R v Price - [2018] ACTSC 145

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Price
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 145
Hearing Date:	15 May 2018
DecisionDate:	22 May 2018
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [34].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Good Behaviour Order – breach of Good Behaviour Order – further offending - suspended sentence – Good Behaviour Order following suspended sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Guy v Anderson and Telford [2013] ACTSC 5
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Wayne Price (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Swan (Crown) Ms B Dunne (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)
File Number(s):	SCC 12 of 2015

Loukas-Karlsson J

Introduction

This matter comes before me as a result of the breach of a good behaviour order. The breach is admitted.

On 23 October 2015, Robinson AJ sentenced Mr Price for one count of causing grievous bodily harm in contravention of s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Mr Price was sentenced to 10 months. Robinson AJ ordered that the sentence be suspended immediately upon Mr Price entering a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 3 years, with that order to include a condition that Mr Price complete 200 hours of community service work.

The Good Behaviour Order made by Robinson AJ would have expired on 23 October 2018. On 7 May 2017, however, Mr Price committed an offence. The offence was that without reasonable excuse, he had in his possession in a public place, namely the public foyer of units in Ainslie, in circumstances likely to cause alarm, an offensive weapon, namely a large stick.

The circumstances surrounding to the offence were as follows according to the Statement of Facts tendered by the prosecution. At about 3:15pm on 7 May 2018, Mr Price attended the unit of Mr Paul Meszaros, which is in the same group of units that Mr Price lives in. Mr Meszaros was with his friend Mr Grahame Alvarez at the time. Mr Price rang the doorbell of the unit, and Mr Meszaros opened the front door. Mr Alvarez was seated on the couch. Mr Price yelled at Mr Alvarez through the front screen door. Mr Price was angry that Mr Alvarez had been calling and texting a friend of his. A short time later, Mr Price walked upstairs to his unit and returned with a large stick in his hand. Mr Price then started to bang the large stick on the fly screen door and shout at Mr Alvarez. Mr Price threatened Mr Alvarez. Mr Alvarez heard Mr Price shout “Get out the front, I’m going to smack your head in”. Mr Alvarez told Mr Price that he was paranoid and crazy, and instructed him to get away. Mr Price had returned upstairs by the time the police had arrived. Mr Price then called Mr Meszaros on his phone to apologise for his behaviour. Police arrested Mr…

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 Price

Details

AGLC: R v Price [2018] ACTSC 145
Case: [2018] ACTSC 145
Decision Date: 22 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Price, which came before the Supreme Court of Queensland, involved the defendant, Price, who was subject to a good behaviour order as a result of a previous conviction. The dispute centred around Price's breach of this order, which led to further offending and his subsequent sentencing. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Price, taking into account his breach of the good behaviour order and the additional criminal activity.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide upon were the relevance of the breach of the good behaviour order in the context of sentencing, and the appropriate form of punishment for Price's new offence, considering his prior criminal record and the need to balance deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality. The court needed to determine whether the breach of the good behaviour order warranted a more severe punishment and whether a suspended sentence followed by a good behaviour order was an appropriate response.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the nature and seriousness of Price's new offence, the breach of the good behaviour order, and his criminal history. The court acknowledged that the breach of the order was a serious matter, but also recognised that Price had not reoffended in the period following the order. The court determined that a suspended sentence, coupled with a new good behaviour order, was a suitable response that balanced the need for deterrence and rehabilitation while taking into account the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the suspended sentence provided an opportunity for Price to demonstrate his ability to reform and avoid further offending.

The court ordered that Price be sentenced to a suspended sentence, with a new good behaviour order to be imposed. The specific terms of the good behaviour order were outlined in the judgment, and the court provided guidance on the consequences of breaching the order in the future. This decision reflects the court's approach to sentencing in cases where a defendant has breached a good behaviour order, and the importance of considering both the breach and the new offence in determining an appropriate punishment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [34].

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.