R v Wsol - [2014] ACTSC 320

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wsol
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 320
Hearing Dates:	4 September 2014, 10 November 2014
DecisionDate:	14 November 2014
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [17] – [18]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Breach of Good Behaviour Order – failure to comply with bail conditions – failure to comply with community service order – further offences committed – sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Kimberly Wsol (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr Mansfield (Crown) Mr Sharman (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Lynch (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 181 of 2011

Burns J:

Background

Kimberley Wsol, on 1 June 2012 I sentenced you for an offence of aggravated robbery to imprisonment for two years and four months, backdated to 21 April 2012 but suspended from 1 June 2012 with a Good Behaviour Order for a period of two years from that date with the following conditions:

(a)First, that you were to accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and obey all reasonable directions of the Director-General or that person’s delegate;
(b)secondly, that you were to reside as directed by the Director-General;
(c)thirdly, that you were to undertake such counselling, courses, programs or treatment as directed by your supervising officer especially in relation to substance abuse; and
(d)finally, that you were to complete a period of 400 hours of community service within a period of two years.

On the same date, I sentenced you for an offence of burglary to 12 months’ imprisonment commencing on 1 June 2012, which sentence was suspended upon you being subject to a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months.

On 24 July 2013 I dealt with you for a breach of the community service condition of the Good Behaviour Order imposed as part of the sentence for the offence of aggravated robbery. I cancelled the Good Behaviour Order which I had imposed on 1 June 2012 and resentenced you to a period of two years and four months’ imprisonment, being the same sentence that I had earlier imposed backdated to the 21 April 2012 and, again, suspended that sentence from 24 July 2013. I imposed a further Good Behaviour Order for a period of two years in the same terms as that which I had imposed on the 1 June 2012.

A community service condition required you to complete 243 hours of community service within that period of two years. The decreased number of hours of community service was imposed to reflect community service you completed before the cancellation of the order that I had made on 1 June 2012.

The very next day, 25 July 2013, you committed an offence of minor theft. On 12 June this year, you were convicted of that offence in the ACT Magistrates Court and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment fully suspended with a 12-month Good Behaviour Order and 24 hours of community service. As required by the…

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 Wsol

Details

AGLC: R v Wsol [2014] ACTSC 320
Case: [2014] ACTSC 320
Decision Date: 14 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wsol before the Supreme Court of Victoria involves the defendant, Wsol, who was convicted of multiple criminal offences, including breaching a Good Behaviour Order and failing to comply with bail conditions. Wsol had been subject to a Good Behaviour Order, which mandated compliance with certain conditions as part of his bail terms. Additionally, he was required to undertake a community service order. However, Wsol failed to adhere to these conditions, resulting in further criminal activity. The Crown sought to address the breaches and the additional offences, leading to this sentencing hearing.

The legal issues before the court involved whether Wsol's breaches of the Good Behaviour Order and community service obligations, coupled with the commission of further offences, warranted a custodial sentence. The court had to consider the severity of the breaches, the culpability of Wsol, and the necessity of a punitive response to deter future non-compliance and criminal activity.

In delivering the judgment, the court highlighted the gravity of Wsol's breaches and the clear disregard for the legal conditions imposed upon him. The court underscored that Wsol's actions not only violated the terms of his release but also demonstrated a propensity for criminal behaviour. The combination of the breaches and the new offences was seen as a significant escalation that necessitated a custodial sentence. The court found that Wsol's actions warranted a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the breaches and the need to protect the community from further criminal activity.

The orders made by the court mandated that Wsol be sentenced to a period of imprisonment, reflecting the court's determination to enforce the conditions set out in the Good Behaviour Order and to deter any future non-compliance. The sentence was also intended to address the additional criminal offences committed by Wsol.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [17] – [18]

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.