R v Shiels - [2015] ACTSC 73

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Shiels
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 73
Hearing Date(s):	20 March 2015
DecisionDate:	20 March 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. The conviction entered on 20 November 2013 of the charge of obtaining property by deception on 7 May 2013 be confirmed. 2. Mr Shiels be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 16 December 2014. 3. The conviction entered on 20 September 2013 of the offence of obtaining property by deception on 12 May 2013 be confirmed. 4. Mr Shiels be sentenced to nine months imprisonment, to commence on 16 July 2014, that is to be cumulative as to four months on the earlier sentence. 5. The conviction entered on 20 September 2013 of the offence of attempting to obtain property by deception on 15 May 2013 be confirmed. 6. Mr Shiels be sentenced to six months imprisonment, to commence on 16 December 2014, that is to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the offence of obtaining property by deception on 12 May 2013. 7. That the total term of imprisonment is a period of 18 months imprisonment. 8. That the non-parole period is to commence on 16 December 2014 and end of 15 August 2015. 9. That Mr Shiels be noted as a prisoner at risk.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Deferred sentence order – Failure to comply with bail conditions – Failure to return to court CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Sentencing – Seeking drug rehabilitation – Serious mental health issues – Alleged offences in another jurisdiction – Sentence to be served under conditions of segregation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 27, 78, 118 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 326
Cases Cited:	Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Shiels (Unreported, Australia Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge ACJ, SCC 107 of 2013, 20 September 2013) Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Daniel John Shiels (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr R Davies (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)
File Number(s):	SCC 107 of 2013

Refshauge J:

Brennan J said in Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 at 437:

The necessary and ultimate justification for criminal sanctions is the protection of society from conduct which the law proscribes … Criminal sanctions are purposive, and they are not inflicted judicially except for the purpose of protecting society

French CJ said in Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506, 537, [32]:

Rehabilitation, if it can be achieved, is likely to bethe most durable guarantor of community protection and is clearly in the public interest.

One of the most useful sentencing tools that the…

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 Shiels

Details

AGLC: R v Shiels [2015] ACTSC 73
Case: [2015] ACTSC 73
Decision Date: 20 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Shiels dealt with multiple charges against the defendant, including obtaining property by deception and attempting to obtain property by deception, arising from incidents on 7, 12, and 15 May 2013. The case was heard by the court, which was tasked with confirming the convictions and determining an appropriate sentence, considering Mr Shiels's request for drug rehabilitation and his serious mental health issues. The court also had to take into account an alleged offence in another jurisdiction and the defendant's failure to comply with bail conditions and return to court.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the proper application of the law to the facts of the case, the appropriate sentence for each offence, and the cumulative effect of the sentences. The court also had to consider the defendant's request for drug rehabilitation and his mental health issues in the context of sentencing. Furthermore, the court needed to decide whether the alleged offence in another jurisdiction should influence the sentence and how to appropriately address the defendant's failure to comply with bail conditions.

The court confirmed the convictions and sentenced Mr Shiels to a total of 18 months imprisonment, with the non-parole period commencing on 16 December 2014 and ending on 15 August 2015. The court took into account the defendant's request for drug rehabilitation and his serious mental health issues, but also considered the need for punishment and deterrence. The court noted Mr Shiels as a prisoner at risk and ordered that the sentences for the offences of obtaining property by deception and attempting to obtain property by deception be cumulative. The court also acknowledged the defendant's failure to comply with bail conditions and his failure to return to court.

The court ordered that the conviction entered on 20 November 2013 of the charge of obtaining property by deception on 7 May 2013 be confirmed, with a sentence of 12 months imprisonment to commence on 16 December 2014. The conviction entered on 20 September 2013 of the offence of obtaining property by deception on 12 May 2013 was also confirmed, with a sentence of nine months imprisonment, to commence on 16 July 2014, that is to be cumulative as to four months on the earlier sentence. The conviction entered on 20 September 2013 of the offence of attempting to obtain property by deception on 15 May 2013 was confirmed, with a sentence of six months imprisonment, to commence on 16 December 2014, that is to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the offence of obtaining property by deception on 12 May 2013.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The conviction entered on 20 November 2013 of the charge of obtaining property by deception on 7 May 2013 be confirmed.

2. Mr Shiels be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 16 December 2014.

3. The conviction entered on 20 September 2013 of the offence of obtaining property by deception on 12 May 2013 be confirmed.

4. Mr Shiels be sentenced to nine months imprisonment, to commence on 16 July 2014, that is to be cumulative as to four months on the earlier sentence.

5. The conviction entered on 20 September 2013 of the offence of attempting to obtain property by deception on 15 May 2013 be confirmed.

6. Mr Shiels be sentenced to six months imprisonment, to commence on 16 December 2014, that is to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the offence of obtaining property by deception on 12 May 2013.

7. That the total term of imprisonment is a period of 18 months imprisonment.

8. That the non-parole period is to commence on 16 December 2014 and end of 15 August 2015.

9. That Mr Shiels be noted as a prisoner at risk.

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.