Legal Research
Cases
R v Winters

R v Winters

Case [2022] ACTSC 42 10 March 2022

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Jurisdiction

Legitimate Expectation

General Deterrence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Winters
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 42
Hearing Dates:	10 March 2022
DecisionDate:	10 March 2022
Before:	Berman AJ
Decision:	See [40]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – offence committed while in custody – significant subjective circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 31, 64, 72 Criminal Code2002 (ACT), ss 403, 404 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 118
Cases Cited	Biddle v Gatherer [2021] ACTSC 236; 17 FLR 328 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Horan v O’Brien [2021] ACTSC 323 NC v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 31 R v Beroukas [2021] ACTSC 172 R v Booth [2004] ACTCA 21 R v Denniss [2019] ACTSC 283 R v Forrest (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 259 R v Gordon [2021] ACTSC 283 R v Rappel [2019] ACTCA 11 R v Winters [2019] ACTSC 245
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Dylan Winters (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Bargwanna (Crown) S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 272 of 2021

Berman AJ:

The offender in this matter, Dylan Winters, is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him in 2019 for offences of aggravated robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm: see R v Winters [2019] ACTSC 245. That sentence expires on 31 March 2022 so ordinarily he would be released in three weeks’ time. Unfortunately however, whilst serving that sentence Mr Winters committed two further offences.

Facts

Mr Winters was serving his sentence at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC). On 15 October 2020 he was housed in Cell 11 in the management unit within that prison. Mr Winters’ classification had been reviewed and a decision had been made that he would be relocated from the management unit to a general population unit within the prison. A corrections officer told Mr Winters what was going to happen. Mr Winters replied that he would not be safe in a general population and then said that “…I’m going to have to do what I need to do to stay in management”.

Shortly after this conversation Mr Winters was secured in his cell. He asked to speak to the corrections officer, with whom had spoken earlier and when she attended he told her “if you send me down there, I’m going to get a blade and I’m going to slash up”. After the officer left, he got his property box, put toilet rolls inside it, and then placed it against the main door to his cell before setting the box alight using a lighter. About this time, when Mr Winters was told that the middle door to his external yard was to be closed, Mr Winter said “I’m sorry chief, nothing against you but I have to do it, and it is what it is”.

Corrections officers noticed flames in Mr Winters’ cell. He moved into…

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 Winters

Details

AGLC: R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 42
Case: [2022] ACTSC 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dylan Winters, who was serving a sentence for aggravated robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, committed two further offences while in custody at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. On 15 October 2020, he set fire to his cell and damaged prison property with a piece of wood and a broom head. Winters pleaded guilty to one count of arson and one count of damaging property. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for these offences, considering statutory provisions concerning offences committed in lawful custody, the objective and subjective gravity of the offences, general and personal deterrence, and the principle of totality.

The court noted that the objective gravity of the arson offence was high due to the extent of the damage, potential risk to others, and the offender's intention to disrupt the prison's operation. The subjective features of the case, such as Winters' troubled background and mental health issues, were also taken into account. The court highlighted that statutory provisions concerning offences committed in lawful custody required the sentence to be served consecutively and without parole eligibility. However, the court considered the principle of totality, which led to a reduced sentence. The court also discussed the importance of deterrence and the need for supervision upon release from custody, ultimately deciding on a suspended sentence to balance the objectives of punishment and rehabilitation.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 months imprisonment for the arson offence, reduced from 10 months due to the guilty plea, to commence on 1 April 2022. The sentence is suspended from 1 August 2022 upon the offender entering a Good Behaviour Order of 2 years on the core conditions. The court declined to make an order for reparation.

Orders