R v Ralston (No 2)
[2022] ACTSC 184
•22 July 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Ralston (No 2) |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 184 |
Hearing Date: | 22 July 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 22 July 2022 |
Before: | Elkaim J |
Decision: | No further action taken in relation to the breach. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – breach of recognizance release order – where breach admitted – where both parties submit no further action should be taken |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 20AC |
Cases Cited: | R v Ralston [2019] ACTSC 236 R v Ralston [2019] ACTCA 47 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Andrew Ralston (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel E Gordon (Crown) E Chen (Offender) |
| Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 250 of 2018 |
Elkaim J
On 3 June 2019 a jury found the offender guilty of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age. On 27 August 2019 I sentenced the offender to a term of imprisonment of two years commencing that day. The whole of the sentence was suspended with immediate effect on condition that the offender enter into a recognizance release order in the sum of $500 for three years and to be of good behaviour for those three years (R v Ralston [2019] ACTSC 236). An appeal suggesting manifest inadequacy was not successful (R v Ralston [2020] ACTCA 47).
On 11 May 2022 the offender was convicted in the Queanbeyan Local Court of two offences of failing to comply with his reporting obligations arising from the recognizance release. The learned magistrate sentenced the offender to 6 months’ imprisonment from 3 August 2021 until 2 February 2022.
The consequence of the conviction is that the offender has not been of good behaviour during the three year period.
The offender admits the breach.
The facts behind the convictions in New South Wales are set out in a Facts Sheet included in Exhibit A. By way of brief summary, the offender set up a Facebook account under a different name. Under his reporting obligations he was obliged to inform the police that he had done so. The Facebook account constituted the first offence. The second offence was essentially the same as the first, but concerned an Instagram account.
Other than their existence, there is no suggestion that either the Facebook account or the Instagram account were used for any illegal purpose. I have not seen the magistrate’s reasons but he no doubt, correctly, took the view that any breach of Child Protection Registration obligations was to be taken most seriously, thereby generating a sentence of full-time custody.
I have been informed that in imposing his sentence, the magistrate took into account that the offences were committed in breach of the recognizance release order.
Pursuant to s 20AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), a number of options are available to me. They include, but not exclusively, that I can impose a fine, revoke the sentence or take no action.
The Crown suggested that I should take no action because the magistrate had proceeded, as already stated, on the basis that there was a breach of the recognisance.
I think the Crown’s position, which is obviously adopted by the offender, is appropriate. The Crown’s position is reinforced by the sentence of six months of fulltime imprisonment.
Accordingly, I take no further action in relation to the breach.
| I certify that the preceding eleven [11] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: |