R v Rootsey (No 2)
[2021] ACTSC 10
•3 February 2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Rootsey (No 2) |
Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 10 |
Hearing Date: | 3 February 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 3 February 2021 |
Before: | Elkaim J |
Decision: | See [14] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of Good Behaviour Order – breach admitted – re-sentence – aggravated robbery |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110(2) |
Cases Cited: | R v Rootsey [2018] ACTSC 63 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Jamie Rootsey (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel C Wanigaratne (Crown) S Beckedahl (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 330 of 2017 |
ELKAIM J
On 13 March 2018 I sentenced this offender to 18 months imprisonment commencing on 2 October 2017 for the offence of aggravated robbery. The sentence was suspended from 1 July 2018 on condition that the offender enter into a Good Behaviour Order (GBO) for a period of 15 months.
The offender was released in accordance with the above orders.
The offender is before me today for re-sentencing arising from a breach of the GBO, which he accepts has occurred.
The breach is that on 17 April 2019, the offender possessed a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine. He also had implements which led to a charge of going equipped for theft. The latter and the drug offence were dealt with in the Magistrates Court. The offender was acquitted of the equipment charge. He pleaded guilty to the drug charge and was punished for it. The drug charge placed him in breach of the Good Behaviour Order which I imposed in March 2018. That is why he is before me today.
When I sentenced the offender I set out the tragic circumstances of his past and stated my hopes for his rehabilitation and progress into the future (R v Rootsey [2018] ACTSC 63).
On one level, because of the breach, it might be thought that my hopes have come to naught. But that would be too simplistic an approach. This is because the offender has apparently otherwise done very well. He is in a stable relationship and has good employment. There is a glowing reference from his employer, Capital Lines & Signs Pty Ltd and there are statements of completion of training in the field of traffic control.
In addition, and importantly, the offender has been punished for the offence which contravened the Good Behaviour Order.
My initial inclination was simply to take no further action on the breach, however the Crown pointed out that by reason of s 110(2) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) it is necessary for me to cancel the Good Behaviour Order and then impose the suspended sentence or re-sentence the offender.
Ms Beckedahl, on behalf of the offender, suggested that I impose a Good Behaviour Order commencing today. I note that the original Good Behaviour Order expired on 30 September 2019.
The Crown submitted that an appropriate order would be to re-sentence the offender making the same orders as those that I previously made. If I took up Ms Beckedahl’s suggestion that would be a far too lenient sentence for the original aggravated robbery. The difficulty with this submission is that the term of imprisonment has been completed as has the original term of the Good Behaviour Order. To follow the Crown’s suggestion would in my view amount to a significant overreaction to the breach and to some degree a double punishment.
I appreciate that committing the drug offence while subject to a Good Behaviour Order was an aggravating feature. Nevertheless, the offender has been punished for the offence and has otherwise behaved well.
Re-sentencing to only a Good Behaviour Order, without more, would amount to a manifestly inadequate sentence. But when the sentencing history is added in, in particular the completion of a term of imprisonment and the expiry of the original Good Behaviour Order, then the new Good Behaviour Order is placed in its proper perspective.
In essence, I am taking into account (in the same way as time already served) the sentence history in the orders I am making today.
I make the following orders:
(i)The Good Behaviour Order imposed on 13 March 2018 is cancelled.
(ii)The offender is re-sentenced to a Good Behaviour Order commencing today for a period of 15 months during which time he is to accept the supervision of the Director-General or a delegate of the Director-General, for the 15 months or such lesser period as the Director-General considers appropriate.
(iii)A reparation order is made pursuant to s 20 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) in the amount of $1000 payable to Stockfarm Pty Ltd.
(iv)The reparation order is made only to the extent that the reparation order made on 13 March 2018 has not already been discharged.
| I certify that the preceding thirteen [14] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: 3 February 2021 |
0