The Queen v PM (No 2)

Case [2015] ACTSC 358

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:  DPP v Gardner (No 5)
Citation:  [2025] ACTSC 41
Hearing Date:  18 February 2025
Decision Date:  18 February 2025
Before:  Taylor J
Decision:  See [51].
Catchwords:  CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – breach of good
behaviour orders attached to suspended sentence orders ––
offender on pathway to rehabilitation – breach offences of low
objective seriousness – family considerations – offender is full-
time carer for young daughter – illicit substance use – good
behaviour orders cancelled – offender resentenced to
suspended terms of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:  Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 107(2),
110
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Cooke [2007] NSWCA
Cases Cited: 
2; 168 A Crim R 379
Guy v Anderson [2013] ACTSC 5
R v BC [2020] ACTSC 308
R v Gardner (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 229
R v Gardner (No 4) [2023] ACTSC 275
R v Gardner [2020] ACTSC 278
R v Gardner [2022] ACTSC 36
R v Kelly (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 253
Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
Tanner v Brown [2011] TASSC 59
The Queen v PM (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 358
Parties:  Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Jaiden Dale Gardner (Offender)
Representation:  Counsel
E Bayliss (DPP)
S Lynch (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)
File Numbers:  SCC 77 of 2020
SCC 153 of 2021
TAYLOR J: 

REVISED EX TEMPORE REASONS

Introduction

1․ On 18 December 2024, the offender, Jaiden Dale Gardner was sentenced in the ACT
Magistrates Court for two offences committed on 17 January 2024, namely possessing
a drug of dependence and attempting to take a motor vehicle without consent. Those
sentences were imposed after the offender appeared before the Galambany Circle
Sentencing Court.
2․ For the drug offence, the offender was fined. For the attempted theft of a motor vehicle,
a fully suspended period of imprisonment was imposed upon the offender entering an
undertaking to be of good behaviour for 12 months.
3․ Both offences place the offender in breach of two sentencing orders from this Court. In
addition to sentencing the offender, the Magistrate committed the offender to this Court
for the breaches to be dealt with.
4․ It is useful to set out some of the history to clarify what is necessary for these proceedings
to resolve.
5․ On 12 October 2020 in R v Gardner [2020] ACTSC 278 (‘Gardiner (No 1)’), Elkaim J
sentenced the offender for the offence of occasioning grievous bodily harm
(SCCAN126/2020) committed on 7 February 2020. On that occasion, Elkaim J
sentenced the offender to 12 months of imprisonment to commence on 12 July 2020 and
end on 11 July 2021. The sentence of imprisonment was suspended immediately on
condition that the offender enter a GBO for a period of 12 months from 12 October 2020
and accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services.
6․ On 4 September 2021, the offender committed the offence of possessing a prohibited
weapon,…

Continue reading The Queen v PM (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
The Queen v PM (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 358
Case
[2015] ACTSC 358
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, PM, who had previously been sentenced to a suspended sentence with good behaviour orders. PM had breached these orders, leading to the current proceedings. The nature of the dispute centred around whether PM should be punished for these breaches, given the context of their rehabilitation and personal circumstances. The court had to consider whether the breaches were of low objective seriousness, the impact of family considerations, and PM's role as a full-time carer for their young daughter. Additionally, the court needed to weigh PM's illicit substance use against their pathway to rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of good behaviour orders, the objective seriousness of the breaches, and the role of personal and family circumstances in sentencing. The court had to determine whether the breaches warranted a custodial sentence or if an alternative approach would be more appropriate, considering PM's role in the family and their ongoing rehabilitation efforts. The court also needed to consider the relevance of PM's illicit substance use and its impact on their rehabilitation journey.

The court concluded that the breaches, while serious, were of low objective seriousness given the context. The family considerations, particularly PM's role as a full-time carer for their young daughter, played a significant part in the court's decision. The court recognised the importance of PM's rehabilitation and the potential impact of a custodial sentence on their family. The illicit substance use was noted, but the court focused on PM's efforts towards rehabilitation. Consequently, the court decided to cancel the good behaviour orders and resentence PM to a community-based order, aiming to support their ongoing rehabilitation without disrupting their family responsibilities.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [51].

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.