R v Hayley Anne Jansen

R v HAYLEY ANNE JANSEN
[2005] ACTCA 20 (9 May 2005)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 4 – 2005
No. SCC 149 of 2004
Judges:         Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Tamberlin J
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            9 May 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 4 - 2005
  )          No. SCC 149 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:R

Appellant

AND:HAYLEY ANNE JANSEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Tamberlin J
Date:  9 May 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be upheld.

1. Sentence be varied so that the first two sentences be partially accumulated in that the second sentence shall commence 12 months after the commencement of the first sentence; and

1. Conditions of the recognizance be altered, such that the respondent be subject to the supervision of the Director of Corrective Services (ACT) and obey all reasonable directions of the Director or such person or persons as may be appointed from time to time for the purpose.  Such directions might include psychological counselling or such other programs or interventions as the Director thinks fit.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 4 - 2004
  )          No. SCC 149 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:R

Appellant

AND:HAYLEY ANNE JANSEN

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Tamberlin J
Date:  9 May 2005
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIGGINS CJ:

1. This is of course a Crown appeal against sentence and as Mr Refshauge has rightfully conceded there are a number of barriers which are placed in the path of any successful Crown appeal against sentence.  Not the least of which is the principle against double jeopardy in the limited sense in which that applies in relation to Crown appeals against sentence.

1. It is perhaps more accurately described as an obligation to exercise restraint.  At the same time this is a case in which the respondent has been sentenced to a period of 12 months imprisonment to serve out of a head sentence of three years after the various sentences, which are concurrent, are taken into account. The overall effect was three years in respect of which she was to be released after 12 months on her recognizance to be of good behaviour with no other condition. 

1. As his Honour Gallop J said, in the case of R v Narelle Cox (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, 2 December 1998) –

To be sent to gaol is a disaster of the greatest magnitude.  Persons who are in a position of trust will be deterred if they give thought to the personal cost of committing offences of…