R v Graham (No 2) - [2017] ACTSC 378

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Graham (No 2)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 378
Hearing Date:	1 December 2017
Decision Date:	1 December 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [24]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – hindering a public official – common assault – failure to wear a helmet – unlicensed rider – failure to stop vehicle when requested by police – aggravated dangerous driving – found guilty at trial – criminal history associated with illicit drug use – evidence of significant change in the offender’s behaviour and outlook on life – appropriate to give the offender the opportunity to demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself – no sentence other than a custodial sentence appropriate – sentences suspended upon the offender entering into a Good Behaviour Order
Legislation Cited:	Australian Road Rules, r 271A Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 361(1) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 320H Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999, s 31(1) Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), s 63(2) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 7(1) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT), ss 8, 109(2)
Cases Cited:	R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 2017
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Troy Graham (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Naidu (Crown) P Burgoyne-Scutts (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 294 of 2016

SCC 295 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

After a trial by judge alone Troy Graham was found guilty on 15 September 2017 of eight counts of traffic-related and other offences stemming from a course of conduct that took place on 18 and 19 December 2015. The circumstances of that offending conduct are recounted in the reasons I gave for my verdict (‘principal judgment’) and I will not repeat them here (see R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 267).
The offences and their maximum penalties are summarised as follows (I make reference to the charge number used in the principal judgment and the references in that judgment to the paragraphs where the conduct is described in more detail.):
(a) CC2016/10677, Charge 2, involved riding a motorcycle towards Senior Constable Yates in order to avoid apprehension: see principal judgment at [84]–[85]. This amounted to hindering a public official contrary to the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 361(1). The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of
$30,000 or imprisonment for two years or both.
(b) CC2016/10615, Charge 3, involved striking Constable Yates with the motorcycle: see principal judgment at [86]–[87]. This amounted to a common assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the maximum penalty for which is two years’ imprisonment.
(c) CC2016/9314, Charge 4, was a failure to wear a helmet when riding on Currong Street North: see principal judgment at [88]–[89]. That was a contravention of the Australian Road Rules r 271A, an offence provision. The maximum…

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 Graham (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Graham (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 378
Case: [2017] ACTSC 378
Decision Date: 1 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Graham (No 2) involved the defendant, Graham, who was found guilty at trial of hindering a public official, common assault, failure to wear a helmet, unlicensed riding, failure to stop a vehicle when requested by police, and aggravated dangerous driving. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court, where the primary focus was on determining the appropriate sentencing for Graham's offences. The court was tasked with assessing the gravity of the offences, Graham's criminal history, which included illicit drug use, and the evidence presented of Graham's significant behavioural change and improved outlook on life. The court needed to balance these factors to determine whether a custodial sentence was necessary or if an alternative approach, such as a suspended sentence with conditions, would be more appropriate.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the appropriate sentencing for multiple serious offences and the consideration of Graham's rehabilitation efforts. The court had to weigh the severity of the offences against the potential for rehabilitation and the likelihood of deterrence through a non-custodial sentence. The court also considered the precedent of similar cases and statutory guidelines on sentencing for the specific offences committed. It was necessary to ensure that the sentence imposed was both punitive and rehabilitative, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes while also offering Graham a chance to demonstrate his reform.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the severity of Graham's offences but also recognised the evidence of his significant personal transformation. The court concluded that while a custodial sentence was warranted given the nature of the crimes, it was appropriate to give Graham the opportunity to demonstrate his rehabilitation by entering into a Good Behaviour Order. This decision aimed to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, allowing Graham to prove his changed behaviour outside of a prison environment. Consequently, the court imposed suspended sentences on the conditions that Graham comply with the terms of the Good Behaviour Order.

The final orders of the court mandated that Graham's sentences be suspended provided he adheres to the conditions of a Good Behaviour Order. This approach allows Graham to avoid immediate incarceration while still being held accountable for his actions and providing a structured path towards reintegration into society. The order also includes provisions for monitoring and support to ensure compliance and continued rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [24]

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.