R v Kaddour - [2022] ACTSC 303

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Kaddour
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 303
Hearing Date:	2 November 2022
DecisionDate:	2 November 2022
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [21]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of good behaviour order – where breach taken into account in the Magistrates Court – where prosecution submitted no action should be taken on the breach – consideration of offender’s rehabilitation – no action taken
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 s 108 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2015 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 R v Bennett [2017] ACTSC 104 R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310 Stanford v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 73
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Ibrahim Kaddour (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Bayliss (Crown) Self-represented (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Self-represented (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 101 of 2019 SCC 102 of 2019

Loukas-Karlsson J:

Introduction

The offender, Ibrahim Kaddour, appears before me today, 2 November 2022, for sentence for a breach of two Good Behaviour Orders that were imposed by myself on 21 November 2019.
The offender entered pleas of guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court on 25 May 2022 to the following offences. The offender was sentenced on 29 July 2022 as follows, after having served 9 months and 16 days in custody:
(a)CC2021/10309 – Use carriage service to menace or harass on 6 June 2021:
Convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment from 14 October 2021 to 13 December 2021.
(b)CC2021/10308 – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 8 May 2021:
Convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment from 13 December 2021 to 12 June 2022.
(c)CC2021/10305 – Reckless threat to kill a person on 8 May 2021:
Convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order from 14 June 2022, with a condition that the offender complete 240 hours of community service by 14 June 2023.
(d)CC2022/2496 – Joint commission theft on 8 May 2021:
Convicted and sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order from 14 February 2024.
(e)CC2022/2493 – Posses offensive weapon with intent on 8 May 2021:
Convicted and sentenced to the rising of the Court.
(f)CC2021/1107 – Possess offensive weapon on 6 June 2021:
Convicted and sentenced to the rising of the Court
(g)CC2021/11008 – Possess unregistered firearm on 14 October 2021:
Convicted and sentenced to the rising of the Court.
(h)CC2021/11009 – Unlawful possession of stolen property on 14 October 2021:
Convicted and sentenced to the rising of the Court.
The total effect of that sentence was that the accused was sentenced to 6 months’ full-time imprisonment. Upon completion of that term, the accused was subject to an Intensive Correction Order commencing 14 June 2022, to expire on 13 June 2024, with community service attached.
Each of the offences outlined above at paragraph 2 place the offender in breach…

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 Kaddour

Details

AGLC: R v Kaddour [2022] ACTSC 303
Case: [2022] ACTSC 303
Decision Date: 2 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kaddour involved the defendant Kaddour who was being prosecuted for breaching a good behaviour order. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court. The prosecution initially argued that no action should be taken on the breach of the good behaviour order. However, the court was required to decide whether any action should be taken against Kaddour for the breach, considering the circumstances of the breach and the potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of the good behaviour order, the appropriate response to a breach of such an order, and the consideration of the offender's rehabilitation. The court had to balance the need for compliance with the order against the potential for the offender to reform and reintegrate into society without further punitive measures.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the evidence and submissions presented. The court found that while Kaddour had breached the good behaviour order, the prosecution had not demonstrated that any punitive action would serve a useful purpose. The court was satisfied that Kaddour had shown a genuine effort towards rehabilitation and that taking no further action would be in the best interest of justice. Consequently, the court decided not to impose any additional penalties for the breach of the good behaviour order.

The final orders of the court were detailed in paragraph [21] of the judgment, which reflected the decision not to take any action against Kaddour for the breach of the good behaviour order.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [21]

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.