R v Ross - [2011] ACTSC 211

R v DYLAN ROSS
[2011] ACTSC 211 (21 December 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – judgment and punishment – deferred sentence order – approach of the court on partial completion of rehabilitation.

CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – sentencing proceedings – tender of reports – role of the prosecution.

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 10, 27, 33, 37, 46,116, 118, 126, 127, 128, Ch 8
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 11
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110

R v DR (ACTSC, Refshauge J, SCC 245 of 2010, unreported)

Winch v The Queen [2010] VSCA 141
Ross v Mothersole [2010] ACTSC 125
Seymour (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 85
Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
The Queen v Weaver (1973) 6 SASR 265
Duca v The Police (1999) 73 SASR 15
R v Ashman [2010] ACTSC 45
Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657
R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
R v Huat Phay [2009] ACTSC 130
R v Trindall (2002) 133 A Crim R 119
Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 245 of 2010

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 21 December 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 245 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R

v

DYLAN ROSS

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  21 December 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Dylan Ross be granted bail to appear before the Court for sentence on 3 February 2012 at 9.30 am on the following conditions:

(a) he accept supervision of the Director General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the officer delegated to supervise him;

(b) he reside at 52A Finniss Crescent, Narrabundah ACT 2604;

(c) he abstain from the use of illicit drugs and alcohol;

(d) he submit to breath analysis when requested by any officer of the Australian Federal Police of the officer delegated to supervise him and he submit to urinalysis when requested by the officer delegated to supervise him; and

(e) he report to the officer in charge of Woden police station every Wednesday between the hours of 8.00 am and 8.00 pm.

This matter has raised some important issues of procedure and principle and so I have taken the trouble to consider the issues carefully overnight. The judgment I am now delivering is what is usually termed as an “ex tempore judgment” and has not had the thought that I would have liked to put into all the issues.

The prisoner, Dylan Ross, was committed by the Magistrates Court on 5 July 2010 for sentence on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm that occurred on 14 May 2010. When the matter came on for sentence, after the usual pre-sentence procedures, I convicted Mr Ross on his plea. The offence was a serious one and a proper sentence would be a severe one, moderated by…

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 Ross

Details

AGLC: R v Ross [2011] ACTSC 211
Case: [2011] ACTSC 211
Decision Date: 21 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ross involved Dylan Ross, who was facing sentencing for his criminal activities. The primary dispute centred around the court's approach to imposing a sentence when an offender had only partially completed a rehabilitation program. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether a deferred sentence order could be granted despite the partial completion of the rehabilitation program and understanding the role of the prosecution in tendering reports during sentencing proceedings.

The legal issues before the court included whether the court could impose a sentence in light of the partial completion of the rehabilitation program, and the appropriate weight to be given to the prosecution's reports. The court examined the statutory framework governing deferred sentence orders, focusing on the objectives of rehabilitation and deterrence. It also considered the role of the prosecution in ensuring that relevant evidence was presented to the court during sentencing.

The court held that the partial completion of the rehabilitation program was a significant factor to consider, but it did not necessarily preclude the court from imposing a deferred sentence order. The court found that the rehabilitation program was designed to address the offender's underlying issues and that partial completion did not entirely negate the potential benefits of the program. The court also acknowledged the importance of the prosecution's role in providing comprehensive reports to aid in sentencing decisions. Ultimately, the court granted bail to Dylan Ross, requiring him to appear for sentencing under specified conditions.

The final orders included granting Dylan Ross bail to appear before the Court for sentence on 3 February 2012 at 9.30 am, subject to certain conditions to ensure his attendance and compliance with the court's directives.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dylan Ross be granted bail to appear before the Court for sentence on 3 February 2012 at 9.30 am on the following conditions:

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.