R v Pipitone - [2015] ACTSC 164

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Pipitone
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 164
Hearing Date(s):	25 June 2015
DecisionDate:	30 June 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. It be declared that Adrian Bennet Pipitone breached the Good Behaviour Order made on 22 August 2014. 2. The Good Behaviour Order made on 22 August 2014 be cancelled. 3. The conviction of Adrian Bennet Pipitone for damaging property on 17 June 2013 be confirmed. 4. Adrian Bennet Pipitone be sentenced to imprisonment for 4 months and three days to commence on 28 February 2015 and end on 30 June 2015.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Breach of Good Behaviour Order – Public Advocate – Serious mental health issues – Psychiatric Treatment Order – Substance abuse dependence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 309 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 102, 108 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 33(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Pipitone [2014] ACTSC 318 R v Todd Elphick (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 23 R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Adrian Bennet Pipitone (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D SahuKhan (Crown) Mr J De Bruin (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)
File Number(s):	SCC 110 of 2013

REFSHAUGE J:

There is no doubt that the criminal justice system is challenged when dealing with accused persons who have serious mental health problems. Inevitably, such problems are exacerbated when the person involved also uses illicit drugs and, indeed, may become drug dependent.

Adrian Bennet Pipitone is such a person. He has been a consumer of mental health services for many years. He has a diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia. He has also come into contact with the criminal justice system but not very often and certainly not as often as many people with such co-morbidities might be expected to.

Mr Pipitone now appears before me for sentencing on a breach of a Good Behaviour Order made on 27 August 2014 when I convicted him of damaging property on 17 June 2013.

The Facts

The genesis of these proceedings was when Mr Pipitone was charged for possessing methylamphetamine on 4 December 2012 and appeared in the Magistrates Court. He was referred for assessment under s 309 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and, it appears, remained under mental health care until 1 February 2013.

I did not have a clear picture of what happened thereafter but the Statement of Facts, tendered at the sentencing, without objection, stated that Mr Pipitone was admitted under a Psychiatric Treatment Order to the Extended Care Unit of the Brian Hennessy Rehabilitation Centre on 4 March 2013.

On 17 June 2013, his mother visited him at that Centre without incident but, shortly after, he became very agitated and was seen by staff members in the main corridor yelling and kicking the internal plaster wall. He kicked two large holes in the plaster wall.

The staff…

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 Pipitone

Details

AGLC: R v Pipitone [2015] ACTSC 164
Case: [2015] ACTSC 164
Decision Date: 30 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pipitone involved Adrian Bennet Pipitone, who was charged with breaching a Good Behaviour Order made on 22 August 2014. The dispute centred on whether Pipitone had indeed breached the conditions of the order and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Pipitone had breached the conditions of the Good Behaviour Order and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court had to consider the nature of the breach, Pipitone's serious mental health issues, and his substance abuse dependence. The court also had to determine if a psychiatric treatment order was appropriate.

In its judgment, the court found that Pipitone had indeed breached the Good Behaviour Order. The court acknowledged Pipitone's mental health issues and his substance abuse problems, which contributed to the breach. However, the court found that these issues did not excuse the breach. The court cancelled the Good Behaviour Order and confirmed Pipitone's conviction for damaging property on 17 June 2013. The court sentenced Pipitone to imprisonment for 4 months and three days, to commence on 28 February 2015 and end on 30 June 2015.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It be declared that Adrian Bennet Pipitone breached the Good Behaviour Order made on 22 August 2014.

2. The Good Behaviour Order made on 22 August 2014 be cancelled.

3. The conviction of Adrian Bennet Pipitone for damaging property on 17 June 2013 be confirmed.

4. Adrian Bennet Pipitone be sentenced to imprisonment for 4 months and three days to commence on 28 February 2015 and end on 30 June 2015.

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.