SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Walters |
Citation: | [2014] ACTSC 225 |
Hearing Date: | 26 August 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 26 August 2014 |
Before: | Penfold J |
Decision: | See [16] to [18] and [21] below |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – offender to be sentenced for unlawful confinement, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawfully using an offensive weapon likely to cause grievous bodily harm – sentence deferred in August 2013 to allow offender to pursue drug rehabilitation – offender successfully completed residential rehabilitation – continues to accept support from Canberra Recovery Service – has accommodation and full-time work – offender sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment, backdated by 20 months for pre-sentence custody and time in residential rehabilitation and the remainder suspended subject to three-year good behaviour order and community service obligation. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Brian Gregory Walters (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Mr A Hopkins (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 201 of 2012; SCC 62 of 2013 |
When Brian Walters came before me in August 2013 for sentence on pleas of guilty, I recorded convictions on charges of:
(a)unlawful confinement;
(b)assault occasioning actual bodily harm and intentionally; and
(c)unlawfully using an offensive weapon likely to cause grievous bodily harm.
Those offences carry maximum penalties respectively of 10, five and five years imprisonment.
I also noted scheduled offences of serious driving and driving unlicensed that were to be taken into account in sentencing for the use offensive weapon offence.
The details of those offences were set out in my original sentencing remarks, an extract from which will be attached to the published version of these remarks. I see no need to repeat that material here, except to say that the offences were committed during two separate and unrelated sequences of events in April 2012 and July 2012; on the first occasion, Mr Walters was affected by alcohol and cannabis, and during the second series of events, by alcohol and illicit substances including Ice.
Mr Walters had had a difficult childhood in many respects, including sexual abuse between the ages of 10 and 12 by a neighbour, who also introduced him to alcohol and drugs. He had turned to serious substance abuse around the age of 16. He had lived with his mother, who was a sole parent, but over time his behaviour had deteriorated to the point that she had obtained a protection order against him.
By the time Mr Walters came before me for sentence, he had spent just over eight months in custody and had been bailed to a drug rehabilitation program run by the Canberra Recovery Service (CRS), specifically by the Salvation Army. He was making good progress in residential rehabilitation, and I decided to defer his sentence to give him time to address the factors…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Walters and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] ACTSC 225
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court noted the offender's successful completion of a residential rehabilitation program and his continued acceptance of support from the Canberra Recovery Service. It was acknowledged that he had secured accommodation and full-time employment, demonstrating his commitment to a law-abiding life. These factors were considered in light of the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community. The court weighed these mitigating circumstances against the gravity of the crimes committed. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of four years and six months imprisonment was appropriate, with 20 months backdated for pre-sentence custody and time spent in residential rehabilitation, and the remainder suspended subject to a three-year good behaviour order and a community service obligation.
In its judgment, the court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the positive steps taken by the offender to address his issues. The sentence imposed reflected both the need for punishment and the opportunity for the offender to reintegrate into society as a law-abiding citizen. The court's decision also highlighted the importance of considering the offender's circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation when determining an appropriate sentence. The orders made by the court included the backdating of the sentence and the imposition of conditions for the suspended sentence, aiming to balance the requirements of justice with the offender's prospects for rehabilitation and reintegration.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [16] to [18] and [21] 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.