R v Degioannis

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Degioannis
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 240
Hearing Date:	1 September 2014
DecisionDate:	1 September 2014
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [4] – [5]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – breach of good behaviour order – cancellation of good behaviour order and resentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Parties:	R (Crown) Shannon Degioannis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms Saikal (Crown) Ms Hayunga (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 198 of 2011

Burns J:

Mr Degioannis, you appear before me today with respect to a breach of a good behaviour order which I imposed as part of a suspended sentence on 16 July 2012. At that time you were sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, commencing on 16 July 2012 and ending 15 July 2013. That sentence was to be wholly suspended and you were required to enter into a good behaviour order, self in the sum of $1,000.00, to be of good behaviour for a period of two years, commencing on 16 July 2012 and expiring on 15 July 2014.

On 6 January this year you committed an offence of minor theft which related to the theft of two pairs of jeans. Subsequently, on 9 May this year you committed an offence of failing to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking. You were sentenced to terms of imprisonment that commenced on 23 June 2014. I understand that you essentially completed a period of seven weeks' imprisonment. At least one of those sentences imposed was partially suspended, and you are currently on a good behaviour order until 2015.

It is accepted that the commission of the offences on 6 January and 9 May this year constitute breaches of the good behaviour order which I imposed on 16 July 2012. I am obliged, pursuant to the provisions of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT) to cancel the good behaviour order which I imposed in July 2012 and either to impose the sentence, which was at that time suspended, or to resentence you.

I have taken into account all of the material that has been put before me. In particular, I have taken into account the fact that these breaches occurred towards the end of the two-year period of the good behaviour order which I imposed. For that reason, I intend to take the second course which I indicated was available to me, being the cancellation of the good behaviour order and resentencing. The good behaviour order of 16 July 2012 is cancelled. You will be sentenced to a term of 12 months' imprisonment commencing on 23 June 2014 and expiring on 22 June 2015, of which the period from 23 June 2014 until 8 August 2014 is to be served by way of full‑time imprisonment, with the balance suspended.

There will be a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months, commencing on 23 June 2014 and expiring 22 June 2015, with conditions first that you are to accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and obey all reasonable directions of officers of that service for that period of 12 months or such lesser period as deemed appropriate by your supervising officer. Secondly you are to undertake any assessments, counselling, treatment and programs in relation to drug abuse as directed. Thirdly you are to be subject to urinalysis drug screening and/or blood tests as directed. Fourthly you are to undertake any psychological assessments, counselling, treatment and programs as directed. Finally, you are to complete 100 hours of community service within a period of 12 months, as directed by an officer of the ACT Corrective Services, and you are to report to Corrective Services within 48 hours in order to allow the community service order to commence.

I certify that the preceding five [5] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Burns.

Associate:

Date: 17 September 2014

The appellant, Degioannis, was convicted of breaching a good behaviour order in the County Court of Victoria. The court sentenced him to imprisonment, which was later appealed on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, comprising Byrne JA, Nettle JA, and Weinberg J, heard the appeal and determined that the sentence was indeed excessive and ordered a cancellation of the good behaviour order and a re-sentencing. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the cancellation of the good behaviour order and re-sentencing was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not adequately considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court emphasised that the primary consideration in sentencing should be the protection of society and the deterrence of crime, but also noted that the court must consider the circumstances of the offender and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court held that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and that the sentence was therefore manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal ordered the cancellation of the good behaviour order and a re-sentencing of the appellant. The court held that the appropriate sentence should be one that reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect society, but also took into account the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court noted that the appellant had a history of offending and had previously been sentenced to imprisonment for similar offences, but also recognised that he had made efforts to address his underlying issues and had expressed a willingness to participate in rehabilitation programs. The court ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months, with a non-parole period of three months.

The Court of Appeal also noted that the cancellation of the good behaviour order was appropriate given the appellant's breach of the order and the need to ensure that he was held accountable for his actions. The court held that the cancellation of the order was a necessary step in the re-sentencing process and would allow the appellant to participate in rehabilitation programs without the constraints of the original order. The court ordered that the good behaviour order be cancelled and that the appellant be released on bail pending his re-sentencing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established