R v Graham (No 3)
[2019] ACTSC 224
•9 August 2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Graham (No 3) |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 224 |
Hearing Date: | 9 August 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 9 August 2019 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [9] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – breach of good behaviour order – offender returned to old lifestyle of associating with criminals – offender recognises own need for rehabilitation – suspended sentence imposed |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Troy Graham (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel P Dixon (Crown) K Musgrove (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 294 of 2016 SCC 295 of 2016 |
MOSSOP J
Introduction
Troy Graham is back before me because on 29 December 2018 he committed a number of offences:
(a)dangerous driving (CC2019/2395);
(b)unlicensed driving (CC2018/15103);
(c)using an uninsured vehicle (CC2018/15102);
(d)using an unregistered vehicle (CC2018/15101);
(e)going equipped for theft (joint commission) (CC2018/15100);
(f)failing to stop motor vehicle for police (CC2018/15099);
(g)possessing a numberplate calculated to deceive (CC2018/15098); and
(h)unlawful possession of stolen property (CC2018/15097).
He received suspended sentences of imprisonment on the charges of dangerous driving, going equipped for theft, failing to stop, possessing a numberplate calculated to deceive and unlawful possession of stolen property.
The offences for which there was a term of imprisonment available put him in breach of the good behaviour orders previously imposed by my orders on 1 December 2017.
Those good behaviour orders were associated with suspended sentences of imprisonment as follows:
(a)imprisonment for four months for a charge of hindering a public official (CC2016/10677);
(b)imprisonment for three months concurrent with the previous sentence on a charge of common assault (CC2016/10615); and
(c)imprisonment for two months cumulative as to one month on the previous sentences for aggravated dangerous driving (CC2016/9319).
Those sentences were made concurrent to the extent that the effective total sentence was a period of five months’ imprisonment.
At the time of the offending, the offender had been subject to the good behaviour order since 1 December 2017, namely a period of approximately 13 months out of the two‑year good behaviour period.
The offender’s circumstances
The circumstances of the current offences indicate that the offender had returned to his old lifestyle of associating with criminals and undertaking criminal activities. The offences involved dangerous and stupid conduct relating to the theft of motor vehicles. This occurred after he had broken up with his long-term partner and after he had returned to contact with his previous criminal associates. At the time of the previous sentencing he had got his life back on track and the signs were positive. Unfortunately, having regard to his long history of involvement in crime and abuse of illicit drugs it may take more than one attempt for the offender to be rehabilitated. I accept that he is intelligent and has insight into his own predicament. Counsel for the offender submitted that he understood that at the moment his life was a revolving door and that if he continued on his current path he would end up in custody or dead. I agree with that assessment. Further involvement with criminal associates and drugs will be disastrous for the offender. Notwithstanding the failure to fulfil his good behaviour obligations or live up to the most optimistic projections that were available at time of the previous sentencing, I consider that there are still reasonable prospects for his rehabilitation.
However, the breach of a good behaviour order that is associated with a suspended sentence must carry with it consequences in a case such as the present. Without such consequences the institution of the suspended sentence will be brought into disrepute. It is necessary that he serve a significant part of the sentence which was suspended. I do not consider that it is necessary to simply impose the whole of the sentence. I will restructure the sentence so that whilst a period of custody is required, there remains some outstanding jail time, the service of which is suspended for a short period. That period will be a modest one so as to maximise the incentives for the offender to return to the path which he was on at the time of the earlier sentencing.
Orders
The orders of the Court are:
1. Each of the good behaviour orders imposed by the orders on 1 December 2017 are cancelled.
2. The offender is resentenced as follows:
a. On charge CC2016/10677 (hindering a public official) the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four months from 9 August 2019 until 8 December 2019 which is to be suspended after having served three months from 9 August 2019 until 8 November 2019, upon entering into an undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of six months subject to the following conditions:
i.a probation condition that he be subject to supervision of the Director-General and comply with all reasonable directions of the Director-General for a period of six months;
ii.that he is to attend such educational, vocational, psychological, psychiatric or other assessments, programs or counselling as directed; and
iii.that he is to supply samples of breath, blood, hair, saliva or urine for drug testing if required by the Director-General.
3.On charge CC2016/10615 (common assault) the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three months from 9 August 2019 until 8 November 2019.
4.On charge CC2016/9319 (aggravated dangerous driving) the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two months from 9 August 2019 until 8 October 2019.
| I certify that the preceding nine [9] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: |
0
0
0