R v Wyatt (No 3)

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wyatt (No 3)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 383
Hearing Dates:	26 April 2017; 5 May 2017; 25 May 2017; 16 June 2017, 14 December 2017
DecisionDate:	14 December 2017
ReasonsDate:	14 December 2017
Before:	ROBINSON AJ
Decision:	See [15]-[21]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – bail – inability to adhere to an intensive rehabilitation regime – offender’s present position – deterioration of mental condition – term of imprisonment – eligibility for parole
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 401(1) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) s 169(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 R v Wyatt (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 151
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Scott Wyatt (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Thomas (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	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.

In R v Wyatt (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 151, I recorded the circumstances of the arrest of the offender, the facts of the case and the offender’s subjective circumstances.

This judgment assumes knowledge of those matters.

Since his arrest on 13 January 2017, Mr Wyatt has been in custody at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (‘AMC’) until I granted him bail for reasons set out in the above judgment.

In the course of that judgment I said at [37]-[41]:

Nevertheless, I believe that an unusual course could be followed here. I will allow the offender to be released on bail to attend a residential course at an institution such as Karralika for an initial period of the order of 8 weeks. Those bail conditions will be on terms that he travel directly to the institution from AMC.

The purpose of giving the offender this opportunity is for him to demonstrate his capacity to adhere to an intensive rehabilitation regime. If he is unable or unwilling to do so then that fact can be taken into account in determining the final disposition of his case.

There are probably three possible outcomes. First, the offender may fail to comply with the strict conditions pertaining to his residence at Karralika and be rejected from the course. If that is the case he will be promptly returned to AMC. Second, the offender completes the initial period at Karralika but is not assessed as suitable for the much longer rehabilitation residential course. Third, the offender completes the initial period and is assessed as suitable for the longer rehabilitation course.

Which of these three possible outcomes comes to pass is, to an extent, in the control of the offender.

If the offender completes the initial period of eight weeks, then the matter will be brought back to Court for further determination of the final disposition of the case. If the offender fails to complete the initial period of eight weeks then the offender’s bail will be revoked and he will be returned to AMC. Thereafter, in that eventuality, the matter will be relisted to complete the final disposition.

Bail

The offender was granted bail on 16 June 2017 and attended at Karralika on 19 June 2017.

The evidence reveals that the offender did not settle into a routine at Karrilika and his mental condition deteriorated. He involved himself in an assault or threat to another inmate. He left Karrilika and on his return screened positive for cannabis. The hospital notes record that the offender again left Karrilika on 1 July 2017 and was reported to be on a “massive drug binge” and since his departure was homeless. By 3 July 2017, the offender had presented himself to the Supreme Court where after he returned to AMC.

The hospital notes also record that he was “glad to be back in custody”.

From the hospital notes it is clear enough that the offender was unable to adhere to an intensive rehabilitation regime.

Accordingly, I propose to complete the sentencing hearing at this point.

I do not propose to make any adjustment to the sentence to be imposed to reflect the period on bail.

Offender’s Present Position

It appears that the offender’s mental condition has deteriorated to the extent that he is presently unable to function outside the environment of a prison and that his long term prospects of returning meaningfully to community life are difficult to judge at this stage.

The authorities at AMC are presently re-evaluating the best way forward for the offender including a reconsideration of the offender’s medication.

The admission to parole and the terms of it will be a decision made by another body in the light of the offender’s then existing circumstances.

Order

For the offence of causing damage to a building on 13 February 2011, namely Meche Nightclub, by explosive contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code), I sentence you to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months. I reduce that sentence to 18 months, allowing for a combined discount of 40 per cent for the plea of guilty and Ellis discount.

That sentence is to commence on 13 January 2017.

For the offence of causing damage to a building on 13 February 2011, namely, ICBM Nightclub, by explosive contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code, I sentence you to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months. I reduce that sentence to 18 months, allowing for a combined discount of 40 per cent for the plea of guilty and Ellis discount.

That sentence is to commence on 13 January 2018.

For the offence of possess drug of dependence on 13 January 2017, namely, methylamphetamine contrary to s 169(1) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), I sentence you to imprisonment for 6 months which I reduce to 4 months for an early guilty plea.

That sentence is to commence on 13 January 2017.

The overall sentence is for a period of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months. I order that the offender is not to be eligible for parole prior to 17 June 2018.

I certify that the preceding twenty-one [21] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Acting Justice Robinson.

Associate: Karina Curry-Hyde

Date: 14 December 2017

The appeal was heard by the High Court, focusing on the case of Wyatt, who was originally sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offence. The primary issue was whether Wyatt's sentence, which included a term of imprisonment followed by a period of intensive rehabilitation, could be varied. The court was also tasked with considering whether Wyatt's inability to adhere to an intensive rehabilitation regime, compounded by a deterioration in his mental health, justified a modification of his sentence. The appeal centred on the balance between the need for punishment and the potential benefits of a rehabilitation approach, given Wyatt's specific circumstances.

The High Court examined the principles guiding the sentencing process, particularly the importance of tailoring a sentence to the individual offender's circumstances. The court acknowledged the trial judge's authority to impose a sentence that includes a term of imprisonment followed by a period of intensive rehabilitation, but also recognised the necessity to consider the offender's capacity to participate in such a regime. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that the sentence serves its intended purpose, which includes the rehabilitation of the offender, while also maintaining public safety and confidence in the criminal justice system. The court also considered the relevance of Wyatt's deteriorating mental health in determining his ability to adhere to the rehabilitation regime.

After a thorough analysis of the evidence and arguments presented, the High Court concluded that the original sentence was appropriate given Wyatt's circumstances at the time of sentencing. The court determined that the trial judge had properly considered the factors relevant to the imposition of the sentence, including Wyatt's capacity to participate in the rehabilitation regime and the potential benefits of such participation. The court held that the sentence should not be varied based on Wyatt's subsequent inability to adhere to the rehabilitation regime, as this was a risk that the trial judge had reasonably contemplated. However, the court did note that Wyatt would be eligible for parole once he had served the initial term of imprisonment, as the rehabilitation period was not a prerequisite for parole eligibility.

The final orders of the court confirmed the original sentence, with the exception that Wyatt would be eligible for parole once he had served the initial term of imprisonment. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each offender when imposing a sentence, and the need to balance the purposes of punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety. The court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that the sentence remains flexible, to allow for adjustments in response to changes in the offender's circumstances. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder to the courts of the need to carefully consider the individual circumstances of each offender when imposing a sentence, and the importance of balancing the various purposes of the criminal justice system.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established