Legal Research
Cases
R v Po'oi (No 2)

R v Po'oi (No 2)

Case [2021] ACTSC 340 26 March 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Po’oi (No 2)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 340
Hearing Date:	19 March 2021
DecisionDate:	26 March 2021
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Decision:	1. The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order made on 8 February 2021 be amended as follows: (a) Order 2 be amended by: i. omitting “25 February 2021” and substituting “25 February 2020”; (b) Order 6 be amended by: i. omitting orders (a) and (b); ii. omitting “complies” in order (c) and substituting “comply”; and iii. inserting “Daniel Ronald Po’oi be at his place of residence between 9:00 pm each day to 6:00 am the next day, and to present himself to an officer of the Australian Federal Police at the door of the residence on request during those hours.” (c) A further Order 7 to be added as follows: i. Included in the Custodial Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, Daniel Ronald Po’oi be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from 8 February 2023 to 24 March 2024, with a probation condition that he accept supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for that period or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him. 2. Daniel Ronald Po’oi attend the Court Registry before leaving the Court precinct on 26 March 2021 and sign the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order as amended and the Good Behaviour Order. 3. Daniel Ronald Po’oi attend Court on 31 March 2021 at 11:00 am.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Breach of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – Absconding Rehabilitation – Amended Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Act) 2005 (ACT) pt 4.4, ss 7, 12A, 33, 46J 80O, 80ZB, 80ZE Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 85
Cases Cited:	Bethell v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1740 Director of Public Prosecutions v Negrea [2020] VCC 970 Lukatela v Birch [2008] ACTSC 99 R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 R v Crawford (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 367 R v Lyons (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 11 R v Parker [2020] ACTSC 38 R v Pelecky (No 3) [2020] ACTSC 371 R v Po’oi [2021] ACTSC 151 State of Western Australia v JC (A Child) [2021] WASC 21 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Daniel Roland Po’oi ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel D Perks ( Crown) C Duffy ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 276 of 2020 SCC 277 of 2020

Refshauge AJ

The connection between crime and drug use is well known and seen in the criminal courts day by day. Illicit drugs are particularly prone to creating a dependency in the user, often without even sustained…

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 Po'oi (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Po'oi (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 340
Case: [2021] ACTSC 340
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Po’oi (No 2) involved the defendant, Daniel Ronald Po’oi, who was subject to a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order made on 8 February 2021. The defendant had breached the condition of the Treatment Order that required him to remain at the Canberra Recovery Services facility. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was required to decide whether to amend the Treatment Order to allow the defendant to continue his rehabilitation in the community. The court had to consider the seriousness of the breach, the defendant’s criminal history, his progress in the treatment regime, and the potential impact on other participants.

The court found that the defendant's departure from the Canberra Recovery Services facility was a serious breach of the Treatment Order, but it was not a punitive disposition. The court also found that the defendant had made progress in the treatment regime, had a newfound partner that he wanted to be with, and was intelligent enough to know the consequences of failing to comply with the Treatment Order. The court decided that it was appropriate to permit the defendant to continue his rehabilitation in the community and amended the Treatment Order accordingly. The court also imposed a curfew condition and a Good Behaviour Order. The defendant was required to sign the amended Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order and the Good Behaviour Order before leaving the court precinct. The defendant was also required to attend court on 31 March 2021 at 11:00 am in person.

The court's decision was based on the defendant's submission to reform, his progress in the treatment regime, his personal circumstances, and the potential impact on other participants. The court found that the defendant's ever-present risk of re-offending was unlikely in this case, and that the amendment to the Treatment Order would not necessarily mean that current or future participants will be encouraged to leave residential drug rehabilitation placements with the reasonable expectation that they will be able to continue under a Treatment Order in the community. The court also noted that the defendant was originally assessed as suitable for a rehabilitation program in the community, which was a very important reason why it was now appropriate to permit him to continue his rehabilitation in the community and amend the Treatment Order accordingly.

Orders