R v Guy (No 3) - [2024] ACTSC 118

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Guy (No 3)
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 118
Hearing Date:	22 April 2024
Decision Date:	23 April 2024
Before:	Christensen AJ
Decision:	See [55].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Good Behaviour Order after cancellation of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – breach of Good Behaviour Order – s 110 cancellation – imposition or resentence – aggravated dangerous driving – possession of a firearm – possession of stolen property – possession of drug of dependence – driving while disqualified – fines imposed – term of imprisonment suspended – Good Behaviour Order imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 86, 110, Pt 6A.2
Cases Cited:	R v Guy [2022] ACTSC 373 R v Guy (No 2) (Refshauge AJ, unpublished, SCC 273, 274, 301 of 2021, 4 September 2023) DPP v Hagen (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 386
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Dillon Matthew Guy ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel G Meikle ( Crown) C Duffy ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 273 of 2021 SCC 274 of 2021 SCC 301 of 2021

CHRISTENSEN AJ:

Introduction

Dillon Guy comes before the Court to be dealt with for a breach of a good behaviour order made as part of a suspended sentence pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentence Administration Act).

Background

On 25 March 2022, Mr Guy was sentenced to a total term of two years imprisonment ordered to be served by way of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (Treatment Order): see R v Guy [2022] ACTSC 373 (R v Guy).
The Treatment Order was cancelled on 31 January 2023 in circumstances where Mr Guy had not completed rehabilitation programs and had occasions of continued illicit substance use. Mr Guy had been subject to the Treatment Order for a period of 10 months at the time of cancellation.
After a period on bail intended to enable continuation of rehabilitation efforts, Mr Guy was resentenced on 4 September 2023: see R v Guy (No 2) (Refshauge AJ, unpublished, SCC 273, 274, 301 of 2021, 4 September 2023) (R v Guy (No 2)).
The Court on resentencing had regard to Mr Guy’s successful completion of the Arcadia House day program, and imposed a suspended sentence with a good behaviour order. Mr Guy was resentenced and a suspended sentence with a good behaviour order was imposed. The total suspended term of imprisonment and the length of the good behaviour order was for 1 year 5 months and 9 days, to commence on 4 September 2023 and conclude on 12 February 2025.
The conditions of the good behaviour order included:
a)a core condition to not re-offend;
b)a probation condition to accept the supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate (Corrective Services) and obey all reasonable directions;…

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 Guy (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Guy (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 118
Case: [2024] ACTSC 118
Decision Date: 23 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Guy, was convicted of various criminal offences and was initially sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which was suspended, and a Good Behaviour Order. Subsequently, a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was imposed. The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was later cancelled, and Guy was convicted of breaching the Good Behaviour Order. The trial judge subsequently imposed a new Good Behaviour Order and resentenced Guy. The primary issue for determination by the court was whether the trial judge had the jurisdiction to impose a new Good Behaviour Order and resentence Guy following the cancellation of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The court held that the trial judge did have the jurisdiction to impose a new Good Behaviour Order and resentence Guy. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The trial judge had exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence, and there was no basis upon which to interfere with that exercise of discretion. The original sentence, which included a suspended term of imprisonment and a Good Behaviour Order, was lawfully imposed. The cancellation of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order did not affect the original sentence, and the trial judge was entitled to impose a new Good Behaviour Order and resentence Guy for the breach of that order. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence, including the suspended term of imprisonment and the new Good Behaviour Order, was upheld. The court also confirmed that the fines imposed on Guy were valid and correctly calculated.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [55].

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.