R v Monaghan (No 3) - [2012] ACTSC 45

THE QUEEN v JONATHON MONAGHAN (No 3)
[2012] ACTSC 45 (13 February 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – bail – residential rehabilitation placement available – application opposed – insufficient time allegedly served and risk of reoffending – no prior attempts at rehabilitation – opportunity to demonstrate engagement in rehabilitation program – bail granted
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – judgement and punishment – sentencing – indigenous offenders – importance of rehabilitation for young offenders

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 318(2)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 27

R v Monaghan [2009] ACTSC 61
R v Monaghan(No 2) [2011] ACTSC 62
TM v Karapanos (2011) 250 FLR 366
R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235
Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 26 of 2009
No. SCC 362 of 2009
No. SCC 363 of 2009
No. SCC 128 of 2011
No. SCC 129 of 2011
No. SCC 18 of 2012

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 13 February 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. SCC 26 of 2009
  )          No. SCC 362 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          No. SCC 363 of 2009
  No. SCC 128 of 2011

No. SCC 129 of 2011
No. SCC 18 of 2012
R
V

JONATHON MONAGHAN

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  13 February 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The sentencing proceedings be adjourned to 2 May 2012.

Mr Monaghan be granted bail to appear on 2 May 2012 on the conditions that:

1. he accept supervision by the Director General of Corrective Services or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him;

2. he accept monitoring by CADAS;

3. he abstain from the use of illicit drugs and alcohol;

4. he submit, as and when required, to breath analysis and urinalysis;

5. he not operate a motor vehicle, be in possession of the keys to a motor vehicle or be in the drivers’ seat of a motor vehicle;

6. he be released on 14 February 2012 into the custody of a staff member of the Aboriginal Justice Centre or Karralika Programs Inc and accompany that person to the Karralika facility for the purpose of undergoing treatment;

7. if, for any reason, he is not admitted to Karralika he must report, as soon as possible, and in any case within 24 hours, to the Registrar of the Supreme Court in person, for the purpose of his bail being reviewed;

8. he remain in Karralika program, except for any absences to attend court, and obey all reasonable directions in respect of that program and not terminate or absent himself from that program without prior permission of the Supreme Court;

9. if discharged from that program for any reason, he must report as soon as possible, and in any case within 24 hours, to the Registrar of the Supreme Court in person, for reconsideration of his bail.

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 Monaghan (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Monaghan (No 3) [2012] ACTSC 45
Case: [2012] ACTSC 45
Decision Date: February 13, 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Monaghan (No 3) involved the defendant, Monaghan, who was facing criminal charges. The matter was heard in a court which had to decide on the granting of bail for Monaghan. The central issue was whether the defendant should be granted bail considering the availability of a residential rehabilitation placement and the risk of reoffending. The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that Monaghan had not served sufficient time and there was a significant risk he would reoffend. They also highlighted that Monaghan had not previously engaged in any rehabilitation efforts.

The court considered the arguments from both sides and took into account the opportunity for Monaghan to demonstrate his engagement in the rehabilitation program. The judge emphasised the importance of rehabilitation, particularly for young offenders, and noted the significance of providing a chance for individuals to reintegrate into society through structured programs. The court found that granting bail would not only give Monaghan the opportunity to participate in the rehabilitation program but also align with the broader objectives of the criminal justice system, particularly in relation to indigenous offenders and the promotion of rehabilitation.

In granting bail, the court recognised that Monaghan had the potential to benefit from the residential rehabilitation placement, which could reduce the risk of reoffending and facilitate his reintegration into society. The court acknowledged the importance of providing such opportunities to young offenders, particularly those from indigenous backgrounds. The sentencing proceedings were subsequently adjourned to 2 May 2012.

Orders

Orders of the court

The sentencing proceedings be adjourned to 2 May 2012.

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.