R v Hanson (No 3)
[2025] ACTSC 6
•30 January 2025
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 24 July 2024, the Sentence Administration Board reinstated the ICO and Ms Hanson entered the Lives Lived Well residential program for two months.
11․On 15 October 2024, the offender pleaded guilty to the charge relating to the prescription pad. On 17 October 2024, the offender was found guilty of the charge relating to the handbag.
12․The last of the sentences which I imposed in 2022 will expire on 9 March 2025.
13․Section 65 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) provides:
65 Cancellation of intensive correction order on further conviction etc
(1)This section applies if, after an offender was sentenced to serve intensive correction, the offender commits, and is convicted or found guilty of—
(a)an offence against a territory law, or a law of the Commonwealth, a State or another Territory, that is punishable by imprisonment; or
(b)an offence outside Australia that, if it had been committed in Australia, would be punishable by imprisonment.
(2)The sentencing court must, as soon as practicable—
(a)cancel the intensive correction order, unless cancellation is not in the interests of justice; and
(b)if the court cancels the intensive correction order—order that the remainder of the offender’s sentence be served by full‑time detention.
…
(5)If the court makes an order under subsection (2) (b), the court—
(a)must state when the period of full‑time detention starts and ends; and
(b)may set a nonparole period for the period of full-time detention if—
(i) the sentence of imprisonment for which the intensive correction order was made is more than 12 months; and
(ii) the period of full-time detention is more than 30 days.
…
(7)If the court decides that it is not in the interests of justice to cancel the intensive correction order, the court must give reasons for the decision.
14․A pre-sentence report prepared for this hearing provides:
In July 2024, the ICO was reinstated with a condition requiring Ms Hanson to address her drug use through residential rehabilitation. Ms Hanson reportedly completed three months of rehabilitation, since returning to the community and has continued her ICO supervision. ACTCS files indicate Ms Hanson’s compliance has dramatically improved. It appears she has been directed to undertake urinalysis on four occasions since the reinstatement in 2024, all of which returned negative results.
15․She is assessed by the author of the pre-sentence report as being at a high to medium risk of reoffending. The report refers to abstinence from drug use and improved engagement and compliance with support services and community supervision, as well as her engaging in education. The report provides: “These changes are still in the initial stage, making it unknown as to whether they are sustainable.”
16․Since October 2024, she has been attending classes three days a week, studying a Certificate III in Community Services, and has aspirations to complete a Certificate IV. There is also evidence from a friend of hers to whom she provides assistance with cooking, cleaning and, I infer, childcare.
17․She has a history of substantial methamphetamine dependency over a period of three years following the removal of her children. The present offending is consistent with ongoing involvement with antisocial influences, most obviously her partner at the time of the offending, with whom she appears to remain in a relationship notwithstanding that he is presently in custody.
18․I consider that it is not in the interests of justice to cancel any remaining ICO for the limited period until 9 March 2025. Pursuant to s 65(7) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act, I am required to give my reasons for that conclusion. Of particular significance is the report of compliance and engagement with ACT Corrective Services and negative urinalyses since July 2024. Also of significance is the fact that the offender has a continued motivation to rehabilitate herself. While I accept that the continued offending and continued association with criminals remains a significant problem for the offender’s rehabilitation, I consider that, when considered as a whole, there remain reasonable prospects for rehabilitation and that those prospects would be set back if, at this stage, the offender was sent back to prison as a result of offences committed in July 2023. Following the receipt of the pre-sentence report and other information concerning the offender’s subjective circumstances, the prosecution did not make any submissions that I should not be so satisfied.
19․The submissions of the parties raised whether or not there was, in fact, any ICO that could be cancelled. That arises from the fact that each of the eight sentences that were imposed on 13 May 2022 were subject to a separate ICO. As at the date of the offending (29 July 2023), the offender was serving, at least, the second and third of the eight sentences imposed. Those sentences have now been served, and the offender is serving the eighth sentence that was imposed.
20․The issues that arise in relation to ICOs and their cancellation include at least the following:
(a)Where multiple sentences are imposed on a single occasion, is there one ICO on each sentence, or a single ICO in relation to the aggregate sentence? Hence, how does the two-year and four-year limit provided by ss 11(2)‑(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) apply? Different views have been expressed by single judges on this issue: R v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379; DPP v Clarke (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 395.
(b)If there is more than one ICO, what is cancelled upon further offending? Only that in force at the time of the offence, or all that had been imposed even if not actually being served? The submissions of the offender in the present case were that the ICOs in force at the time of the offending had expired due to the completion of the relevant sentences, and there was no remainder left to impose, notwithstanding that there were subsequent sentences the subject of ICOs that had been imposed but not yet commenced. On the other hand, the prosecution submission was that there was only one order covering all sentences and, hence, there was the capacity to return Ms Hanson to custody until 9 March 2025 unless the court assessed that it was not in the interests of justice to cancel the order.
21․However, in circumstances where it is, in any event, in the interests of justice that the ICO not be cancelled, it is not necessary to attempt to resolve the conflict in the authorities as to the operation of ICOs or the issue arising under s 65 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act as to which of those are available to be cancelled. As will be apparent, I have addressed the matter on the basis most favourable to the prosecution position which would mean that return to custody remained a possibility. Dealing with the matter on that basis, for the reasons I have given, it is not appropriate to cancel the order.
22․In those circumstances, notwithstanding the invitation to attempt to determine the issues I have identified, I do not consider it appropriate to do so. That should await a case where the issue would be determinative. In such a case, given the significance of ICOs and the uncertainty of the statutory language, it may be appropriate that the issues be addressed by the Full Court or the Court of Appeal.
Orders
23․The order of the Court is:
(1)The Court does not cancel any of the intensive correction orders made in relation to the offender on 13 May 2022.
| I certify that the preceding twenty-three [23] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: |
2
4
2