R v Le (No 1)

ACT SUPREME COURT

Case Title:	R v LE (No 1)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 71
Hearing Date:	9 April 2014
DecisionDate:	9 April 2014
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [12]–[13]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – SENTENCE – deferred sentence order
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 118
Parties:	The Queen LE
Representation: - Counsel	Mr A Williamson (Crown) Mr A Doig (Defence)
- Solicitors	ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Defence)
File Number:	SCC 205 of 2013

R v LE (No 1)
DEFERRED SENTENCE ORDER

The offender is before me to be sentenced in respect of an aggravated robbery (s 310 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)) to which he entered a plea of guilty on 2 December 2013.
I am going to impose a Deferred Sentence Order. I will impose one, initially, for a period of six months and I will then have the matter brought back before me just to keep an eye on how he is progressing. It may be that depending upon how things have developed I may impose a further Deferred Sentence Order because he is going to have to demonstrate a significant period of compliance with community-based orders before I am willing to impose a sentence other than immediate imprisonment.
Would you stand for a moment, please, LE? You will have gathered from what has just been spoken between myself and counsel at the bar table that I propose dealing with your matter by way of a Deferred Sentence Order. That means that I will record a conviction against you on the charge and I will then defer passing sentence for a period. Initially, that will be for a period of six months.
I will place you on bail. There will be conditions of the bail and I expect that you will comply with the conditions of the bail. I have very little tolerance in matters such as this for people who do not comply with their bail conditions.
As I said earlier to your counsel, Mr Doig, there are some dangers in proceeding in this way and particularly in your case. You were dealt with in 2010 in the Childrens Court for offences, including aggravated burglary. You were dealt with very leniently on that occasion and no conviction was recorded.
It sometimes happens in those circumstances that offenders think, essentially, that they have got away with it and that nothing has happened to them. There has been no penalty imposed so they think that the courts are not willing to take action to punish them.
Now, I do not know whether you went away from the Childrens Court proceedings with that sort of attitude. The fact that you have subsequently reoffended in such a serious way, however, causes me great concern in that regard.
I want you to understand that if you go away from these proceedings on this Deferred Sentence Order, with the view that you have done it again, that you have got away with it without having any penalty imposed, then inevitably you will not complete the Deferred Sentence Order. You have to understand how close you are to the edge of going to prison full time.
I am obliged, pursuant to the provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (s 118) to tell you in general terms what sentence you may expect if you comply with the terms of the orders I am about to make and what sentence you should expect if you do not comply. If you comply with the terms of the Deferred Sentence Order and any further order that I make after the initial six months, then at the end of the period of time during which Deferred Sentence Orders are in place I will sentence you to a term of imprisonment but one which does not require you to serve a full time immediate sentence of imprisonment.
Now, that may involve either periodic detention or, alternatively, a suspended sentence with community service. I cannot say at the present time precisely what sentence I would impose but it would not involve immediate full time imprisonment.
On the other hand if you do not comply with the terms of the Deferred Sentence Order, you will have indicated very clearly that you are not willing to work with others in the community in order to address those issues that are likely to lead you to reoffend. In those circumstances there will be no alternative other than to sentence you to an immediate term of imprisonment and that will be measured in years, rather than months.
I will record a conviction and the Deferred Sentence Order is imposed requiring the offender to appear before me for sentence at 10.00 a.m. on the 20 October 2014.
There will be bail on his own undertaking, in writing, to appear with conditions:

Firstly, that he is to reside at XX Pankhurst Crescent, Chisholm, in the Australian Capital Territory.
·Secondly, he is to abstain from consuming alcohol or illicit drugs.
·Thirdly, he is to accept the supervision of ACT Adult Corrections and he is to obey all lawful directions of officers of that service, including directions to attend counselling or treatment for substance abuse and mental health issues.
·The next condition of bail will be that he is to undergo random urinalysis, as directed by officers of ACT Corrective Services.
·The next condition is that he is to provide a sample of his breath for alcohol testing when requested by a member of the police.
·There will also be a condition that he is not to approach within 100 metres of the Ali Baba Restaurant in Phillip.

I will also order an Updated Pre-Sentence Report.
Now, LE, your future is now very much in your own hands, whether you go to prison or you do not. It depends upon what you do from now on.
I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence herein of his Honour Justice Burns.
Associate:
Date: 19 May 2014

The case of R v Le (No 1) involves the sentencing of a defendant, Le, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the offence committed. Le had no prior convictions and had shown remorse for the incident, which was a significant factor in the sentencing deliberations.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate sentencing options available under the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the offence. The court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, the protection of the community, and the personal circumstances of Le. The key question was whether a deferred sentence order, which allows the defendant to avoid a criminal record if certain conditions are met, would be appropriate in this case.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to protect the community, but also recognised the mitigating factors such as Le's lack of criminal history and the genuine remorse shown. The court ultimately determined that a deferred sentence order was suitable, as it would provide Le with an opportunity to rehabilitate without the long-term stigma of a criminal conviction. The court imposed a two-year order, during which Le must comply with specific conditions, including attending a rehabilitation program and refraining from further offending.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a deferred sentence order for a period of two years, with conditions to be met by Le. These conditions were detailed in the judgment and were intended to support Le's rehabilitation and deter future offending. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established