R v Wilkins (No 3) - [2016] ACTSC 148

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wilkins (No 3)
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 148
Hearing Dates:	3 December 2015, 12 February, 6 and 7 June 2016
DecisionDate:	30 June 2016
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. The Good Behaviour Order made on 5 June 2015 is cancelled. 2. The conviction of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on 9 December 2013 is confirmed (XO 15/30184). 3. Rhys Wilkins is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 2 April 2015, to take into account pre-sentence custody. 4. The conviction of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on 10 October 2014 is confirmed (XO 15/30185). 5. Rhys Wilkins is sentenced to 16 months imprisonment to commence on 2 June 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 6 months on the first sentence I have imposed. 6. The sentence is suspended today, 30 June 2016, for a period of 18 months. 7. Rhys Wilkins is 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 18 months from today with a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for 18 months or such lesser period as the person supervising him decides is appropriate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him. 8. Rhys Wilkins is fined $500 to be paid within 6 months. 9. Rhys Wilkins is required to attend at ACT Corrective Services, Eclipse House, London Circuit, Canberra City, by 4:30pm today, 30 June 2016, to make arrangements for supervision.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Breach of Good Behaviour Order – failure to comply with directions – failure to undertake community service work – community service work now completed – no further offending – rehabilitation completed – suspended sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 91(5), 102, 110, 110(4)
Cases Cited:	Guy v Anderson [2013] ACTSC 5 R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 34 R v Kekalainen (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 369 R v Rhys Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 8 R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Rhys Wilkins (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr K Lee (3 December) (Crown) Mr D Sahu-Khan (12 February) (Crown) Ms A Mifsud (6 June) (Crown) Mr T Hickey (7 June) (Crown) Mr M Reardon (30 June) (Crown) Self-represented (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Self-represented (Defendant)
File Numbers:	SCC 224 of 2014 SCC 305 of 2014

REFSHAUGE J:

On 5 June 2015, I convicted Rhys Wilkins of two charges of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on 9 December 2013 and 10 October 2014. I sentenced him to a total of 18 months imprisonment to commence on 8 March 2015 for 2 years, having served approximately 3 months pre-sentence…

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 (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Wilkins (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 148
Case: [2016] ACTSC 148
Decision Date: 30 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rhys Wilkins, faced a court proceeding for breaching a Good Behaviour Order. The dispute involved his failure to comply with certain directions, specifically his failure to undertake community service work as required. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court. The appellant had since completed the community service work and had no further offending or rehabilitation issues. The court needed to decide whether to cancel the existing Good Behaviour Order, confirm previous convictions, and impose a new sentence considering the appellant's compliance with the community service and his rehabilitation.

The central legal issue was whether the court should cancel the existing Good Behaviour Order due to the appellant's failure to comply with certain directions and impose a new sentence considering his recent compliance and rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the appellant's previous convictions for possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply. The court needed to balance the appellant's breach of the Good Behaviour Order with his completion of community service and the absence of further offending. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence, including whether to suspend it, given the appellant's compliance and rehabilitation efforts.

The court found that the appellant's breach of the Good Behaviour Order warranted the cancellation of the existing order. The court confirmed the appellant's previous convictions. Considering the appellant's completion of community service, absence of further offending, and his rehabilitation efforts, the court decided to impose a new sentence. The court suspended the new sentence for 18 months, requiring the appellant to comply with good behaviour obligations and be under supervision. The court also imposed a fine and required the appellant to attend ACT Corrective Services to arrange for supervision. The court's decision recognised the appellant's efforts towards compliance and rehabilitation while addressing the breach of the Good Behaviour Order.

The court's final orders included cancelling the existing Good Behaviour Order, confirming the previous convictions, imposing a new sentence of 18 months suspended for 18 months, requiring the appellant to comply with good behaviour obligations and be under supervision, imposing a fine, and requiring the appellant to attend ACT Corrective Services to arrange for supervision. This decision reflected a balanced approach that considered the appellant's breach of the Good Behaviour Order, his recent compliance, and his rehabilitation efforts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Good Behaviour Order made on 5 June 2015 is cancelled.

2. The conviction of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on 9 December 2013 is confirmed (XO 15/30184).

3. Rhys Wilkins is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 2 April 2015, to take into account pre-sentence custody.

4. The conviction of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale or supply to another person on 10 October 2014 is confirmed (XO 15/30185).

5. Rhys Wilkins is sentenced to 16 months imprisonment to commence on 2 June 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 6 months on the first sentence I have imposed.

6. The sentence is suspended today, 30 June 2016, for a period of 18 months.

7. Rhys Wilkins is 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 18 months from today with a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for 18 months or such lesser period as the person supervising him decides is appropriate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him.

8. Rhys Wilkins is fined $500 to be paid within 6 months.

9. Rhys Wilkins is required to attend at ACT Corrective Services, Eclipse House, London Circuit, Canberra City, by 4:30pm today, 30 June 2016, to make arrangements for supervision.

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.