The Queen v Luke Platten
[2012] ACTSC 86
•22 May 2012
THE QUEEN v LUKE PLATTEN [2012] ACTSC 86 (22 May 2012)
CRIMINAL LAW − JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE − Judgment and Punishment − offender medically unfit for periodic detention − re-sentence on referral from Sentence Administration Board − offender now fit for periodic detention − referral not equivalent to appeal − offender re-sentenced to serve outstanding term of periodic detention.
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 82A
No. SCC 464 of 2009
Judge: Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 22 May 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 464 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
THE QUEEN
v
LUKE PLATTEN
ORDER
Judge: Penfold J
Date: 22 May 2012
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Mr Platten is re-sentenced as follows:
(a) The Court notes the reparation orders made in the original sentencing;
(b) For each of four offences of dishonestly obtaining property by deception and one offence of attempting to obtain property dishonestly by deception, Mr Platten is sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, to be served as follows:
(i) on CC 6890/2009 – from 8 May 2012;
(ii) on CC 6891/2009 – from 8 September 2012;
(iii) on CC 7627/2009 – from 8 November 2012;
(iv) on CC 7628/2009 – from 8 March 2013; and
(v) on CC 7629/2009 – from 8 July 2013 until 7 May 2014.
(c) The total sentence of two years is to be served by periodic detention for 12 months, starting (after backdating) on 25 May 2012 and finishing on 5 May 2013. On 8 May 2013, the remainder of the sentence is to be suspended.
(d) On or before 8 May 2013, Mr Platten is to sign undertakings, in respect of the last four sentences, to comply with his good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act for 12 months from 8 May 2013.
(e) The good behaviour orders are to be subject to the condition that Mr Platten accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and obey all reasonable directions of the Director-General or her delegate.
On 28 June 2011 Luke Platten was sentenced by Nield AJ for four offences of dishonestly obtaining property by deception and one offence of attempting to obtain property dishonestly by deception. The maximum sentences for each of those offences include 10 years imprisonment.
Mr Platten was sentenced to five terms of imprisonment for 10 months each, the second and subsequent sentences being partly accumulated to give a total of two years imprisonment. His Honour ordered that the first 12 months should be served by periodic detention, after which the remainder of the sentence would be suspended subject to 12-month good behaviour orders.
As noted by his Honour in the original sentencing, Mr Platten’s health is not particularly good and, apart from a variety of pre-existing conditions, he was further troubled by an assault he suffered shortly after being sentenced to periodic detention. He attended his first periodic detention weekend but was sent home as medically unfit. Over the next few months he produced various medical certificates of unfitness, and in due course the corrections authorities refused to permit him to attend periodic detention until he produced a certificate of fitness.
Accordingly, the records show one attempt to attend periodic detention, numerous failures to attend supported by medical certificates, and a credit of the weekend in the Christmas/New Year period which is allowed to all prisoners serving periodic detention over that period. Eventually the Sentence Administration Board took the view that Mr Platten was unlikely to be able to serve his sentence by periodic detention, and referred the matter back to the court for action under s 82A of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). Under that section the Court may either cancel the offender’s periodic detention, thus requiring him to serve his sentence in full-time custody, or may re-sentence him.
Mr Platten’s counsel sought a re-sentence of Mr Platten rather than the imposition of full-time imprisonment. She tendered medical information supporting Mr Platten’s claim to have been medically unfit, and a certificate to the effect that Mr Platten was now medically fit to perform periodic detention. I note from the updated Pre-Sentence Report that Mr Platten has been working in his scrap metal business, which appears to be operating successfully. He lives with his partner and several children and is making a significant contribution to family life, and claims to have ceased any dealings with people associated with his criminal behaviour.
Counsel suggested that, in the light of Mr Platten’s variety of medical problems and his currently pro-social behaviour, I should consider suspending the remainder of his periodic detention rather than requiring him to serve any more time in custody. This is not, however, an appeal; it is a remitter of the original sentence because the Sentence Administration Board considered that the sentence would not be able to be served by periodic detention. Clearly, in the circumstances, it would be unfair to send Mr Platten to full-time custody because of past ill-health, but I cannot see that Mr Platten’s difficulties in serving his periodic detention for reasons which, according to his medical certificate, no longer present any obstacle, should excuse him from serving his sentence as originally envisaged by Nield AJ.
Mr Platten, please stand.
First, I note that in the original sentencing Nield AJ made reparation orders in favour of two of the victims of your offences. I am told that those two orders have been complied with, so I merely note that they remain part of your sentence, but there is no suggestion that any further reparation is to be paid.
Next I re-sentence you, on each of the five charges, to 10 months imprisonment, the first sentence, being on CC 6891/2009, to be backdated to 8 May this year to take account of credit given for two periods of periodic detention; the second sentence to run from 8 September this year; the third from 8 November this year; the fourth from 8 March next year; and the fifth sentence to run from 8 July next year until 7 May 2014, giving a total sentence of two years.
The first twelve months of the total sentence are to be served by periodic detention, and taking account of the backdating, your first date for periodic detention will be this Friday, 25 May 2012, and the last period of periodic detention will end on Sunday 5 May 2013. With effect from 8 May 2013, the remaining 12 months of the sentence will be suspended, and I order that before that point you sign undertakings in respect of the last four sentences (because the first sentence will already have been served by then), to comply with your good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act for 12 months from 8 May 2013.
The good behaviour orders are subject to the condition that you accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and obey all reasonable directions of the Director-General or her delegate who will be, specifically, your supervising officer.
You need to understand, Mr Platten, that if you do not comply with your good behaviour obligations and, in particular, if you commit another offence before the end of that second 12 months, you could find yourself back in this Court to be re-sentenced yet again for these offences. You may sit down.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of her Honour, Justice Penfold.
Associate:
Date: 5 June 2012
Counsel for the appellant: Ms J Agius
Solicitor for the appellant: Darryl Perkins Solicitor
Counsel for the respondent: Mr T Jackson
Solicitor for the respondent: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of hearing: 22 May 2012
Date of judgment: 22 May 2012
0
0
1