R v Pullen
[2015] ACTSC 403
•3 November 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Pullen |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 403 |
Hearing Date: | 3 November 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 3 November 2015 |
Before: | Penfold J |
Decision: | The Court finds the breach of good behaviour order proven, but takes no action on it. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offender breached good behaviour order by failing to accept supervision – since becoming aware of breach allegation, offender contacted supervisor – offender’s circumstances have changed for the better – offender living in supportive community and has employment – offender’s mental health has improved – supervision will be accepted – breach found proven – no action taken on the breach – good behaviour order to continue with amendment to remove condition relating to Men’s Cognitive Self-Change Program. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 108 |
Cases Cited: | Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Jedd David Pullen (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr M Fernandez (Crown) Self-represented (in person) (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Self-represented (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 23 of 2014 |
In August 2014 I sentenced Jedd Pullen on pleas of guilty to one count each of unauthorised possession of prohibited firearms and unauthorised possession of prohibited weapons. There was also a scheduled offence of possessing ammunition which was to be taken into account in sentencing Mr Pullen for the firearms offence.
Firearms and the prohibited weapons, being knuckle dusters, were found in a cupboard in the house in which Mr Pullen had been living. In sentencing him, I said:
This is a low-level example of the firearms offence. None of the replica handguns could have been operated, and the shotgun rounds could not have been used in the handguns even if they had been working guns. On the other hand, all three handguns are very realistic and, if produced in anger, would have been very frightening to anyone present. The knuckledusters were entirely real and could certainly have been used to inflict injury.
However, Mr Pullen appears not to have made any use of any of the weapons, except that at one point he sanded some rust off the metal handgun and used the knuckledusters to hang tools on. Mr Pullen’s partner provided a character reference in which she reported Mr Pullen’s explanation that he saw the replica guns as toys and would not have had them had he known this was illegal.
I then went on to note:
(a)that Mr Pullen had a very minor criminal history, largely consisting of a handful of driving offences;
(b)that he had had a difficult childhood and adolescence (having regard to his parent’s early separation, his father’s absence at significant times and his mother’s erratic behaviours, which were apparently associated with alcohol abuse and poor health, including depression);
(c)that Mr Pullen had himself been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and has been treated with anti-depressant medication on and off for many years; at the time of that sentencing, I noted that he had recently resumed taking anti-depressant medication;
(d)that although Mr Pullen had been unemployed for some time, he had an offer from a former employer to re-engage him, depending on the outcome of that sentencing process;
(e)that Mr Pullen had an interest in landscape gardening;
(f)that over the past couple of years Mr Pullen had provided support to an older woman who had benefited from his help with jobs around the house but also from his friendship with her intellectually disabled son; that woman gave a favourable reference to Mr Pullen for the purposes of the court proceedings.
I noted further that Mr Pullen had, in the past, abused alcohol and illicit drugs, but that the position at the time of sentencing was not clear, and that Mr Pullen had, even before being charged with the weapons offences, been looking for help to improve his mental and physical health.
I then considered several similar sentences imposed in the Supreme Court for possession of firearms offences, and concluded that it is apparent that the firearms offence covers a multitude of sins as well as some conduct that probably couldn’t even be called a sin. I am satisfied that Mr Pullen’s offence falls close to the low end of the spectrum and close enough to tip the balance away from the need to impose any prison term.
In reaching that conclusion, I reminded myself that a prison term should not be imposed, even if the intention is to suspend it initially, unless in all the circumstances it would be appropriate for the offender actually to serve that term in full-time custody (Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 at [78]).
I then sentenced Mr Pullen by recording convictions on the two offences and ordering him to sign an undertaking to comply with his good behaviour obligations for two years with security in the amount of $500.00. That good behaviour order was subject to conditions that for such period, not longer than two years, as Corrective Services considers necessary, he was to accept supervision from ACT Corrective Services and obey all reasonable directions of his supervisor; that he was to undertake such counselling courses, programs or treatments as directed by his supervising officer, in particular, relating to drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues; and that he be assessed and, if found suitable, that he undertake the Men’s Cognitive Self-change Program.
In September this year, an information was sworn by Corrective Services Officer Anthony Nocka reporting that Mr Pullen had failed to accept supervision or to comply with supervision directions in various respects, including failing to attend for urinalysis and failing to attend scheduled appointments with his supervisor.
Mr Pullen was, accordingly, summonsed to attend at court and has appeared before me today to deal with the breach of that good behaviour order
At the hearing today I heard evidence from Mr Nocka, who indicated that Mr Pullen had made contact with him again since the information was sworn, and that he had indicated that there had been a number of positive developments in his circumstances.
He is now living in a housing complex in Gunghalin, where there is considerable community support for him and an opportunity for him to become involved in the community in that complex. He has obtained employment of up to 30 hours a week and his mental health has improved noticeably. In particular, he has had fewer anxiety and panic attacks and, although his doctor is somewhat cautious, has recently ceased using anti-depressants and says he has not so far noticed any deterioration in his mental health.
Mr Nocka gave evidence that he believes that Mr Pullen is now in a position to accept supervision and, with that supervision and the support provided through that, to consolidate the improvements in his position that I have already mentioned. Mr Nocka recommends, and this is not disputed by the prosecutor, that I should take no action on the breach that has brought Mr Pullen to court today.
He has noted, however, that one of the conditions of the original good behaviour order, being the requirement that Mr Pullen be assessed for, and possibly undertake, the Men’s Cognitive Self-change Program, is unlikely to be able to be implemented at this stage, given that that program takes, I understand, considerably more than the roughly 10 months that would be left on the current good behaviour order.
Accordingly, under s 108 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), I take no further action on the breach. I suppose I should strictly speaking find the breach proven, noting that Mr Pullen has conceded the breach, and take no further action on the good behaviour order except to amend the conditions by removing condition (c) referring to the Men’s Cognitive Self-change Program.
Now that means, Mr Pullen, that the good behaviour order continues to operate as it was initially made. It will run out on 7 August next year; so that means there’s something less than 10 months- before it runs out. It’s still subject to that security of $500,00 and you are still obliged to accept supervision from Corrective Services, as Mr Nocka has explained, and you’re still obliged to undertake counselling courses, programs or treatments as directed by your supervising officer Mr Nocka.
I note that he has indicated that what he will expect from you is probably reporting for supervision, roughly once a week in the short-term, and then once he is satisfied that you’re settled, I guess, he will want to see you may be fortnightly and then may be monthly and at some stage during that he will send you to one or more urinalysis appointments.
But from the sounds of it, if you can maintain the improvements you have made so far, you should be able to finish the rest of this 10 months without any difficulties and do quite well out of it. So I wish you good luck with that.
| I certify that the preceding seventeen [17] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Penfold. Associate: K Harris Date: 23 December 2015 |
0
2
1