R v TI - [2017] ACTSC 129

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v TI
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 129
Hearing Dates:	19 April, 8 May 2017
DecisionDate:	8 May 2017
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [38] to [46] below.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breaches of good behaviour order by non-compliance with supervision requirements constituted by minimal engagement with rehabilitation programs and unauthorised departure from ACT – subsequent commission of family violence offences – “sudden-death” approach of Corrective Services to breaches of good behaviour orders.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110(2)
Cases Cited:	R v TI [No. 3] [2015] ACTSC 405
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) TI (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Crown) Ms L Taylor (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 246 of 2014; SCC 247 of 2014; SCC 248 of 2014; SCC 221 of 2015; SCC 240 of 2015; SCC 241 of 2015

Earlier sentencing

On 6 December 2015, I sentenced TI for a total of 31 offences, almost all committed by him as a juvenile (R v TI [No. 3] [2015] ACTSC 405). The sentence included terms of imprisonment, the bulk of which was to be suspended in May 2016 in conjunction with TI entering into good behaviour undertakings in relation to the outstanding sentences.

In September 2016, information was provided alleging that TI was in breach of his good behaviour undertakings in several respects arising from his failure to accept supervision and failure to obey the directions of his supervisor. Eventually I issued a warrant for TI's arrest, in circumstances about which I shall have more to say shortly.

Two and a half months after the warrant was issued, TI was arrested for further offences committed in December 2016. He has been dealt with in the Magistrates Court, specifically through the Galambany Circle Sentencing process, and is now before me to be dealt with for breach of my earlier orders.

The sentences I imposed in December 2015 can for present purposes be divided into three categories:

(a)for 13 of the earlier offences, I simply recorded convictions and imposed 12‑month good behaviour orders, all of which were breached as already mentioned;
(b)the next category of offences is those for which prison terms were imposed, and served, before TI was released from custody in May 2016. There is no further action required in relation to those matters;
(c)finally, there is the category of offences for which prison terms were imposed, being terms which were either partly or fully suspended when TI was released in May 2016 (there are 12 of those offences).

The offences for which the sentences consisted of the recording of convictions and the making of 12-month good behaviour orders were committed during seven separate incidents between September 2012 and February 2013, and consisted of four domestic burglaries, two associated thefts, four offences of taking or riding in stolen motor vehicles, and three…

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 TI

Details

AGLC: R v TI [2017] ACTSC 129
Case: [2017] ACTSC 129
Decision Date: 8 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v TI, the defendant faced charges relating to breaches of a good behaviour order, specifically for minimal engagement with rehabilitation programs and unauthorised departure from the Australian Capital Territory. The case was heard in the relevant court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence in light of these breaches and subsequent family violence offences. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the "sudden-death" approach of Corrective Services to breaches of good behaviour orders, as well as the applicability of this approach in the context of the defendant's non-compliance with rehabilitation programs and unauthorised departure from the ACT.

The court considered the principles guiding the imposition of sentences in cases involving breaches of good behaviour orders. It examined the nature and severity of the breaches, the defendant's engagement with rehabilitation efforts, and the impact of the breaches on the community. The court also weighed the "sudden-death" approach, which typically involves a stringent response to any breach of a good behaviour order. The court's reasoning involved a careful assessment of the circumstances surrounding the breaches, the defendant's conduct, and the potential deterrent effect of a severe penalty. Ultimately, the court concluded that the breaches, coupled with the commission of family violence offences, warranted a substantial sentence.

In light of the court's findings, the final orders were made, imposing a custodial sentence on the defendant. The sentence reflected the gravity of the breaches and the need for a robust response to deter future non-compliance. The court emphasised the importance of adherence to good behaviour orders and the serious consequences of failing to comply with the terms set forth by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [38] to [46] below.

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.