SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Hancock |
Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 52 |
Hearing Date: | 12 February 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 16 March 2021 |
Before: | Refshauge AJ |
Decision: | 1. The information for the charge of driving whilst disqualified be amended by omitting ‘a repeat offender’. 2. For the first count of possessing a prohibited weapon, namely two blue-handled spring assist flick knives, Daniel Thomas Hancock be convicted and sentenced to one months imprisonment, to commence on 12 July 2020 to incorporate pre-sentence custody. 3. For the second count, possessing a prohibited weapon, namely a taser, Mr Hancock be convicted and sentenced to two months imprisonment, to commence on 12 July 2020. 4. For the third count, burglary, Mr Hancock be convicted and sentenced to 27 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 September 2020. 5. For the fourth count, theft, Mr Hancock be convicted and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 May 2022. 6. For the fifth count, theft, Mr Hancock be convicted and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 August 2022. 7. For the sixth count, theft, Mr Hancock be convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 September 2022. 8. For the seventh count, theft, Mr Hancock be convicted and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 April 2023. 9. For the eighth count, theft, Mr Hancock be convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 June 2023. 10. For the count of driving whilst disqualified, Mr Hancock be convicted and sentenced to two months imprisonment, to commence on 12 May 2024. 11. It be noted that this is an overall sentence of four years imprisonment, to commence on 12 July 2020 and end on 11 July 2024. 12. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Daniel Thomas Hancock, for the period from today to 15 March 2023, in respect of the offence of burglary, of which Mr Hancock has been convicted and for which a sentence of two years and three months imprisonment has been imposed and which is the primary offence. 13. The convictions and sentences for the five offences of theft, the two offences of possessing prohibited weapons, and the offence of driving whilst disqualified, being associated offences, be hereby incorporated into that Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order as part of the custodial part of that Order. 14. The sentence be suspended from today, 16 March 2021, until 11 July 2024, under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). 15. For the treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, it be ordered: a. that Mr Hancock comply with the core conditions of that Order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT); b. that Mr Hancock undertake detoxification at the Canberra Hospital Withdrawal Unit and, for that purpose, he present himself to that Unit and arrive there by… |
Continue reading R v Hancock
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52
- Case
- [2021] ACTSC 52
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court began by confirming that the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to deal with the breach of the ICO, as per s 65 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). The court also considered the nature of the breach and the impact on the victims, which was significant. Two victims provided statements outlining the trauma and emotional distress they experienced as a result of the burglaries. The court found that the ICO breach did not result in any significant sentence that would be difficult for the court to impose. The court noted that while Mr Hancock had made some efforts towards rehabilitation, he had relapsed into drug use. Despite this, the court determined that a non-custodial sentence could still be appropriate, provided it was safe to do so.
Ultimately, the court decided that Mr Hancock should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the new offences, taking into account the need for punishment, deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court also noted that Mr Hancock should not be punished twice for the breach of the ICO, as the impact on the victims and the seriousness of the new offences warranted a custodial sentence. The court made orders for Mr Hancock to serve a sentence of imprisonment for the new offences, while also considering the impact on the victims and the need for rehabilitation.
In summary, the court found that the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to deal with the breach of the ICO and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for the new offences. The court took into account the impact on the victims, the seriousness of the new offences, and Mr Hancock's efforts towards rehabilitation, while also noting the need for punishment and deterrence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Since the order was made in the Magistrates Court, it is clear from s 65 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentence Administration Act), together with the definition in the Act's dictionary of the meaning of ‘sentencing court’ used in the section, that the Magistrates Court is the court that must deal with the breach of that order. That matter has now been resolved, as confirmed by the Crown. Nevertheless, the court can, and I do, have regard to the fact that committing offences while on conditional liberty either on bail or under an Intensive Correction Order is a breach of the trust placed in the person to be in the community and not in custody. That is also relevant to whether a further non-custodial option should be and can safely be imposed to address further offending. I note that the breach of the Intensive Correction Order has not resulted in any sentence that would be of difficulty to this Court. Nevertheless, it is also important not to give any sense that Mr Hancock is being punished twice for the breach of conditional liberty as I explained in Kelly v Ashby [2015] ACTSC 346; (2015) 73 MVR 360 at 367; [61]. As is usually the case, the Victim Impact Statements, made by two of the renters of the storage units that Mr Hancock burgled and from whom he stole items, make sobering reading. Although such statements made by victims of violent crimes are expected to describe trauma, pain and mental anguish, it is easy to overlook the trauma, pain and mental anguish that accompanies the sense of violation from being the victim of burglary and of losing records and photographs of family history, deceased relatives and other personal memorabilia that cannot be replaced. One victim described the loss of personal belongings as causing him ‘heartache, mental and emotional anguish for days’. He said that he could not sleep for a ‘couple of weeks’ as he reflected on items that were ‘[g]one forever’. He did not have receipts for some items which would have made insurance and reparation claims difficult, though he did not have insurance for some items. The process of identifying what was stolen was fearful and hurtful in itself. The harm of the pain and thoughts of despair for matters which were lost added to the harm caused by financial loss. The other victim wrote of being ‘heartbroken to discover that some of my most precious paintings and other possessions were gone’. She cried a lot and she, too, experienced emotional difficulties in checking the boxes to identify what had gone. She was out of pocket for having to leave her job overseas to fly home and deal with the issue. She also felt ‘violated and cheated’. It was important that the Victims Impact Statements were read out by the Crown prosecutor so Mr Hancock, who may have already read them himself, nevertheless heard them and was confronted by the pain and mental stress that he had caused. Mr Hancock has spent some time in rehabilitation. While in custody or on remand prior to the commission of these offences, he completed the ‘first steps to AOD’ and the anger management programs, both of six sessions. I have already referred to the short periods in residential drug rehabilitation above (at [25]). They were, however, disappointing in not preventing his relapse into drug use, though Mr Hancock referred to the non-abstinent environment there, which must have made it difficult for a person who is dependent on the use of drugs to resist. One, however, would have hoped that the programs and his commitment to it would have at least discouraged some level of relapse.