R v Hanson (No 3) - [2025] ACTSC 6

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hanson (No 3)
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 6
Hearing Date:	30 January 2025
Decision Date:	30 January 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	(1) The Court does not cancel any of the intensive correction orders made in relation to the offender on 13 May 2022.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of intensive correction order arising from further offending – whether it is in the interests of justice for the court to cancel the intensive correction order – engagement with Corrective Services and negative urinalyses since July 2024 – order not cancelled CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – intensive correction orders – multiple sentences imposed on a single occasion creates question as to whether there is one or multiple intensive correction orders attaching to the sentence – whether all in force intensive correction orders, or all imposed intensive correction orders, are cancelled upon further offending – issues not necessary to decide in present case
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 65 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 11(3)‑(4)
Cases Cited:	DPP v Clarke (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 395 R v Hanson [2022] ACTSC 107 R v Hanson (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 158 R v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379
Parties:	The King Jennifer Hanson ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel G Meikle ( Crown) R Brandon-Baker ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 34 of 2022 SCC 66 of 2022

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․Jennifer Hanson is to be dealt with in relation to a breach of an intensive correction order arising from further offending. She was given sentences of imprisonment for eight offences by me on 13 May 2022. I also dealt with her for a number of breaches of earlier sentences: R v Hanson [2022] ACTSC 107.
2․On 18 June 2022, she committed three further offences of obtaining property by deception.
3․On 14 July 2022, the Sentence Administration Board cancelled the intensive correction order (‘ICO’) relating to one of the sentences.
4․On 28 February 2023, the cancelled ICO was reinstated.
5․On 10 March 2023, the offender pleaded guilty to the offences committed on 18 June 2022.
6․On 28 June 2023, I addressed the consequences of the commission of the 18 June 2022 offences. I determined that, notwithstanding the offending, it was not appropriate to cancel the ICO: R v Hanson (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 158.
7․Subsequently, a magistrate imposed concurrent sentences of 15 days’ imprisonment for the offences committed on 18 June 2022, from 24 February 2023 to 10 March 2023.
8․On 29 July 2023, the offender committed two offences of having in her possession property reasonably suspected of being stolen, one relating to a prescription pad, and the other a rather expensive handbag.
9․On 5 September 2023, the Sentence Administration Board cancelled the ICO then in force.
10․On…

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 Hanson (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Hanson (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 6
Case: [2025] ACTSC 6
Decision Date: 30 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hanson (No 3) involved the respondent, Hanson, who was subject to an application to cancel an intensive correction order (ICO) that had been imposed on him. Hanson had previously been convicted and sentenced, with the court imposing an ICO as part of his sentence. Hanson subsequently breached this ICO by committing further offences, leading to the application to cancel the ICO. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which needed to determine whether it was in the interests of justice to cancel the ICO in light of Hanson's recent engagement with Corrective Services and his negative urinalyses since July 2024.

The court was required to consider several legal issues. Firstly, whether it was in the interests of justice to cancel the ICO, considering Hanson's recent engagement with Corrective Services and his negative urinalyses. Secondly, the court needed to consider whether the imposition of multiple ICOs on a single occasion created multiple ICOs or a single ICO, and whether all in force ICOs or all imposed ICOs were cancelled upon further offending. However, the court determined that these latter issues were not necessary to decide in the present case.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the specific circumstances of Hanson's engagement with Corrective Services and his compliance with the requirements of the ICO. Despite Hanson's compliance, the court found that it was not in the interests of justice to cancel the ICO, considering the gravity of his previous breaches and the need to uphold the integrity of the sentencing process. The court also noted that the issues regarding the number of ICOs imposed and their cancellation upon further offending were not necessary to decide in this instance.

The court made an order that none of the ICOs imposed on Hanson on 13 May 2022 would be cancelled. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the broader interests of justice and the need to maintain the deterrent effect of sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Court does not cancel any of the intensive correction orders made in relation to the offender on 13 May 2022.

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.