R v Snow

Case [2021] ACTSC 342 21 June 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Snow
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 342
Hearing Date:	11 June 2021
DecisionDate:	21 June 2021
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Decision:	1. Daniel Ian Snow be convicted of burglary and be sentenced to 17 months imprisonment, commencing from 19 March 2021 and expiring on 18 August 2022. 2. Daniel Ian Snow be convicted of damaging property and be sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, commencing from 19 July 2022 and expiring on 18 October 2022. 3. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Daniel Ian Snow for 15 months and 28 days, commencing from 21 June 2021 and expiring on 18 October 2022, in respect of the primary offence of burglary. 4. That Order be extended to the offence of damaging property, the associated offence of the primary offence. 5. The recorded convictions and sentences for the primary offence and the associated offence be hereby incorporated into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in the Custodial Part of the Order. 6. The Custodial Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for the primary and associated offence be hereby suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from 21 June 2021 until 18 October 2022. 7. For the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order: a. The core conditions of the Order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be hereby imposed; b. Daniel Ian Snow travel directly from this Court today to Canberra Recovery Services, Fyshwick, and admit himself to the residential drug rehabilitation program at that facility by 1:00 pm 21 June 2021; c. Daniel Ian Snow be directed to complete the residential drug rehabilitation program at Canberra Recovery Services, to not leave the facility until he has completed the program and to comply with all the directions of the person in charge of the program and all the rules of the program and the facility; d. Should Daniel Ian Snow leave or be discharged from the program before completing it, he report to ACT Corrective Services by 4 pm on the next business day with a view to having his Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order reviewed; e. Daniel Ian Snow undertake any program, treatment or counselling, urinalysis or case management that may be required by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that Team about where he resides, with whom he associates and his attendance from time to time; and f. Daniel Ian Snow comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means. 8. Daniel Ian Snow be directed to appear by electronic means in Court on 2 July 2021 at 12:30 pm. 9. Daniel Ian Snow be directed to attend the Court Registry before he leaves the Court precincts to sign a…

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 Snow

Details

AGLC: R v Snow [2021] ACTSC 342
Case: [2021] ACTSC 342
Decision Date: 21 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Snow involved the defendant, Daniel Ian Snow, who was convicted of burglary and damaging property. The court was required to determine his sentence and whether to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentences for the offences of burglary and damaging property and whether a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order should be imposed under section 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the circumstances of the offences, and the defendant's history and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court determined that Daniel Ian Snow should be sentenced to 17 months imprisonment for the offence of burglary and 3 months imprisonment for the offence of damaging property. The sentences were to run concurrently, with the burglary sentence starting on 19 March 2021 and the damaging property sentence to commence on 19 July 2022. The court imposed a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for 15 months and 28 days, to run concurrently with the imprisonment sentence, with the custodial part of the Order suspended until 18 October 2022. The court further ordered that the defendant must attend a residential drug rehabilitation program at Canberra Recovery Services and comply with various conditions and directions regarding his treatment, supervision, and obligations under the Order.

The court made several additional orders, including that Daniel Ian Snow must report to ACT Corrective Services if he leaves the rehabilitation program before completion and comply with directions regarding his residence, associations, and attendance at Court. The court also directed the defendant to appear by electronic means in Court on 2 July 2021 and to sign a sealed copy of the Order and an undertaking to comply with it before leaving the Court precincts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Daniel Ian Snow be convicted of burglary and be sentenced to 17 months imprisonment, commencing from 19 March 2021 and expiring on 18 August 2022.

2. Daniel Ian Snow be convicted of damaging property and be sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, commencing from 19 July 2022 and expiring on 18 October 2022.

3. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Daniel Ian Snow for 15 months and 28 days, commencing from 21 June 2021 and expiring on 18 October 2022, in respect of the primary offence of burglary.

4. That Order be extended to the offence of damaging property, the associated offence of the primary offence.

5. The recorded convictions and sentences for the primary offence and the associated offence be hereby incorporated into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in the Custodial Part of the Order.

6. The Custodial Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for the primary and associated offence be hereby suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from 21 June 2021 until 18 October 2022.

7. For the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order:

a. The core conditions of the Order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be hereby imposed;

b. Daniel Ian Snow travel directly from this Court today to Canberra Recovery Services, Fyshwick, and admit himself to the residential drug rehabilitation program at that facility by 1:00 pm 21 June 2021;

c. Daniel Ian Snow be directed to complete the residential drug rehabilitation program at Canberra Recovery Services, to not leave the facility until he has completed the program and to comply with all the directions of the person in charge of the program and all the rules of the program and the facility;

d. Should Daniel Ian Snow leave or be discharged from the program before completing it, he report to ACT Corrective Services by 4 pm on the next business day with a view to having his Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order reviewed;

e. Daniel Ian Snow undertake any program, treatment or counselling, urinalysis or case management that may be required by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that Team about where he resides, with whom he associates and his attendance from time to time; and

f. Daniel Ian Snow comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means.

8. Daniel Ian Snow be directed to appear by electronic means in Court on 2 July 2021 at 12:30 pm.

9. Daniel Ian Snow be directed to attend the Court Registry before he leaves the Court precincts to sign a sealed copy of this Order and an undertaking to comply with the Order and any obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for the period that this Order is in force.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Snow [2021] ACTSC 342

Most Recent Citation

R v Blundell [2022] ACTSC 379

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Powell
[2025] ACTSC 282

…athews [2020] ACTSC 364 R v Minnis [2014] ACTSC 268 R v Saipani (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 228 R v Slattery (No 3); DPP v Slattery [2025] ACTSC 125 R v Snow [2021] ACTSC 342 Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13 Tracey v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 51…
R v Blundell
[2022] ACTSC 379 Para 5

…has, however, taken a generally liberal view towards the question of accommodation. See, for example, R v Coleman [2021] ACTSC 349 at [119]; R v Snow [2021] ACTSC 342 at [52], [85]–[88]; R v Bonfield [2021] ACTSC 362 at [125], [185]). Nevertheless, stable and safe accommodation can be essential to success under a T…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 26 of 26 shown

R v Coleman
[2021] ACTSC 349 Para 1

…As noted in R v Coleman [2021] ACTSC 349 at [79]–[80], the statistics can be further refined. It was said:…
Hijazi v Commissioner of Police (NSW)
[2021] NSWSC 515 Para 1

…Secondly, under s 83(11) of the SEP Act , the order can be suspended for a specified period: Hijazi v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2021] NSWSC 515. If so, the person must be remanded or granted bail for the period of suspension.…
R v Hancock
[2021] ACTSC 52 Para 1

…ourts have, on many occasions, considered the factors that can aggravate an individual's offence as actually committed: see, for example, R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52 at [33] and R v Elphick [2021] ACTSC 9 at [113].…
R v Elphick
[2021] ACTSC 9 Para 1

…d the factors that can aggravate an individual's offence as actually committed: see, for example, R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52 at [33] and R v Elphick [2021] ACTSC 9 at [113].…
R v Mathews
[2020] ACTSC 364 Para 1

…he first is through statistics. This is permissible, but has some quite significant limitations. These limitations have been discussed in R v Mathews [2020] ACTSC 364 at [45] and the Court accepts what was there said. For completeness, it is noted what Murrell CJ relevantly said in R v Elphick at [154]:…
R v Bessant
[2020] ACTSC 365 Para 1

…) [2020] ACTSC 373 at [86]). It is noted that a degree of prevalence of the offence of burglary and aggravated burglary, as suggested in R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 at [43], require an element of general deterrence.…
R v Blackburn (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 373 Para 1

…iculties in relying on prevalence as a factor without evidence but, it is accepted that a court can rely on its own knowledge ( R v Blackburn (No 1 ) [2020] ACTSC 373 at [86]). It is noted that a degree of prevalence of the offence of burglary and aggravated burglary, as suggested in R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 at…
R v Crawford (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 245 Para 1

…herefore, Mr Snow has served some part of it already and only the balance can be suspended from today. For the reasons set out in R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 at [91]–[111] this does not prevent the making of a Treatment Order and one will be made.…
R v Pelecky
[2020] ACTSC 246 Para 1

…s inconsistent with the person complying with a subpoena served on the person under this Act”. The same conclusion was reached in R v Pelecky [2020] ACTSC 246 at [27].…
R v Lockwood
[2018] ACTSC 288 Para 1

…o similar effect, though with a somewhat wider range (12 months to two years and six months) was the comment of Loukas-Karlsson J in R v Lockwood [2018] ACTSC 288 at [51] after her Honour had considered a number of Court of Appeal decisions.…
DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)
[2018] HCA 41 Para 1

…n inform the sentencing task. They cannot be used to fix boundaries: see Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at 454; [83].…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)
[2017] HCA 41 Para 1

…cases, which can inform the sentencing task. They cannot be used to fix boundaries: see Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at 454; [83].…
Abbott v Commissioner of Police
[2016] QSC 95

…Abbott v The Commissioner of Police [2016] QSC 95; Qd R 592 Berichon v Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Police [2007] VSC 143; 16 VR 233 Coggan v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 49 Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Hijazi v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2021] NSWS…
R v Hawkins
[2015] ACTSC 333 Para 1

…nce, where the occupant is indemnified, inconvenience in making claims, but also the effect on premiums for the occupant and more widely: R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 at [48]–[50].…
Killick v The Commissioner of Police New South Wales
[2014] NSWSC 781 Para 1

…rehearing and the Supreme Court has identical powers and duties as the magistrate: sees 86(7) of the SEP Act and Killick v The Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWSC 781 at [14].…
Coggan v The Queen
[2013] ACTCA 49 Para 1

…Mr Snow entered pleas of guilty at an early stage. This is significant. As the Court of Appeal noted in Coggan v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 49 at [20], the utilitarian value is important and valuable even with a strong Crown case. While s 35(4) of the Sentencing Act places limits on the extent of a discount in sentenc…
Fusimalohi v The Queen
[2012] ACTCA 49 Para 15

…79. As to the burglary, it is well known, as stated in Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 at [15], that, “there is no single correct sentence for offences of burglary and aggravated burglary”. That, of course, applies to all offences, as the High Court has made clear on a number of occasions. 80. Nevertheless,…
Love v The Queen
[2012] ACTCA 8 Para 1

…The Crown referred to a number of sentences. Perhaps relevant is the decision of Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 at [13] where Penfold J, with whom Burns and North JJ agreed, said “sentences of around 18 months could be said to be within range for the ordinary course of domestic burglaries”. To similar effect, th…
Berichon v Chief Commissioner, Victoria Police
[2007] VSC 143 Para 1

…that a Supreme Court, on review, also possesses. The Supreme Court possesses no greater powers: Berichon v Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Police [2007] VSC 143; 16 VR 233 at 238; [17].…
Loveridge v Commissioner of Police for South Australia
[2004] SASC 195 Para 1

…In the first place, despite some initial suggestion (in Loveridge v The Commissioner of Police for South Australia [2004] SASC 195; 89 SASR 72), it seems now accepted that there is no option for a magistrate to decline to make an extradition order on the grounds of an abuse of process: Abbott v The Commissioner of…
Wong v The Queen
[2001] HCA 64 Para 1

…instinctive synthesis by the sentencer of “many conflicting and contradictory elements which bear upon sentencing an offender”: Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584 at 611; [75]. Those elements are, in this jurisdiction, helpfully set out in s 33(1) of the Sentencing Act . The facts are, of course, impor…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111 Para 1

…ng man. It was precipitated by the death of his best friend and these circumstances do justify some reduction in his moral culpability: see R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at 397–8; [273]. Mr Snow was also on conditional liberty at the time of this offending. This renders the sentence required to be more s…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 1

…ipitated by the death of his best friend and these circumstances do justify some reduction in his moral culpability: see R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at 397–8; [273]. Mr Snow was also on conditional liberty at the time of this offending. This renders the sentence required to be more serious, as exp…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70 Para 1

…igh Court has indicated that the problem that this causes can be ameliorated, to some extent, through the principal of totality: see Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59. This means that the crimes in different states or territories still have to be dealt with consecutively, but that totality may reduce any unfairness…
[2010] ACTSC 264
[2010] ACTSC 264 Para 1

…The circumstances of the commission are also relevant: see R v Ware [2010] ACTSC 264 at [60].…
Abbott v The Commissioner of Police
[2016] QSC 095 Para 1

…here is no option for a magistrate to decline to make an extradition order on the grounds of an abuse of process: Abbott v The Commissioner of Police [2016] QSC 095; [2017] 1 Qd R 592 at 598–600; [24]–[38] and the cases there cited.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
10, 12, 12A, 33, 34, 35, 46J, 6, 63, 7,... 16 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
116 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention
Service and Execution of Process Act 1901 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)