R v Gray - [2020] ACTSC 40

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Gray
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 40
Hearing Date(s):	7 February 2020
DecisionDate:	7 February 2020
Before:	Walker AJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for 18 months. The treatment and supervision part of the order is 12 months. See [28]-[30]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – going equipped for theft – failing to report a change of details as a registrable offender – trespass – drug and alcohol treatment order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) s 54(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) ss 10, 12A, 80O, 80S, 80T, 80W, 80ZA Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 315 Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) s 11(1)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 27; 249 CLR 571 R v Parker [2020] ACTSC 38 R v Degioannis [2019] ACTSC 47 Weston v Arley [2012] ACTSC 138 R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; 169 A Crim R 581
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luke Gray (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel H Roberts (Crown) D Turner (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service NSW (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 331 of 2019 SCC 332 of 2019

Walker AJ (ex tempore)

Summary of charges

Luke Gray is charged with one count of going equipped for theft (CAN 2688/2019), contrary to s 315 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of that Act, an offence which on conviction carries up to three years' imprisonment, a financial penalty or a combination of both. He is also charged with two counts of failing to report a change of details as a registerable offender (CAN 6180/2019 and CAN 8391/2019), contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) (Child Sex Offenders Act), which on conviction carries up to five years' imprisonment, a financial penalty, or a combination of both.

On pleading guilty to these offences in the Magistrates Court, Mr Gray was committed for sentence, specifically for consideration as to his suitability for a drug and alcohol treatment order.

An offence of trespass (CAN 8390/2019), contrary to s 11(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) was transferred as a related offence for sentence.

By virtue of the convictions which will be recorded today, Mr Gray will also be in breach of two good behaviour orders imposed in the Magistrates Court for failing to stop at the direction of a police officer and possession of a drug of dependence.

Evidence

For sentencing, I have available to me the statement of facts for all offences, including the breach matters; photographs of the items the subject of the going equipped charge; the offender's criminal history; a pre-sentence report dated 2 October 2019, prepared by Fabi Kandamparambil, a Forensic Mental Health Assessment dated 26 July 2019; suitability…

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 Gray

Details

AGLC: R v Gray [2020] ACTSC 40
Case: [2020] ACTSC 40
Decision Date: 7 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gray involved the defendant, Gray, who was charged with multiple offences. The court was required to determine his sentence after finding him guilty of going equipped for theft, failing to report a change of details as a registrable offender, trespass, and possession of a prohibited drug. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue for the court was the appropriate sentencing for Gray, taking into consideration his history of offending, his compliance with previous orders, and the need for rehabilitation through a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.

The court considered Gray's extensive criminal history, which included multiple breaches of previous court orders and a pattern of drug-related offending. The court acknowledged Gray's cooperation with treatment programs and his recent efforts to address his substance abuse issues. However, the court also noted the seriousness of the current offences, particularly the possession of a prohibited drug and the failure to report a change of details. The court found that a custodial sentence was not appropriate in this instance due to Gray's progress in treatment and the potential for further rehabilitation.

After weighing the relevant factors, the court determined that a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was the most suitable sentence for Gray. The order was set for a total duration of 18 months, with the treatment and supervision part lasting 12 months. The court emphasised the importance of Gray continuing his engagement with treatment services and complying with the conditions of the order. The court also noted that this sentence aimed to address the underlying issues contributing to Gray's offending behaviour and provide him with the support needed for successful rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for 18 months. The treatment and supervision part of the order is 12 months. See [28]-[30]

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.