R v Parker (No 2) - [2022] ACTSC 13

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Parker (No 2)
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 13
Hearing Date:	2 February 2022
DecisionDate:	2 February 2022
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Good behaviour orders are cancelled. Re-sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment, fully suspended on offender entering into good behaviour orders for a period that equates to two years from date of breach
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of good behaviour orders – breach by further offending – where breach offence is of different nature and severity to the original offence – where significant prospects for rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 86(1)(a), 110(2) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) s 19
Cases Cited:	R v Parker [2020] ACTSC 38 R v Parker [2021] ACTSC 57
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jasmin Parker (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Janackovic (Crown) T Cobden (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 248 of 2019

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

The offender is before the Court for breach of good behaviour orders imposed on 18 March 2021.

Between May and June 2019, the offender committed, or attempted to commit, three aggravated robberies, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

On 20 May 2019, the offender attempted to commit an aggravated robbery at John James Hospital (Count 1). On the same date, she committed an aggravated robbery at a grocery store in Braddon (Count 2). On 23 July 2019, she committed an aggravated robbery at a grocery store in Dickson (Count 3). On each occasion, the offender was in possession of a knife and was in company with her mother: see R v Parker [2020] ACTSC 38. At the time of the offences, the offender was 18 years old. She had experienced a troubled upbringing and had used significant quantities of illicit substances from 12 years of age.

On 4 February 2020, Burns J convicted the offender of each offence and made a deferred sentence order, placing the offender on bail.

The offender’s progress during the period of the deferred sentence order was positive, although there were what Burns J described as “ups and downs”.

On 18 March 2021, his Honour imposed the following sentences:

(a)Count 1: nine months’ imprisonment, from 18 March 2021 to 17 December 2021.
(b)Count 2: 18 months’ imprisonment, from 18 March 2021 to 17 September 2022.
(c)Count 3: 18 months’ imprisonment, from 18 June 2021 to 17 December 2022.

The aggregate sentence was 21 months’ imprisonment, which was fully suspended upon the offender entering into good behaviour orders for a period of two years, from 18 March 2021 to 17 March 2023: R v Parker [2021] ACTSC 57.

Facts of the breach

At 4:30AM on 10 June 2021, the offender committed the offence of driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in her blood or breath contrary…

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 Parker (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Parker (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 13
Case: [2022] ACTSC 13
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory dealt with the case of R v Parker (No 2), which involved the offender Jasmin Parker, who had previously committed serious offences and was subject to good behaviour orders following a suspended sentence. Parker breached these orders by committing an offence of driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in her blood, a breach occurring approximately three months after the imposition of the original good behaviour orders. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate response to the breach, including whether to impose the original suspended sentence or to re-sentence the offender.

The key legal issues before the court included the nature and severity of the breach offence in relation to the original offences, the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation, and the appropriate sentence to ensure both deterrence and rehabilitation. The court considered the significant "ups and downs" in Parker's rehabilitation progress, her current employment and educational achievements, and the positive changes in her lifestyle since the original sentencing.

The court determined that, although Parker had breached her good behaviour orders, the breach offence was of a different nature and severity compared to her original offences. Given Parker's troubled history, ongoing efforts towards rehabilitation, and the presence of significant prospects for her rehabilitation, the court opted to re-sentence her. The original sentences were suspended again, but with new good behaviour orders that would commence from the date of the breach and expire two years later.

The final orders of the court involved the cancellation of the previous good behaviour orders and the imposition of new ones, effective from the date of the breach offence, with the original suspended sentences remaining applicable. This decision reflects the court's balanced approach to addressing the breach while considering the offender's rehabilitation and potential for reform.

Orders