R v Matthew Peter White - [2015] ACTSC 254

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Matthew Peter White
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 254
Hearing Date(s):	4 June 2015
DecisionDate:	13 August 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. The Good Behaviour Order of 5 June 2014 be cancelled; 2. The conviction for the offence of burglary at Braddon on 21 May 2013 be confirmed; 3. Mr White be sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 15 June 2014; 4. The conviction for theft on 21 May 2013 be confirmed; 5. Mr White be sentenced to nine months imprisonment, to commence on 15 June 2014, to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the burglary; 6. The sentences be suspended for a period of 2 years; 7. Mr White be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders' good behaviour obligations under the Crime (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 for a period of two years from 13 August 2015 with the following conditions: a) A probation condition that he accept supervision by the Director-General or her delegate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to counselling for unresolved trauma and any ongoing drug and alcohol treatment or counselling, for a period of two years or such shorter period as the person supervising him considers appropriate. b) That he attend Canberra Hospital on 24 August 2015 for the purposes of undergoing detoxification and thereafter the Karralika Therapeutic Community on 31 August 2015 and admit himself to those programs of rehabilitation; c) That, if he is not admitted to the Karralika Therapeutic Community Program or if, for any reason, he leaves or is discharged from the program before he completes it, he present himself, in person, as soon as possible and within 24 hours, to the Registrar of the ACT Supreme Court for a review of the Good Behaviour Order; d) That he remain in the Karralika program until he completes it and obey all reasonable directions of the person in charge of that program and not terminate or absent himself from the program without prior permission of this Court; e) That he consent to the person in charge of the program providing to the person supervising him any information about his progress as may be reasonably requested.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Sentencing – Resentencing – Breach of Good Behaviour Order – Further offending – Offender seeking rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT); ss 110, 116ZP Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT); ss 7, 12, 33
Cases Cited:	EG v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 17 Guy v Anderson [2013] ACTSC 5 R v White [2014] ACTSC 158 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Matthew Peter White (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K Marson (Crown) Ms H Hayunga (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 155 of 2013

REFSHAUGE J:

On 21 May 2013 Matthew Peter White smashed the…

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 Matthew Peter White

Details

AGLC: R v Matthew Peter White [2015] ACTSC 254
Case: [2015] ACTSC 254
Decision Date: 13 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Matthew Peter White was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The defendant, Matthew Peter White, was convicted of burglary and theft on 21 May 2013, and sentenced to a Good Behaviour Order on 5 June 2014. White later breached the terms of this order and the court was required to address the matter of his resentencing.

The legal issues before the court involved the breach of the Good Behaviour Order and the consideration of White’s rehabilitation needs in light of his further offending. The court needed to decide whether the original sentence was appropriate in light of White’s circumstances and whether a new sentence would be more suitable to address his ongoing issues.

The court determined that the original Good Behaviour Order should be cancelled and replaced with a more structured rehabilitation program. The court confirmed the convictions for burglary and theft but suspended the sentences, deciding that imprisonment would not be beneficial for White’s rehabilitation. Instead, the court imposed conditions aimed at addressing White’s drug and alcohol issues and ensuring his participation in specific therapeutic programs. This decision was based on the need to provide White with an opportunity for rehabilitation and to address the underlying causes of his offending behaviour.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Good Behaviour Order of 5 June 2014 be cancelled;

2. The conviction for the offence of burglary at Braddon on 21 May 2013 be confirmed;

3. Mr White be sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment to commence on 15 June 2014;

4. The conviction for theft on 21 May 2013 be confirmed;

5. Mr White be sentenced to nine months imprisonment, to commence on 15 June 2014, to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the burglary;

6. The sentences be suspended for a period of 2 years;

7. Mr White be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders' good behaviour obligations under the Crime (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 for a period of two years from 13 August 2015 with the following conditions:

a) A probation condition that he accept supervision by the Director-General or her delegate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to counselling for unresolved trauma and any ongoing drug and alcohol treatment or counselling, for a period of two years or such shorter period as the person supervising him considers appropriate.

b) That he attend Canberra Hospital on 24 August 2015 for the purposes of undergoing detoxification and thereafter the Karralika Therapeutic Community on 31 August 2015 and admit himself to those programs of rehabilitation;

c) That, if he is not admitted to the Karralika Therapeutic Community Program or if, for any reason, he leaves or is discharged from the program before he completes it, he present himself, in person, as soon as possible and within 24 hours, to the Registrar of the ACT Supreme Court for a review of the Good Behaviour Order;

d) That he remain in the Karralika program until he completes it and obey all reasonable directions of the person in charge of that program and not terminate or absent himself from the program without prior permission of this Court;

e) That he consent to the person in charge of the program providing to the person supervising him any information about his progress as may be reasonably requested.

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.