R v Kemppainen (No 3)

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory dealt with the matter of R v Kemppainen (No 3), where the offender, Matti Bruce Kemppainen, faced a breach of an intensive correction order (ICO) that had been imposed previously. The court was tasked with determining whether the ICO should be cancelled following Kemppainen's commission of further offences during the term of the ICO but being dealt with after its expiration. The legal issues at hand were centred on the interpretation of the term "remainder of the offender's sentence" in section 65 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) and whether it was necessary for the Magistrate to commit the offender to the Supreme Court for the breach. The court was also required to determine if cancelling the ICO was in the interests of justice.

The court considered the provisions of section 65, which mandates that if an offender commits and is convicted or found guilty of an offence after being sentenced to serve intensive correction, the sentencing court must cancel the order unless doing so is not in the interests of justice. The court noted that section 65(2) requires the remainder of the offender's sentence to be served by full-time detention if the order is cancelled. The court referred to the decision in R v XXL, where Mossop J concluded that the "remainder of the offender's sentence" should run from the time the offender is convicted or found guilty of the breach offence. The Chief Justice agreed with this interpretation and held that as the further offences were dealt with after the expiration of the ICO, there was no remainder of the sentence to be served. Therefore, cancelling the ICO was not in the interests of justice. The court also noted that it was not entirely convinced that it was necessary for the Magistrate to refer the breach but did not make a final decision on this matter.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court determined that there was no point in cancelling the ICO and that it was not in the interests of justice to do so. Consequently, the ICO remained in effect.