The Queen v Baldini (No 3)
[2016] ACTSC 15
•1 February 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | The Queen v Baldini (No 3) |
Citation: | [2016] ACTSC 15 |
Hearing Date(s): | 1 February 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 1 February 2016 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. The breach by Peter Baldini of the Good Behaviour Order be noted. 2. No further action be taken. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – breach of Good Behaviour Order – community service work – no further action taken |
Cases Cited: | R v Baldini (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 163 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Peter Baldini (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms A Mifsud (Crown) Mr P Baldini (Self-represented) (Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mr P Baldini (Self-represented) (Defendant) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 127 of 2013 |
REFSHAUGE J:
On 12 November 2013, I convicted Peter Baldini of offences of aggravated burglary committed on 20 July 2012 and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 20 July 2012.
On that day I granted him bail and made a Deferred Sentence Order requiring him to appear before me on 1 May 2014 to be sentenced for those offences.
He duly appeared before me on that day and I set out in my reasons what he had done and the circumstances under which I was to sentence him: R v Baldini (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 163.
I then confirmed the convictions for those two offences and sentenced him to imprisonment for both the offences. I sentenced him to two years imprisonment for the aggravated burglary and to 18 months imprisonment for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm but suspended the sentence on that day because of his behaviour while under the Deferred Sentence Order.
I then made, as required, a Good Behaviour Order for a period of three years with, inter alia, a condition that he perform 300 hours of community service work within two years.
On 3 July 2015, I was satisfied that there was a possibility of a breach of Mr Baldini’s good behaviour obligations, namely that he had failed to perform the 300 hours of community work within the two-year period. I directed that a summons issue for him to attend before me to deal with that breach.
He attended before me on 30 July 2015 and acknowledged the breach. Nevertheless, I further adjourned the matter in order to allow Mr Baldini to complete the community service work and to comply with other directions.
The matter returned before me on 12 November 2015 but was unable to be completed at that time, partly because Mr Baldini had not then completed the community service work, but also because he was not then present.
It was not the date to which the matter had been adjourned. It was brought forward because I had to undergo an operation before the date to which it had originally been adjourned and, therefore, there was no opportunity for me to deal with the matter on the day concerned. The matter was then adjourned to today.
Today I have received a report from ACT Corrective Services confirming that he has now performed 300 hours of unpaid work.
A breach of Good Behaviour Order is a serious matter and, as I have observed in cases such as Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 at [99]-[101], the failure to comply with a Good Behaviour Order has the capacity to undermine that lenient sentencing disposition and therefore encourage the court to take some kind of penalty action in order to express the displeasure of the court at the failure to comply with the conditions that justified an accused offender being released into the community.
It seems to me, however, in these circumstances, and the Crown very properly did not demur, that I should simply note the breach and, as is the capacity I have, take no further action. Accordingly, the matter is now at an end.
| I certify that the preceding twelve [12] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge. Associate: Date:12 February 2016 |
0
2
0