R v Wyatt (No 2) - [2017] ACTSC 151

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wyatt (No 2)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 151
Hearing Date(s):	26 April 2017; 5 May 2017; 25 May 2017; 16 June 2017
DecisionDate:	16 June 2017
ReasonsDate:	26 June 2017
Before:	ROBINSON AJ
Decision:	See [44] below.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – drug possession – fireworks explosion indoors – difficult beginning to life – disquieting fact that ice is available in Alexander Maconochie Centre – impressed by honesty of offender and sincerity in wishing to live a better and productive life – bail granted to undertake residential rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 309 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33(1)(l); 35(1)(w); 36(3) Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	CMB v Attorney General [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Nasser v R [2017] NSWCCA 104 R v Wyatt [2017] ACTSC 87 R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Scott Wyatt (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Thomas (Crown) Ms K Marson (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 42 of 2017; SCC 43 of 2017

ROBINSON AJ

Scott Wyatt, the offender, has pleaded guilty to two counts of causing damage to a building by explosive. He also asks that the Court deal with the summary offence of possess a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine.

The maximum penalty for the offence of cause damage to a building by explosive is 15 years imprisonment.

The maximum penalty for the offence of possess a drug of dependence is two years imprisonment.

In accordance with Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at [30]-[31], I take note of these maximum penalties

Facts

In R v Wyatt [2017] ACTSC 87 I heard an application by the offender that the two current explosion offences be referred for restorative justice. In the course of that application I had cause to consider the facts presented to me. I also further considered some of the subjective matters concerning the offender. In what follows, I will draw upon what I wrote on that occasion and supplement it with additional material tendered on this sentencing application.

On Sunday 13 February 2011, the Meche Nightclub on Northbourne Avenue was open and trading. A number of patrons were in attendance. At about 1.30 am, there was a large explosion which occurred in the men’s toilet cubicles inside those premises. As a report from the crime scene investigator notes, when fireworks are exploded indoors the blast pressure is confined, increasing the effects of that blast pressure on its surroundings until the pressure is expended or vented to the atmosphere. A victim impact statement tendered at the hearing clearly showed this effect.

The nightclub was evacuated. Police and the fire brigade attended to assist distressed patrons and investigate the explosion, as did the Bomb Response Team. There was significant…

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 Wyatt (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Wyatt (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 151
Case: [2017] ACTSC 151
Decision Date: 16 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wyatt (No 2), the respondent, Wyatt, was before the Supreme Court of Victoria on a bail application. Wyatt had been charged with drug possession and faced allegations relating to an indoor fireworks explosion. The respondent's early life was marked by significant challenges, and there was an unsettling concern about the availability of methamphetamine, commonly known as "ice," within the Alexander Maconochie Centre, a place of detention. The central legal issues before the court were whether Wyatt should be granted bail and under what conditions, considering the severity of the charges and the respondent's background.

The court meticulously examined the circumstances of Wyatt's case, taking into account his difficult start in life and the troubling presence of drugs in the detention facility. The respondent's expressed desire to lead a better and more productive life, coupled with his apparent honesty and sincerity, played a crucial role in the court's deliberation. The court recognised the potential for rehabilitation and the importance of providing Wyatt an opportunity to engage in residential rehabilitation as part of his bail conditions. Ultimately, the court was persuaded by the prospect of the respondent participating in a structured rehabilitation program, leading to the decision to grant bail.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ruled in favour of granting Wyatt bail, subject to specific conditions. These included his participation in a residential rehabilitation program, which the court believed would provide Wyatt with the necessary support and structure to address his drug dependency and behavioural issues. The decision was made with the understanding that Wyatt's history and the gravity of the charges warranted careful consideration, but the potential for rehabilitation and the sincerity of his intentions were compelling factors in favour of granting bail.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [44] 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.