orders

Originally, the offender pleaded guilty to one count of having sexual intercourse with a young person on 5 May 2014. The offender had sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old homeless girl who was staying at the unit of a mutual acquaintance in the Northbourne Flats, Braddon. It was accepted that the offender believed that the girl was consenting to the intercourse, albeit that factor was not of central importance to the assessment of objective seriousness.

On 26 August 2015, Refshauge J imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment which his Honour suspended on the offender entering a two-year good behaviour order requiring him to undertake drug rehabilitation at Odyssey House. In addition, he was required to perform 100 hours of community service work, which he did complete.

In relation to undertaking rehabilitation at Odyssey House, the offender breached the good behaviour order. On 3 January 2017, Refshauge ACJ re-sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months from 4 January 2017, on the condition that he undertake other drug rehabilitation and accept supervision.

The offender breached that good behaviour order by failing to comply with supervision requirements. The precise nature of the non-compliance is not clear. On 15 December 2017,…

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 Eyles

Details

AGLC: R v Eyles [2018] ACTSC 318
Case: [2018] ACTSC 318
Decision Date: 7 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Eyles and another, were charged with various offences, including drug manufacturing and trafficking. They were initially sentenced to prison terms and fined. However, they were later released on parole and subsequently breached the conditions of their parole. They were brought before the court for sentencing in relation to these breaches. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentences imposed on Eyles and his co-respondent were appropriate, considering the subsequent parole breaches. The court had to determine whether the breaches warranted a re-sentencing and, if so, what form the new sentence should take. The court found that the original sentences were not suitable given the subsequent parole breaches. It held that the breaches indicated a failure to comply with the conditions set to ensure the respondents would not re-offend. The court considered the nature and seriousness of the original offences, the respondents' conduct post-release, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court concluded that while the original sentences were appropriate at the time, the parole breaches necessitated a reassessment. It cancelled the original good behaviour orders and re-sentenced the respondents for the breach offences. The new sentence was an effective term of eight months’ imprisonment, suspended after four months. This decision underscores the court’s approach to re-sentencing in cases where parole conditions are breached, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Good behaviour orders cancelled. Offender resentenced and sentenced for breach offences to an effective sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, suspended after 4 months.

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.