Legal Research
Cases
R v Wilkins

R v Wilkins

Case [2015] ACTSC 145 5 June 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wilkins
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 145
Hearing Date(s):	3 June 2015
DecisionDate:	5 June 2015
Before:	Refshauge ACJ
Decision:	1. Rhys Wilkins be convicted of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on 9 December 2013. 2. Rhys Wilkins be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 8 March 2015. 3. Rhys Wilkins be convicted of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on 10 October 2014. 4. Rhys Wilkins be sentenced to 16 months imprisonment to commence on 8 May 2015, that is to be cumulative as to 6 months on the first sentence. 5. The sentence be suspended today for a period of 2 years. 6. Rhys Wilkins be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from today with the following conditions: (a) a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for two years or such lesser period as the person supervising him decides is appropriate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him; and (b) a community service condition that he perform 150 hours of community service work within 15 months.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Sentencing – Possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person – Offender has completed rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 27, 33(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 603(7), 604 Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT), Item 44, Pt 1.1, Sch 1 Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), s 164(2)(c) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), Pt 8
Cases Cited:	Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Rubino v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 22 R v DF (No 2) (2012) 257 FLR 31 R v Kilicaslan [2015] ACTSC 39 R v Robertson (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, ACT SCC No 53A and 53B of 2012, 25 October 2013) R v Spencer [2014] ACTSC 364 R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 8 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Wilkins v Hague (2011) 258 FLR 355
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Rhys Wilkins (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown) Mr A Doig (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 224 of 2014 SCC 305 of 2014

REFSHAUGE J:

There can be no doubt that the use of illicit drugs is a severe problem for the community. Users are often, but not invariably, unable to maintain employment. They, therefore, have to resort to offences of dishonesty to obtain funds to buy the drugs…

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 Wilkins

Details

AGLC: R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145
Case: [2015] ACTSC 145
Decision Date: 5 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Rhys Wilkins, was charged with possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on two separate occasions. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Wilkins, taking into account his completion of rehabilitation and the need to deter and rehabilitate him. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Wilkins, considering his completion of rehabilitation and the objectives of sentencing. The court had to balance the need to deter Wilkins and others from engaging in similar criminal activity with the aim of rehabilitating him. The court also had to consider the circumstances of each offence and Wilkins' overall culpability.

The court found that Wilkins had completed rehabilitation, which was a mitigating factor. However, the court also noted that Wilkins had committed two separate offences, which indicated a lack of rehabilitation. The court considered the need to deter Wilkins and others from engaging in similar criminal activity and the need to protect the community. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate, but that it should be suspended for a period of two years to allow Wilkins to continue his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court also imposed conditions on the suspension of the sentence, including probation and community service.

The court ordered that Wilkins be convicted of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on both occasions and be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for the first offence and 16 months imprisonment for the second offence, to be cumulative as to 6 months on the first sentence. The sentence was suspended for a period of two years, and Wilkins was required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from today. The conditions of the undertaking included probation and community service.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Rhys Wilkins be convicted of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on 9 December 2013.

2. Rhys Wilkins be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 8 March 2015.

3. Rhys Wilkins be convicted of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on 10 October 2014.

4. Rhys Wilkins be sentenced to 16 months imprisonment to commence on 8 May 2015, that is to be cumulative as to 6 months on the first sentence.

5. The sentence be suspended today for a period of 2 years.

6. Rhys Wilkins be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from today with the following conditions:

(a) a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for two years or such lesser period as the person supervising him decides is appropriate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him; and

(b) a community service condition that he perform 150 hours of community service work within 15 months.

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 Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145

Most Recent Citation

R v Celeski [2016] ACTSC 140

Cases citing this decision · 10 of 10 shown

R v Po'oi (No 4)
[2022] ACTSC 198

…199 R v Po’oi (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 340 R v Po’oi (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 354 R v Po'oi [2021] ACTSC 151 R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362 R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 Saga v Reid and Collett [2010] ACTSC 59…
R v Bower
[2022] ACTSC 382 Para 1

…s and involved with CAHMA at Belconnen. In May 2021, she was bailed to attend the Arcadia House rehabilitation facility (as to which, see R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 at [40]–[41]), but was discharged when she was found to have a phone and she breached some other rules by bringing her partner onto the premises. He…
R v Cajina
[2021] ACTSC 353 Para 1

…or vehicle without the owner’s consent, making a false statement in a statutory declaration and assault occasioning actual bodily harm: R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 at [8].…
R v Collins (No 2)
[2021] ACTSC 262 Para 1

…been accepted into the Arcadia House Rehabilitation Centre program: as to which program see R v Spencer [2014] ACTSC 364 at [24]-[28] and R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 at [40]-[41].…
R v Horne
[2017] ACTSC 36 Para 1

…within the Program. He was referred to the Arcadia House Program (which I have described in R v Spencer [2014] ACTSC 364 at [25]-[28] and R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 at [40]-[41]).…
R v Eyles (No 3)
[2017] ACTSC 1 Para 1

…In late October 2016, however, he secured a place in the Arcadia House Residential Rehabilitation Program; a Program I have described in R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 at [41]. He entered the Program on 27 October 2016.…
R v Ware
[2016] ACTSC 264 Para 1

…re from the Arcadia House Transition Program day program. The program has been described in R v Spencer [2014] ACTSC 364 at [24]-[28] and R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 at [40]-[41]. He was assessed as suitable for the program and I varied his bail conditions to permit this.…
R v Di Bitonto
[2016] ACTSC 280 Para 1

…Mr Berents, defence counsel for Ms Di Bitonto, referred me to my decision in R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 where Mr Wilkins was found in possession of 6.348 grams of methylamphetamine and charged with trafficking in it and, while on bail for that offence, arrested for a further charge of possession of 0.174 grams of…
R v Wilkins (No 3)
[2016] ACTSC 148 Para 1

…d a community service work condition to the Good Behaviour Order required to be made on the suspension of a sentence of imprisonment. See R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 ( Wilkins (No 2) ).…
R v Celeski
[2016] ACTSC 140 Para 1

…ug rehabilitation facility conducted by Directions, Arcadia House, for admission to its Transition Program, a program I have described in R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 at [40]-[41].…

View all 10 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Rubino v The Queen
[2015] ACTCA 22 Para 1

…lian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, ACT SCC No 53A and 53B of 2012, 25 October 2013). This approach was approved in Rubino v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 22 at [33].…
Bui v The Queen
[2015] ACTCA 5 Para 1

…In Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5, the Court of Appeal identified some principles concerning the sentencing of those convicted of trafficking in illicit drugs. While a different offence, it is a cognate offence and the principles may be generally applicable. The court there held that sentencing courts should at l…
R v Kilicaslan
[2015] ACTSC 39 Para 1

…As I pointed out in R v Kilicaslan [2015] ACTSC 39 at [24]:…
R v Rhys Wilkins
[2015] ACTSC 8 Para 1

…ccount and had been won by him from playing poker machines. In this regard, I note that, in a bail application I heard on 7 January 2015, R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 8, I commended the industry of the lawyers for Mr Wilkins who had obtained material from a local club which I described as follows (at [30]):…
R v Spencer
[2014] ACTSC 364 Para 1

…enter the Arcadia House twelve week residential program. He did so and completed it. I have described that agency and its day program in R v Spencer [2014] ACTSC 364 at [24]-[28].…
R v DF (No 2)
[2012] ACTSC 3 Para 1

…d guilty to the counts on the two indictments dated 19 March 2015. I assume that, in accordance with the practice established following R v DF (No 2) (2012) 257 FLR 31 at 38; [45], a Notice Declining to Proceed will be filed in respect of the indictment dated 4 November 2014.…
Wilkins v Hague and Brian
[2011] ACTSC 189 Para 1

…ccasion to deal with Mr Wilkins in an appeal I heard in 2011 when he was sentenced for an offence of negligent driving causing death: Wilkins v Hague (2011) 258 FLR 355. Those reasons were handed up to me in these proceedings and it is appropriate to set out the findings I then made as to his subjective circumstances…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 1

…ssessed by reference to the yardstick of the maximum statutory penalty which the High Court has required, in authorities such as Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at 133; [31], sentencing courts to use. They are not, however, by that yardstick, the most serious offences in the criminal calendar and share the sa…
Hogan v Hinch
[2011] HCA 4 Para 1

…r under s 27 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act and the provision of the Solaris Therapeutic Community within the AMC. As French CJ said in Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 at 537; [32], “[r]ehabilitation, if it can be achieved, is likely to be the most durable guarantee of community protection and is clearly in the publ…
Saga v Reid
[2010] ACTSC 59 Para 1

…Nevertheless, drug addiction can be pernicious and difficult to manage. As I pointed out in Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 at [89], drug addiction can take a number of attempts at rehabilitation before it is successful.…
Cameron v the Queen
[2002] HCA 6 Para 1

…agistrates Court nor for which he was committed. He pleaded guilty within less than a month after the charges were preferred. See Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 at 343; [11]-[13].…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
27, 33(1), 7 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT)
164(2)(c) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
90B 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)