SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Matthew Peter White (No 3) |
Citation: | [2016] ACTSC 285 |
Hearing Date: | 6 September 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 8 September 2016 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. The Good Behaviour Order made on 13 August 2015 be cancelled. 2. The conviction for burglary on 21 May 2013 be confirmed. 3. Matthew Peter White be sentenced to 15 months imprisonment to commence on 31 August 2015. 4. The sentence be suspended for a period of 12 months from 8 September 2016. 5. Matthew Peter White be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 12 months from 8 September 2016. 6. The conviction for theft on 21 May 2013 be confirmed. 7. Matthew Peter White be sentenced to nine months imprisonment to commence on 31 August 2015, wholly concurrent on the sentence of burglary. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – burglary – theft – guilty plea – breach of Good Behaviour Obligations – actions following the breach – specific deterrence – illicit drug use connected with offending – residential rehabilitation a relevant consideration in the sentencing process – re-sentence – concurrency and totality of sentence – suspended sentence |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12, 27, 33 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 ss 86, 110, 110(4), 112 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 98(2), 98(3) |
Cases Cited: | Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 R v Elphick (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 23 R v Kekalainen (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 369 R v Kristiansen [2015] ACTSC 159 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Matthew Peter White (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms A Jamieson-Williams (Crown) Ms H Hayunga (Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant) | |
File Number: | SCC 155 of 2013 |
REFSHAUGE J:
It is important in a civilised society that people can feel safe and their property is secure. Hence, conduct that puts that safety and security at risk is made a crime and the courts are required to do what they can to prevent crime. Courts do this by sentencing offenders who commit such crimes. This includes punishing those who commit crimes to show that such behaviour is unacceptable to try and stop others from committing those crimes, or the offender from repeating them, and helping to restore confidence by vindicating the damage and unease felt by the victims of crime. An important and enduring way to protect society is to rehabilitate those who have, by committing crimes, shown a propensity to break the protective laws of the community. See Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 at 537; [32].
Continue reading R v Matthew Peter White (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Matthew Peter White (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 285
- Case
- [2016] ACTSC 285
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed for the original offences was appropriate and whether the sentence for the breach of the Good Behaviour Obligations was just and whether the sentence should be suspended. The court also needed to consider the relevance of the offender's illicit drug use connected with the offending and whether residential rehabilitation was a relevant consideration in the sentencing process.
The court found that the sentence imposed for the original offences was appropriate, but the sentence for the breach of the Good Behaviour Obligations was excessive. The court found that the breach was a serious matter, but it was not appropriate to impose a custodial sentence for the breach. Instead, the court decided to suspend the sentence for the breach for a period of 12 months and require the offender to sign an undertaking to comply with the Good Behaviour Obligations for that period. The court also found that the offender's illicit drug use was relevant to the sentencing process, but residential rehabilitation was not a relevant consideration. The court ordered that the sentence for the original offences be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the breach of the Good Behaviour Obligations.
The court cancelled the Good Behaviour Order made on 13 August 2015 and confirmed the convictions for burglary and theft on 21 May 2013. Matthew Peter White was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for burglary and nine months imprisonment for theft, to commence on 31 August 2015, wholly concurrent. The sentence was suspended for a period of 12 months from 8 September 2016, and Matthew Peter White was required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 12 months from 8 September 2016.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Good Behaviour Order made on 13 August 2015 be cancelled.
2. The conviction for burglary on 21 May 2013 be confirmed.
3. Matthew Peter White be sentenced to 15 months imprisonment to commence on 31 August 2015.
4. The sentence be suspended for a period of 12 months from 8 September 2016.
5. Matthew Peter White be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 12 months from 8 September 2016.
6. The conviction for theft on 21 May 2013 be confirmed.
7. Matthew Peter White be sentenced to nine months imprisonment to commence on 31 August 2015, wholly concurrent on the sentence of burglary.
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.