R v Pocock - [2015] ACTSC 77

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Pocock
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 77
Hearing Date:	20 February 2015
DecisionDate:	20 February 2015
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [13] to [18] below
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – offender to be sentenced for four burglaries and four associated thefts – offences committed to fund longstanding drug abuse – Naltrexone implant – attempt at residential rehabilitation – availability of family placement in residential rehabilitation – pre-sentence rehabilitation efforts justified deferring sentence in 2014 to enable offender to address the drug use contributing to criminal behaviour – successful completion of residential rehabilitation – no further offending – offender sentenced according to 2014 indication of sentence if offender complied with deferred sentence order.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 27, 118
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Troy Joseph Pocock (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Jamieson-Williams (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 153 of 2013; SCC 217 of 2013

In February last year, Troy Pocock appeared before me for sentence on eight charges, being four of burglary and four of associated thefts. The burglaries took place at the Tuggeranong Hyperdome in July 2013. Mr Pocock, who is an air-conditioning installer by trade, gained access through the roof space to a maintenance room, and on three occasions to electronic shops in the Tuggeranong Hyperdome, from which he removed items valued in total at nearly $16,000. Mr Pocock pleaded guilty to all the offences, although his pleas in relation to the burglary at one of the electronics shops was considerably delayed.

At the sentencing hearing there was evidence before me of Mr Pocock’s chaotic upbringing, his significant alcohol and drug abuse, and the fact that the burglaries had been committed to fund his drug use. I also noted that Mr Pocock had a partner and two small children, the younger of whom lived with Mr Pocock and his partner, that Mr Pocock had received a naltrexone implant in December 2012 which appeared to have enabled him to stop using heroin, and that Mr Pocock had recently made a short-lived attempt at residential rehabilitation at Karralika, discharging himself after a few weeks as a result of concerns about the welfare of his family.

At the time of that sentencing hearing, Mr Pocock had been offered a place in a Karralika program aimed at families, including families with children, and he expressed the belief that his chances of succeeding at rehabilitation would be greatly improved if rehabilitation did not involve a separation from his family.

In those circumstances, I decided that it was appropriate to make a deferred sentencing order under s 27 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) to give Mr Pocock the opportunity to address his criminal behaviour, and anything that had contributed to that behaviour, before final sentence was passed. I therefore…

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 Pocock

Details

AGLC: R v Pocock [2015] ACTSC 77
Case: [2015] ACTSC 77
Decision Date: 20 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Pocock involved an offender who was to be sentenced for four burglaries and four associated thefts, committed to fund a longstanding drug abuse problem. The offender had previously attempted to address their drug use with a Naltrexone implant and had made an attempt at residential rehabilitation. However, the availability of a family placement in residential rehabilitation was not possible. The offender's pre-sentence rehabilitation efforts were considered in 2014, which justified deferring the sentence to enable the offender to address the drug use contributing to their criminal behaviour. The offender successfully completed residential rehabilitation and had not reoffended since. The offender was sentenced according to the indication of sentence given in 2014 if the offender complied with the deferred sentence order.

The primary legal issue that the court was required to decide was whether the offender's rehabilitation efforts and successful completion of residential rehabilitation should be taken into account when determining the sentence. The court also needed to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences and the offender's history of drug abuse. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the offender's efforts to address their drug use and rehabilitation.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the offender had taken significant steps to address their drug use and had successfully completed residential rehabilitation. The court acknowledged the offender's efforts to address the underlying cause of their criminal behaviour and considered this to be an important factor in determining the sentence. The court also considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, which involved multiple burglaries and thefts committed to fund the offender's drug abuse. The court found that the offender's rehabilitation efforts and successful completion of residential rehabilitation justified a sentence that was consistent with the indication of sentence given in 2014, provided the offender complied with the deferred sentence order.

The final orders of the court are detailed in paragraphs [13] to [18] of the decision. The offender was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period, and was also ordered to participate in a drug treatment program while in custody. The offender was also ordered to pay reparations to the victims of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [13] to [18] below

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.