TJ v Steven Mark Proud
[2013] ACTSC 177
•7 August 2013
TJ v STEVEN MARK PROUD
[2013] ACTSC 177 (7 August 2013)
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. SCA 101of 2012
Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 7 August 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCA 101 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
TJ
Appellant
v
STEVEN MARK PROUD
Respondent
ORDER
Judge: Higgins CJ
Date: 8 April 2013
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be upheld.
The sentence imposed by the Magistrate be confirmed save for reducing the period of custody to two months and 25 days and increasing the period of the Good Behaviour Order to two years.
1. The sentence which was imposed by her Honour could not reasonably be regarded as manifestly excessive. However, there are a number of qualifications one should make to that. This was a relatively serious offence of aggravated robbery. The aggravated robbery itself was certainly not the higher end of the scale for such offences, and the appellant’s participation in it was relatively non-violent. But the robbery is aggravated simply by the fact that he was there and participating in it.
2. However, it does appear that her Honour’s focus, and this was quite properly so, was on ensuring the appellant’s rehabilitation. A large part of that was completion of his education, and at that stage her Honour had no way of knowing how he would go at school when he was released.
3. I think in her Honour’s mind, it would certainly be an open question as to whether he could positively handle that situation, particularly in the light of the other circumstances that have been drawn to my attention in the Pre- Sentence Report. But he has, by and large, done very well with education. He also seems to have been maturing, no doubt, a bit forced because of the circumstances but nevertheless, he does seem to be coping with a degree of maturity that he certainly was not displaying at the time when the offences for which he was sentenced took place.
4. I think if her Honour had, and she could not have had of course, but if she had that kind of information before her, I think she would have been minded to allow the educational process to have been commenced and completed in the optimum form, which is actually what happened because of the release on bail. But as I say, otherwise the sentence is certainly not manifestly excessive, but it does seem, in the light of the fresh evidence which has been put before me, with the agreement of both parties I note, that it is appropriate that the sentence should be varied in the manner that Mr Doig submits it ought to be.
5. That is to say that, the sentences be confirmed, save with the period of custody being reduced to two months and 25 days. But I would increase the period of supervision from 18 months to two years. I say that because of the offence which was committed on 21 April, which does seem to have been a lapse in behaviour, and one which ought to be deterred. It seems to me that a period of further supervision would be apt to deal with the possibility of that offending behaviour being repeated.
6.Now that he has, in effect, a longer period of time within which he is required by law to be of good behaviour and be under supervision, it seems to me he would benefit from that, as would the community. So, the appeal is upheld to that extent. The terms and conditions of the good behaviour order remain the same, save for the length of it.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Chief Justice Higgins.
Associate:
Date: 28 August 2013
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Doig
Solicitor for the Applicant: Paul Edmonds Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Sahu Khan
Solicitor for the Respondent: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of Hearing: 7 August 2013
Date of Judgment: 7 August 2013
0
0
0