R v Novakovic (a.k.a. Noland) (No 2)
[2021] ACTSC 63
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Novakovic (a.k.a. Noland) (No 2) |
Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 63 |
Hearing Date(s): | 12 March 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 12 March 2021 |
Before: | Refshauge AJ |
Decision: | 1. The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order made in respect of Slobodan Novakovic, also known as Daniel Noland, on 12 January 2021 and amended on 22 January 2021 be further amended by omitting ’13 weeks’ in Order 5(b). |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Amendment of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12A, 80X, 80ZH Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 6906 |
Cases Cited: | Elson v Ayton, Saliba and Salvin-Molloy [2010] ACTSC 70 |
Parties: | The Queen ( Crown) Slobodan Novakovic (a.k.a. Daniel Noland) ( Participant) |
Representation: | Counsel D Perks ( Crown) C Duffy ( Participant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Participant) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 135 of 2020 |
REFSHAUGE AJ
On 12 January 2021, I made a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (a Treatment Order) under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act), in respect of Slobodan Novakovic, also known as Daniel Noland.
As required by s 80X of the Sentencing Act, the Treatment Order contained a treatment and supervision part which included treatment conditions. A case plan for Mr Noland required him to undergo a residential drug rehabilitation program at Canberra Recovery Services. I accepted that case plan and directed that he follow it.
In the Treatment Order, however, I described the program as ‘the 13 week residential drug rehabilitation program provided by Canberra Recovery Services’. The residential drug rehabilitation program, however, is usually longer than 13 weeks. There is no fixed time for the program as it depends on the needs and circumstances of each individual participant. It can extend from 3 to 13 months; thus, the description in the Treatment Order is inaccurate and it could suggest, contrary to the case plan, that he is only required to complete 13 weeks of the program. That is neither my intention nor what is required for the proper treatment of Mr Noland's dependence on drugs.
It could also be read as simply a mis-description. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that I can amend the Order to reflect my intention accurately and to clarify the ambiguity: see r 6906 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) and Elson v Ayton, Saliba and Salvin-Molloy [2010] ACTSC 70.
I consider it at least desirable to make the amendment, if not necessary, as there should be no doubt that Mr Noland, given his level of drug dependence, should complete the whole residential drug rehabilitation program and he has agreed with me that he will do so.
It may be that I could make the amendment under s 80ZH of the Sentencing Act. That section is, however, not entirely clear.
I currently conduct a regular review of the program of each participant subject to a Treatment Order. In Mr Noland's case, that is every week, as Mr Noland is in Phase One of the program established by the Treatment Order. I announce each week when the next review is to take place. Such review will also include, where appropriate, a review of the Treatment Order. For example, if progress determines that a change in the treatment regime is necessary, the Treatment Order may be amended to achieve this. It may also include a possible increase in the length of the Order because of some challenge or failure of a participant in the program as they are progressing through it.
Often these changes are necessary to be made reasonably promptly and, if this process is not encompassed within the terms of the Treatment Order, it could inappropriately burden the efficient operation of the program.
In this case, I gave oral notice of the proposed amendment last week. No opposition has been raised to it. I have given written notice of the amendment to the Crown and to Mr Noland's legal representative. They have raised one slight variation to the proposed amendment in the written document as I presented it.
Order
Accordingly, I will amend the Treatment Order made on 12 January 2021 and amended on 22 January 2021 accordingly.
The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order made in respect of Slobodan Novakovic, also known as Daniel Noland, on 12 January 2021 and amended on 22 January 2021 be further amended by omitting ‘13 weeks’ in Order 5(b).
| I certify that the preceding eleven [11] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Justice Refshauge. Associate: A Spencer Date: 3 September 2021 |
0