SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Taylor (No 2) |
Citation: | |
Hearing Date: | 7 November 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 7 November 2019 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | See [7] – [8] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Re-sentence – breach of Good Behaviour Order – continued abuse of alcohol |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 315 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Steven Taylor (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel S Saikal-Skea (Crown) B Dunne (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 168 of 2016; SCC 169 of 2016 |
BURNS J:
Mr Taylor, you are before me today, 7 November 2019, in regards to a breach of a Good Behaviour Order which I imposed in this Court on 29 August 2017. At that time, you were convicted of an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm
(XO 2017/31094) and you were sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment of which
six months was to be served by way of full time imprisonment with the remaining period of six months suspended with a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months.
That Good Behaviour Order was due to expire on 28 February 2019. Unfortunately, on 21 January 2019, you committed a further offence of going equipped for theft under s 315 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). That offence was dealt with in the
ACT Magistrates Court together with other matters on 28 August 2019. You were effectively, after conviction, placed on a Good Behaviour Order for a period of
six months from 28 August 2019.
The Crown has quite properly accepted the proposition that the offence which was before the ACT Magistrates Court in August 2019 was of a different character to the offence I sentenced you for in August 2017. There is perhaps one connection; it appears that you have continued to abuse alcohol since you were before me in 2017. The facts in relation to the matter that was before me in 2017 reveal that you were, at that time, very significantly abusing alcohol.
The Updated Pre-Sentence Report that I have before me indicates that on a number of occasions when you reported to ACT Corrective Services for the purposes of the preparation of that Report, you were observed to be intoxicated. Indeed your blood alcohol concentration was recorded on 9 September 2019 as 0.263 which is a very high concentration indeed. Subsequently, on 30 September 2019, it was recorded as 0.018, again, a quite high concentration.
[Speaking directly to the offender]
It is clear that you have a continuing problem in relation to the consumption of alcohol. Of course, the consumption of alcohol is not illegal. To put it frankly, you are entitled to drink yourself to death if you want to. What you are not entitled to do is to consume alcohol and then commit criminal offences. In your particular case, the consumption of alcohol appears to be a matter of…
Continue reading R v Taylor (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Taylor (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 377
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 377
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Taylor's breach of the Good Behaviour Order warranted a re-sentencing hearing and what the appropriate punishment should be. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Taylor's breach, as well as the impact of his continued alcohol abuse on his ability to comply with the order. The Crown argued that Taylor's repeated breaches demonstrated a clear disregard for the court's authority and the conditions set for his rehabilitation.
The court found that Taylor's ongoing alcohol abuse significantly contributed to his inability to comply with the Good Behaviour Order. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the breach and the need for a deterrent effect to ensure compliance in the future. After considering the evidence and submissions, the court decided that a re-sentencing hearing was warranted. The court imposed a sentence that included a period of imprisonment to serve as a deterrent and to address Taylor's alcohol abuse issues more effectively. The court also imposed additional conditions aimed at supporting Taylor's rehabilitation and preventing future breaches.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [7] – [8]
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.