R v FT

[2020] ACTSC 203

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v FT

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 203

Hearing Date:

28 July 2020

DecisionDate:

28 July 2020

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [8]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of Good Behaviour Order – difficulty with Child and Youth Protection Services – opportunity for rehabilitation

Cases Cited:

R v FT; R v CU [2020] ACTSC 80

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

FT (Young Person)

Representation:

Counsel

M Howe (Crown)

B Morrisroe (Young Person)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Boxall Legal (Young Person)

File Numbers:

SCC 13 of 2020; SCC 57 of 2020

ELKAIM J:

1. On 14 April 2020 I sentenced this young person, together with a co-offender, for an offence of unlawful confinement. The sentence was nine months’ imprisonment which was suspended with immediate effect on condition that the young person enter a Good Behaviour Order (GBO) to be supervised by Child and Youth Protection Services (CYPS) for a period of 12 months.

1. Since that time the young person has returned to court as a result of breaches of the GBO. There has been some dispute about the nature of the breaches but the parties have today told me that they wish to proceed on the basis that there has been a breach, but without the need for resolution of the precise facts.

1. One matter that is evident is that the young person does not get on with CYPS. In fact she thinks that CYPS “hates her”. It is not necessary for me to reach any conclusion about the dispute between her and CYPS other than to say that I do not accept that CYPS has acted in any way other than in its perception of the best interests of the young person.

1. The options available to me today are to sentence the young person to the balance of the time in custody (88 days) leftover from the original sentence, or to re-sentence her on a different basis. The suggestion was that she should be re-sentenced to 88 days’ imprisonment but it should be suspended immediately.

1. The difficulty with the suggestion was that it would require continued co-operation with CYPS, both generally and in respect of secure accommodation. The young person submitted that she should be allowed to reside with her mother. There is however a significant history of dispute between the young person and her mother. I refer to [15] and [16] of my original sentencing remarks (R v FT; R v CU [2020] ACTSC 80).

1. As a result of my concerns, the young person asked for some time this morning to see if the concerns I had expressed could be addressed, in particular about her living arrangements and contact with CYPS. On resumption I was given a letter (Exhibit A) which addresses the concerns in relation to accommodation. I was also told that the young person intends to go back to school and also to engage in some sporting activities.

1. The attitude of the Crown has been both practical and helpful and nothing has been said against the suggestions put up on behalf of the young person. I think the suggestion made on behalf of the young person is appropriate because as I said in my original remarks, she must be given every opportunity for rehabilitation.

1. I make the following orders:

(a)The current Good Behaviour Order made on 14 April 2020 is cancelled.

(b)The young person is re-sentenced as follows:

(i)For the breach of the Good Behaviour Order, the young person is sentenced to 146 days’ imprisonment commencing 31 May 2020 and ending on 23 October 2020.

(ii)The period of imprisonment is suspended with immediate effect on condition that the young person enters into Good Behaviour Order for a period of 12 months from today and with the following additional conditions:

i.The young person is to engage in education as directed by the Director-General of Child and Youth Protection Services; and

ii.The young person is to reside as directed by the Director‑General.

I certify that the preceding eight [8] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: 28 July 2020