R v Freeman
[2014] ACTSC 216
•25 July 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Freeman |
Citation: | [2014] ACTSC 216 |
Hearing Date: | 25 July 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 25 July 2014 |
Before: | Penfold J |
Decision: | See [5] to [7] below |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – offender previously sentenced for aggravated burglary, being knowingly concerned in aggravated burglary and theft – offender summonsed on information alleging breach of supervision condition of good behaviour order made in conjunction with suspended sentence of 11 months imprisonment – breach admitted – offender not licensed to drive – problems attending for supervision in Maitland/Lake Macquarie area – no re-offending – claim of abstinence from illicit drugs – offender re-sentenced to total sentence of 11 months imprisonment fully suspended – good behaviour order made without supervision condition. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) |
Parties: | The Crown (Crown) Shanice Freeman (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel: Ms A Clarke (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender) |
| Solicitors: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 98 of 2013 |
[On 2 December 2013 I sentenced Shanice Freeman for five offences, one of aggravated burglary, one of being knowingly concerned in an aggravated burglary, and three of theft.
Ms Freeman was just 18 at the time of the offences. Her two juvenile co-offenders were dealt with by non-conviction orders and good behaviour orders. There were four expert reports before me relating to Ms Freeman’s mental health, which had certainly been compromised by a brain injury received in a car accident when she was six years old and possibly also by substantial cannabis use during her teens. She had spent much of her childhood living with her grandparents because of her parents’ inability to care for her, and much of her adolescence in foster care. She suffered from anxiety.
The total sentence was 11 months imprisonment, which was fully suspended subject to a 12-month good behaviour order with a supervision condition. That supervision was transferred to NSW, because Ms Freeman was going to live with her grandfather in the Maitland area.
On 5 December 2013 Ms Freeman reported to Newcastle Community Corrections. Between then and 17 February 2014, Ms Freeman complied with two reporting directions, attending at Lake Macquarie Community Corrections, but failed to comply with several others. An information alleging a breach of the supervision condition of the good behaviour order was laid.
Ms Freeman appeared before me pursuant to a summons, and admitted the breach. She offered a specific explanation for only one of her failures to attend, but noted that she did not have a driver’s licence and that her public transport options were limited. It appeared, however, that Ms Freeman had not re-offended, and she claimed to have been abstaining from drug use.]
I note that the good behaviour order has been breached by the failure to comply with the supervision in terms of failure to turn up for enough appointments. I note in that context also that there didn't seem to be any very constructive or specific attempt at offering Ms Freeman particular help that might be useful to her.
I now cancel the good behaviour order that was made on 2 December 2013 and I will re-sentence Ms Freeman.
Ms Freeman, please stand.
I will tell you at this stage that all I am doing is re-sentencing you in the way you were sentenced before. Again, that will finish up with all those sentences being suspended. I can see from these previous sentencing remarks that you were distressed, having heard the actual sentences. You ought to be distressed because they are hanging over you still, but they were not for immediate implementation. However, I do need to go through that again, and then we will get to the same end point.
So I now re-sentence you as follows:
(a)for being knowingly concerned in an aggravated burglary committed in Bonython – to eight months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months for the guilty plea;
(b)for the Woden Plaza aggravated burglary – to seven months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months, and to be served so as to add three months to the first sentence;
(c)for the first associated theft, which is number CC 20131582 – to three months imprisonment, reduced from five months, to be served concurrently with the Woden Plaza burglary sentence; and
(d)for the second and third associated thefts – to four months imprisonment each reduced from five months, those sentences also to run concurrently with the aggravated burglary sentence.
That gives a total of 11 months imprisonment, and again I suspend that term of imprisonment and order you to sign an undertaking to comply with your good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 12 months. So you've got a new 12 months starting from now.
I order that the security of $200 from the old good behaviour order is not to be enforced, but there will be a new security of $200 on the new good behaviour order. The good behaviour order will be subject, on this occasion, simply to the core conditions and not to any supervision condition. That means that there is no need to transfer supervision or anything else.
Now, what the good behaviour order means for you this time, Ms Freeman, is, as I said, there is no supervision. You have to take responsibility for looking after yourself, getting yourself any help that you need.
I don't know if you still would benefit from help with the anxiety symptoms. But in that case I think what you need to do is go to a doctor and see if you can get a referral to a psychologist, or whoever would be suitable there. And you have also got to take responsibility for keeping yourself off drugs, and particularly for not re-offending. Because the fundamental core condition of this good behaviour order is you do not re-offend and, as you obviously know now, if you breach this new good behaviour order by re-offending, you will be back here again. And depending what you do, you could actually be in prison for a bit. I should say that's not necessarily the case. It's not an automatic consequence, but if you went back into this sort of serious offending then it might well be the consequence. And even if it is a very minor offence, you will still find yourself dragged back here for another re-sentence.
Now, I think that's all I need to say to you, and I hope Mr Davies will have a brief few minutes to talk to you again about this at the end. So you've got another 12 months to show that you can stay out of trouble. As I say, it is your responsibility now, but I hope you can keep doing as well as you seem to be doing at the moment.
| I certify that the preceding ten [10] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Penfold. Associate: Date: |
0
0
1