Storay v Watkins - [2014] ACTSC 344

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Storay v Watkins
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 344
Hearing Date:	3 December 2014
DecisionDate:	3 December 2014
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	Mr Storay is to sign a new undertaking to comply with the good behaviour order imposed by the Magistrates Court dated 9 May 2014 in the attached form (see [19] below).
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – effect of dismissal of appeal on good behaviour order stayed by appeal – operation of revived good behaviour order – bringing new operation of revived good behaviour order to attention of offender – whether appellants should be required to sign bail undertakings even if not liable to custodial penalty – need to clarify proper way to revive a good behaviour order.
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 5, Dictionary Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5052(1)(e) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 105, 108, Pt 6.5 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 214, 214 (4), 216
Cases Cited:	Storay v Watkins [2014] ACTSC 298
Parties:	Justen Storay (Appellant) Nicole Jane Watkins (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) Ms S Saikal (Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 41 of 2014

Introduction

On 14 October 2014, I dismissed an appeal instituted on behalf of Justen Storay (Storay v Watkins [2014] ACTSC 298) against an order made in the Magistrates Court that he be of good behaviour for 24 months, with conditions requiring that he accept Corrective Services supervision for 12 months and that during that 12 months he complete 120 hours of community service.

On 3 December 2014, I made an order requiring Mr Storay to sign a new good behaviour undertaking covering the unexpired term of the original good behaviour order and of its conditions. These are my reasons for making that order.

Stay of Magistrates Court orders

Mr Storay’s good behaviour undertaking was signed on 9 May 2014. It would therefore have operated for six days before his appeal was instituted on 15 May 2014. The effect of the institution of the appeal was, under s 216 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), to stay the orders made in the Magistrates Court until the appeal was resolved.

The good behaviour order made by the Magistrate had required Mr Storay to sign an undertaking to be of good behaviour for 24 months from 9 May 2014. The significance of the good behaviour order is, among other things, that if Mr Storay were to breach his good behaviour undertaking during its term, he would be liable to be dealt with under s 108 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), and would be at risk of having the good behaviour order cancelled and being re-sentenced for the original offence.

Operation of stay in relation to good behaviour orders

There is a question whether s 216 operates to stay the good behaviour order made…

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 Storay v Watkins

Details

AGLC: Storay v Watkins [2014] ACTSC 344
Case: [2014] ACTSC 344
Decision Date: 3 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the appellants, Storay and Watkins, who were convicted of offences and subsequently subject to a good behaviour order that was stayed during their appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the court was tasked with determining the legal implications of this dismissal on the previously stayed good behaviour order. Additionally, the court had to address whether the appellants should be required to sign bail undertakings despite not being liable to a custodial penalty, and to clarify the proper procedure for reviving a good behaviour order.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal of the appeal necessitated the immediate enforcement of the good behaviour order that had been stayed, and how to properly revive and enforce such an order. The court also considered the procedural requirements for bringing a revived order to the attention of the offenders and whether the appellants, who were not facing a custodial sentence, should be required to sign bail undertakings.

The court determined that upon the dismissal of the appeal, the good behaviour order was revived and operational, necessitating the appellants to comply with it. It was held that the order should be brought to the attention of the offenders in a formal and clear manner. The court found that requiring the appellants to sign bail undertakings was appropriate as it reinforced their obligations under the good behaviour order. The court emphasised the importance of clarity in reviving and enforcing such orders to ensure compliance and avoid confusion.

The court ordered that Mr Storay was to sign a new undertaking to comply with the good behaviour order imposed by the Magistrates Court dated 9 May 2014. The form of the undertaking is detailed in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Mr Storay is to sign a new undertaking to comply with the good behaviour order imposed by the Magistrates Court dated 9 May 2014 in the attached form (see [19] 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.