Legal Research
Cases
R v Eyles (No 3)

R v Eyles (No 3)

Case [2017] ACTSC 1 3 January 2017

Jurisdiction

Sentencing

Good Behaviour Obligations

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Eyles (No 3)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 1
Hearing Date:	20 December 2016
DecisionDate:	3 January 2017
Before:	Refshauge ACJ
Decision:	1. The conviction of Troy William Eyles for engaging in sexual intercourse with a young person on 5 May 2014 be confirmed. 2. The Good Behaviour Order made on 26 August 2015 be cancelled. 3. Troy William Eyles be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 18 August 2016. 4. That sentence be suspended on 4 January 2017 for 18 months. 5. Troy William Eyles be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 18 months with the following conditions: (a) a probation condition that he be subject to the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for 12 months or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him; (b) that he accept monitoring by the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS) for 12 months from 4 January 2017; (c) that he admit himself by 12:00pm on 4 January 2017 to the Arcadia House Transition Program and obey all reasonable directions of the person in charge of the Program; (d) that he complete the Arcadia House Transition Program and not leave it without the prior express consent of the person in charge of the Program until he has completed it. If he is discharged from the Program for any reason, or he leaves the Program without the express consent of the person in charge, he present himself in person to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the ACT within two working days for a review of this Good Behaviour Order; (e) That he consent to the person in charge of Arcadia House providing to the person supervising him and any member of the staff of CADAS any information about his progress and participation in the Transition Program that either of them may reasonably require. 6. Troy William Eyles be convicted of being a registrable sex offender and failing to report his personal details to the chief police officer as required. 7. Troy William Eyles be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 for a period of nine months from 4 December 2017.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – engaging in sexual intercourse with a person over the age of 10 but under the age of 16 years – failing to report personal details as a registrable sex offender – guilty plea – multiple breaches of Good Behaviour Obligations and bail – residential drug rehabilitation – rehabilitation an important factor in sentencing – sentence of imprisonment suspended to re-enter residential drug rehabilitation on a Good Behaviour Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT),…

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 (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1
Case: [2017] ACTSC 1
Decision Date: 3 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Troy William Eyles, was convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with a young person over the age of 10 but under the age of 16 years, and of being a registrable sex offender who failed to report his personal details to the chief police officer as required. Eyles had entered a guilty plea to the charges and was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to comply with a Good Behaviour Order. The court was required to decide whether the sentence and the Good Behaviour Order should be confirmed, and if not, what alternative sentence should be imposed.

The court considered the appellant's rehabilitation as an important factor in sentencing. The appellant had breached his bail and Good Behaviour Obligations multiple times, but had also engaged in residential drug rehabilitation. The court found that the appellant had made significant progress in his rehabilitation and that a suspended sentence would be an appropriate alternative to imprisonment. The court also found that the appellant had failed to comply with his obligations as a registrable sex offender and that a Good Behaviour Order should be imposed to ensure his compliance.

The court confirmed the conviction for engaging in sexual intercourse with a young person but cancelled the Good Behaviour Order. Instead, the court sentenced the appellant to 12 months imprisonment, which was suspended after eight months. The court imposed a new Good Behaviour Order requiring the appellant to comply with certain conditions, including supervision by the Director-General, monitoring by the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service, and participation in the Arcadia House Transition Program. The court also required the appellant to sign an undertaking to comply with his Good Behaviour Obligations for a period of 18 months.

The final orders of the court included the confirmation of the conviction, the cancellation of the Good Behaviour Order, the imposition of a suspended sentence of imprisonment, and the imposition of a new Good Behaviour Order with specific conditions. The court also convicted the appellant of being a registrable sex offender and failing to report his personal details and required him to sign an undertaking to comply with his Good Behaviour Obligations for a period of nine months.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The conviction of Troy William Eyles for engaging in sexual intercourse with a young person on 5 May 2014 be confirmed.

2. The Good Behaviour Order made on 26 August 2015 be cancelled.

3. Troy William Eyles be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 18 August 2016.

4. That sentence be suspended on 4 January 2017 for 18 months.

5. Troy William Eyles be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 18 months with the following conditions:

(a) a probation condition that he be subject to the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for 12 months or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him;

(b) that he accept monitoring by the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS) for 12 months from 4 January 2017;

(c) that he admit himself by 12:00pm on 4 January 2017 to the Arcadia House Transition Program and obey all reasonable directions of the person in charge of the Program;

(d) that he complete the Arcadia House Transition Program and not leave it without the prior express consent of the person in charge of the Program until he has completed it. If he is discharged from the Program for any reason, or he leaves the Program without the express consent of the person in charge, he present himself in person to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the ACT within two working days for a review of this Good Behaviour Order;

(e) That he consent to the person in charge of Arcadia House providing to the person supervising him and any member of the staff of CADAS any information about his progress and participation in the Transition Program that either of them may reasonably require.

6. Troy William Eyles be convicted of being a registrable sex offender and failing to report his personal details to the chief police officer as required.

7. Troy William Eyles be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 for a period of nine months from 4 December 2017.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1

Most Recent Citation

Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214

Cases citing this decision · 8 of 8 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Higgins (No 3)
[2025] ACTSC 309

…shauge J) R v Carberry; R v Deng; Carberry v The King [2023] ACTCA 32 R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 34 R v Davis [2021] ACTSC 335 R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1 R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335 R v Fusimalohi [2015] ACTSC 220 R v Goolagong (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 131 R v Goundar [2001] NSWCCA 198; 127 A Crim R 331 R v H…
R v West (No 2)
[2024] ACTSC 5

…tion for Bail by Islam [2010] ACTSC 147; (2010) 4 ACTLR 235 Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 R v Coleman (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 357 R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1 R v Gardner (No 4) [2023] ACTSC 275 R v Gordon ( 1994) 71 A Crim R 459 R v Hancock (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 232 R v Massey (No 4) [2021] ACTSC 211 R v McH…
R v Gardner (No 4)
[2023] ACTSC 275

…Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214 Hughes v R [2008] NSWCCA 48; 185 A Crim R 155 R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1 R v Gardner (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 229 R v Gardner [2020] ACTSC 278…
R v Slattery
[2021] ACTSC 154 Para 1

…In R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1 at [103]-[105], I used such time that the defendant spent in residential drug rehabilitation rather differently to reduce the time to be spent in custody following the cancellation of a Good Behaviour Order. That, in effect, reduced the period of imprisonment that would otherwis…
R v Degioannis
[2019] ACTSC 47

…w [2015] NSWCCA 183 R v Dent (unreported, NSWCCA, Lee CJ at CL, Gleeson CJ and Loveday J, 14 March 1991) R v Eisenach [2011] ACTCA 2 R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1 R v Harrison [2002] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380 R v Hess [1990] 2 SCR 906 R v Horton-Hegarty [2018] ACTCA 22 R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 R v Minnis (…
Lovegrove v The Queen
[2018] NTCCA 3

…4 March 1997), R v Eastway (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 19 May 1992), R v Elphick (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 23, R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1, The Queen v Zainudin and Ho [2005] NTSC 14, Wronski v Raue [2012] ACTSC 87, referred to. REPRESENTATION: Counsel: Appellant:I Read SC and F Kepert R…
The Queen v Lovegrove and The Queen v Clancy
[2018] NTSC 2

…97; R v Eastway Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 19 May 1992; R v Elphick (No 2) [2012] ACTSC 87; R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1; R v Heaney Unreported, Victorian Court of Appeal, 27 March 1996; R v Judge Frederico; Ex parte Attorney-General [1971] VR 425; R v McHugh (1985) 1 NSWLR 588; R v…
Akoka v The Queen
[2017] VSCA 214 Para 1

…t relied on R v Eastway (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 19 May 1992) (‘ Eastway ’); Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76, [24]; Eyles [2017] ACTSC 1 [103]. These cases are discussed at [98], [100], [104] below.…

View all 8 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 25 of 25 shown

R v Goboly
[2016] ACTSC 322 Para 1

…der. I commonly point out to those, whom I require to enter a Good Behaviour Order, the advantages to them of supervision. For example, in R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 at [103], I said:…
R v Ngerengere (No 4)
[2016] ACTSC 300 Para 1

…w for that. A variation of the order is what it should have been and there is a need for legislative reform to permit that. See R v Ngerengere (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 300 at [13].…
R v Ngerengere (No 3)
[2016] ACTSC 299 Para 1

…rvices (CRS), a Canberra residential drug rehabilitation program conducted by the Salvation Army, a Program I have described in R v Ngerengere (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 299 at [68], [70].…
R v McGrail (No 2)
[2016] ACTSC 143 Para 1

…ompliance requirements must not set an offender up to fail and should not be allowed to become net widening, a term I discussed in R v McGrail (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 143 at [36]-[37]. See also R v RM [2013] ACTSC 289 at [2] and R v Reeves [2011] ACTSC 140 at [19]-[25].…
R v McGrail
[2016] ACTSC 142 Para 1

…Mr Eyles has also been attending the SMART Recovery Program, a drug rehabilitation program I described in R v McGrail [2016] ACTSC 142 at [78]-[80]. While his attendance has not been constant, he is described as committing to the Program when he does attend.…
R v Curtis (No 2)
[2016] ACTSC 34 Para 1

…committed the further offence and, until he was remanded in custody on 5 December 2016, 27 months of the Good Behaviour Order. See R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 34 and R v Kekalainen (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 369 at [48].…
R v Kekalainen (No 2)
[2015] ACTSC 369 Para 1

…he was remanded in custody on 5 December 2016, 27 months of the Good Behaviour Order. See R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 34 and R v Kekalainen (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 369 at [48].…
R v Eyles
[2015] ACTSC 271 Para 1

…l intercourse with a person over the age of 10 years but under the age of 16 years are set out in full in my original sentencing remarks in R v Eyles [2015] ACTSC 271 at [7]-[13]. I rely on what I there set out.…
R v Wilkins
[2015] ACTSC 145 Para 1

…In late October 2016, however, he secured a place in the Arcadia House Residential Rehabilitation Program; a Program I have described in R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 at [41]. He entered the Program on 27 October 2016.…
R v Sordini
[2015] ACTSC 45 Para 1

…useful report than many of the reports that are now being provided to the Court as Pre-Sentence Reports. See, for example, my comments in R v Sordini [2015] ACTSC 45 at [9] and R v Elphick (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 23 at [31].…
R v Elphick (No 2)
[2015] ACTSC 23 Para 1

…e now being provided to the Court as Pre-Sentence Reports. See, for example, my comments in R v Sordini [2015] ACTSC 45 at [9] and R v Elphick (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 23 at [31].…
R v Spencer
[2014] ACTSC 364 Para 1

…well-respected drug and alcohol rehabilitation agency, Directions. He was initially admitted to the Day Program; a program I described in R v Spencer [2014] ACTSC 364 at [25]-[28].…
R v JM
[2014] ACTSC 380 Para 1

…While in custody, Mr Eyles would have the chance of rehabilitation in the Solaris Therapeutic Community (as to which, see R v JM [2014] ACTSC 380 at [26]) but there is no guarantee that he would be eligible, as noted above (at [20]), nor that he would, in fact, be able to access it in the short time left of his imp…
R v Joseph Lawson
[2014] ACTSC 285 Para 1

…Thus, as I pointed out in R v Lawson [2014] ACTSC 285 at [7], a court must be careful that, while supervision is an important matter for controlling an offender and addressing those matters that contribute to criminal behaviour, those compliance requirements must not set an offender up to fail and should not be all…
Byrne v Mingay
[2014] ACTSC 126 Para 1

…It would be a serious version of the offence were the offending to have been contumacious as explained in Byrne v Mingay [2014] ACTSC 126; 242 A Crim R 9 at 17-18; [74]-[77]. It was as, indeed, the Crown Prosecutor agreed, not a contumacious example of such offending. Indeed, it was a less serious version of the of…
The Queen v RM
[2013] ACTSC 289 Para 1

…up to fail and should not be allowed to become net widening, a term I discussed in R v McGrail (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 143 at [36]-[37]. See also R v RM [2013] ACTSC 289 at [2] and R v Reeves [2011] ACTSC 140 at [19]-[25].…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 1

…ome that childhood disadvantage have somehow failed or should be punished or censured for that. The High Court has made it clear in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at 592-3; [37], 594-5; [43]-[44], that this is not so and that such disadvantage is not only relevant to mitigate severe punishment but…
Weston v Arley
[2012] ACTSC 138 Para 1

…gistrable child sex offender, to report the change in personal details is, in principle, a serious offence for it is, as identified in Weston v Arley [2012] ACTSC 138 at [84]-[85], significant for the important mechanism needed to ensure the integrity of the Sex Offenders Registration Scheme and because of the impo…
Rees v The Queen
[2012] ACTCA 6 Para 1

…ending and the fact that his most recent offending before this offending was committed on 27 June 2010. That gap is significant. See Rees v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 6 at [2].…
R v DF (No 2)
[2012] ACTSC 3 Para 1

…sfaction. I note, however, that no Notice Declining to Proceed has yet been filed in relation to the other count on the indictment. See R v DF (No 2) [2012] ACTSC 3; 257 FLR 31 at 38; [45]. I assume that the Crown will do so as soon as possible.…
The Queen v Andrew Reeves
[2011] ACTSC 140 Para 1

…o become net widening, a term I discussed in R v McGrail (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 143 at [36]-[37]. See also R v RM [2013] ACTSC 289 at [2] and R v Reeves [2011] ACTSC 140 at [19]-[25].…
R v Evans; R v Pearce
[2011] QCA 135 Para 1

…fore, heard the voice of the victim. Nevertheless, as required, I conscientiously considered it fairly and assessed its contents with care: R v Evans [2011] QCA 135; 2 Qd R 571 at 580; [31].…
Clarkson v The Queen
[2011] VSCA 157 Para 1

…orily dulled by time and support. I am also aware that the courts are expected to accept that such offences can have ongoing and serious effects. See Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361 at 371; [33].…
R v Liddy (No 2)
[2002] SASC 306 Para 1

…prevent his access to rehabilitation opportunities. This is relevant, though the precise application is, perhaps, controversial. See R v Liddy (No 2) [2002] SASC 306; 135 A Crim R 468.…
[2016] ACTSC 373
[2016] ACTSC 373 Para 1

…Some of these matters have been the subject of more extensive description in R v Eyles (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 373. Insofar as it is relevant, I do not repeat but incorporate here what I there said.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
33(1), 7 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT)
54(1) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
110 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
55(2) 2 mentions (from Para 1)