R v Ingram - [2016] ACTSC 199

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ingram
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 199
Hearing Date:	20 May, 22 July 2016
DecisionDate:	22 July 2016
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [15] below.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – initial offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – good behaviour order made when sentence of imprisonment suspended – offending through contraventions of domestic violence order in breach of good behaviour order – second breach of good behaviour order since original sentencing – unaddressed alcohol abuse relevant to commission of initial offence and breach offences – good behaviour order cancelled – offender re-sentenced – intensive correction order made.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 29(1)(b)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael John Ingram (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Crown) Mr D Johns/Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 47 of 2013

The offence

On 13 May 2015 I re-sentenced Michael Ingram after a breach of a good behaviour order made in conjunction with suspending a sentence of 18 months for an offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm committed in November 2012. That breach was constituted by Mr Ingram’s failure to complete the 320 hours of community service that I ordered him to complete as a condition of his good behaviour order. The failure had occurred in the context of Mr Ingram’s ongoing mental health difficulties, his resulting loss of employment, and various other factors complicating his life. By the time I re-sentenced Mr Ingram, he seemed to be making progress dealing with his mental health problems, and I had received a fairly positive bail progress report from Corrections. I re-sentenced Mr Ingram to 18 months imprisonment, again fully suspended subject to an 18-montrh good behaviour order, and reduced his total community service hours to 277, of which he had already performed 147 hours.

Mr Ingram has now breached that new good behaviour order, this time by twice breaching a protection order made in September 2015 in favour of a former partner. The breaches took place in early October 2015 – they involved Mr Ingram sending a number of text messages to the former partner over two days. The text messages were not threatening, and recognised that there should be no further contact between Mr Ingram and his former partner, but in one of them Mr Ingram asked her to reduce the term of the protection order so that he did not need to be “looking over [his] shoulder for two years”. Mr Ingram has been assessed as almost certainly alcohol-dependent, and seems to have been intoxicated at the time he committed the two breach offences.

Before these breaches, there had been no offending since an earlier breach of a protection order about six weeks after the November 2012 incident. I also understand that before these recent offences, Mr Ingram had completed the full 277 hours of community service…

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 Ingram

Details

AGLC: R v Ingram [2016] ACTSC 199
Case: [2016] ACTSC 199
Decision Date: 22 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ingram involves an appellant who had previously been sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment for recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The sentence was suspended, and a good behaviour order was made. The appellant subsequently breached the good behaviour order by contravening domestic violence orders, leading to a second breach of the initial order. Alcohol abuse, which was relevant to both the initial offence and the breaches, was not adequately addressed. The court had to determine whether the good behaviour order should be cancelled and if re-sentencing was necessary.

The central legal issue was whether the good behaviour order should be cancelled due to the appellant's breaches and if re-sentencing was warranted. The court considered whether the breaches were serious enough to warrant cancellation of the order and if the alcohol abuse issue needed to be addressed as part of the sentencing process. The court also needed to decide on an appropriate sentence if re-sentencing was ordered.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the breaches of the good behaviour order were significant enough to warrant its cancellation. The court emphasised the seriousness of the breaches and the need for the appellant to address his alcohol abuse, which had been a contributing factor in the initial offence and the subsequent breaches. The court re-sentenced the appellant to an intensive correction order, recognising the need for a more intensive intervention to address the underlying issues. The court's decision highlights the importance of addressing contributing factors such as alcohol abuse in sentencing decisions.

The court ordered that the good behaviour order be cancelled and that the appellant be re-sentenced to an intensive correction order. The court further ordered that the appellant participate in a program to address his alcohol abuse. The orders reflect the court's intention to ensure that the appellant receives the necessary support and intervention to address the underlying issues contributing to his offending behaviour.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [15] below.

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.