WH v Hannan [No. 2]
[2014] ACTSC 359
•13 November 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | WH v Hannan & Anor [No. 2] |
Citation: | [2014] ACTSC 359 |
Hearing Dates: | 13 November 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 13 November 2014 |
Before: | Penfold J |
Decision: | See [5] to [8] and [13] below. |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – offender re-setnenced after successful appeal – terms of imprisonment imposed as in Magistrates Court but suspended with immediate effect – good behaviour order subject to conditions aimed at supporting drug rehabilitation – offender accepted as not having driven since second “drug driving” offence roughly 14 months before re-sentence – licence disqualifications imposed for minimum period and to run concurrently. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), s 20(1) |
Cases Cited: | WH v Hannan & Anor [2014] ACTSC 356 |
Parties: | WH (Appellant/Offender) Timothy Hannan (First Respondent/Informant) Travis Mills (Second Respondent/Informant) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr S Whybrow (Appellant/Offender) Mr M Reardon (Respondents/Informants) |
| Solicitors Ben Aulich & Associates (Appellant/Offender) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondents/Informants) | |
Publication Restriction: | Name and identifying details of offender |
File Number: | SCA 43 of 2014 |
For reasons explained in my judgment in WH v Hannan & Anor [2014] ACTSC 356, [WH] is to be re-sentenced for two offences of “drug driving” and for one offence each of burglary and theft.
In my decision on appeal, I concluded that the sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court were manifestly excessive, in particular because they required a short but immediate custodial term for a person:
(a)who had never previously served a prison term;
(b)who despite a long-standing drug addiction had a very minor criminal history, with the exception of having committed a large number of burglaries and thefts on a single day when he was aged 15; and
(c)who had since the commission of the current offences made substantial progress in addressing his drug addiction.
I further note that since WH lodged this appeal, he has apparently continued to make progress in rehabilitating himself as indicated in further evidence received on re-sentence from the Winnunga Nimmityjah Health Centre and from Dr Bruce Stevens.
The sentences I shall impose will be similar to those imposed in the Magistrates Court but will be served differently.
WH, please stand. I note the convictions recorded in the Magistrates Court and now sentence you as follows:
(a)for an offence committed on 21 September 2013 of driving, as a repeat offender, with a prescribed drug in your oral fluid or blood contrary to s 20(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) – to two months imprisonment;
(b)for a second such offence committed on 22 September 2013 – to two months imprisonment;
(c)for the burglary – to 12 months imprisonment; and
(d)for the associated theft – to six months imprisonment.
The sentences are all to run concurrently, making a total term of 12 months imprisonment which will be backdated to 30 October 2014 to take account of time already served, and the remainder of the sentence will be suspended with immediate effect.
I now order you to sign an undertaking to comply with your good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 18 months, with security in the amount of $500. The good behaviour order is subject to the conditions that, for such period not exceeding 18 months as ACT Corrective Services considers necessary:
(a)you accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and obey all reasonable directions of the Director-General, or her delegate; and
(b)that you undertake such counselling, courses, programs or treatments as directed by your supervising officer.
I order you to report to the ACT Community Corrections Officer at Eclipse House to establish that supervision within two working days. Now, ideally you should do that today, preferably today as soon as you are finished here but certainly by the end of tomorrow.
You will be given a written copy of the good behaviour order, and it will be explained to you, or read to you, by the court officials, and ideally by Mr Whybrow as well. In short it means that for the next 18 months, you need to keep out of trouble, keep in contact with Corrective Services and do what they tell you which should, in particular, mean keeping up with all your rehabilitation activities. If you commit another offence during the next 18 months, or start neglecting your rehabilitation, you may find yourself back before this court to be re-sentenced yet again for these offences, as well as possibly losing your $500. Depending on what brought you back here, you could find yourself serving some or all of the remaining 11½ months of this sentence back in full-time custody. That is the real incentive that I hope will ensure that you stick with your rehabilitation from here on.
Finally, I need to deal with the licence disqualification orders. Several matters are relevant.
First, I note:
(a)that the Crown accepts that you have now been off the road since your second drug-driving offence on 22 September 2013; and
(b)that for almost all that time you have been either in custody or subject to bail conditions banning you from driving.
Secondly, I note your continuing employment and your current focus on drug rehabilitation.
Accordingly, for each of the two driving offences, I disqualify you from driving for 12 months starting today, that is, the two disqualifications are to run concurrently. If there was a suspension notice issued at any time then the RTA should accept you as having complied with that notice by refraining from driving as already noted.
| I certify that the preceding thirteen [13] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Penfold. Associate: Date: |
0