DPP v Weldon

1. This breach proceeding comes before the Court following a conviction for an offence in the Magistrates Court that is recorded against charge CAN 2024/5087. With respect to that charge, an offence of burglary, the offender was convicted on 7 May 2025 and the matter is recorded as having been committed to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 107(2) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentence Administration Act).

2. Mr Weldon is currently the subject of a sentence proceeding in the Magistrates Court, specifically the Galambany Court. The Magistrates Court has, I infer, considered it appropriate to commit the breach proceeding to the Supreme Court prior to finalisation of the sentence proceeding in that jurisdiction as the good behaviour order that has been breached was a component of a drug and alcohol treatment order sentence: R v Weldon [2021] ACTSC 348.

3. In accordance with s 107(2) of the Sentence Administration Act, if the Magistrates Court finds an offender guilty of an offence committed during the term of a good behaviour order, one having been made in the Supreme Court, the Magistrates Court must, in addition to dealing with the offender, commit the offender to the Supreme Court to be dealt with under pt 6.5 of that Act. While typically, and potentially preferably, the Magistrates Court would deal with the offender for the offence prior to any such committal (R v Subasic (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 35 at [9]-[11]), that has not occurred in this matter. For reasons that I will come to, it is desirable in any event to proceed to deal with the breach proceeding.

Background

4. On 26 December 2020, the drug and alcohol treatment order sentence commenced. The end date of that sentence was 25 October 2024, such that it is a sentence order that has now concluded. The participant successfully engaged with the treatment and supervision part of the treatment order and graduated on 30 June 2023. Thereafter, Mr Weldon was subject to a good behaviour order until the end of the total sentence order.

5. It was during the good behaviour order component of the order that a number of offences were committed. Those being: (a) CAN 2024/5091 (take motor vehicle without authority); (b) CAN 2024/9805 (burglary); (c) CAN 2024/9806 (theft); (d) CAN 2024/9265 (fail to appear after bail undertaking); (e) CAN 2025/606 (obtain property by deception); (f) CAN 2024/9801 (aggravated destroy or damage property); (g) CAN 2024/5087 (burglary); and (h) CAN 2024/5089 (minor theft).

6. That is, eight offences were committed, three of which were committed on 5 and 6 May 2024, one committed on 15 August 2024, a further three offences on 21 September 2024, and then a further offence on 25 September 2024. These offences were committed during the final five months of the good behaviour portion of the original sentence. These are the offences the subject of sentence in the Magistrates Court.

Breach proceeding

7. The breach comes before this Court in circumstances where there is no contention of non-compliance with the order other than by way of re-offending. Plainly, breaching such an order by way of re-offending is serious. But in terms of the appropriate response by the Court at this stage, there are a number of reasons why I will proceed in the manner submitted as appropriate by the prosecution and sought on behalf of Mr Weldon. That is, to take no further action: s 108(2)(a) Sentence Administration Act.

8. The reasons for adopting such an approach include that it is apparent from the information before the Court that the further offending has occurred in a circumstance of a return to substance dependency, and that the offender has since then again committed to engaging in rehabilitation. He has done so by way of completion of the Solaris Therapeutic Program whilst he has been in custody, and he has intentions as to how he will continue that rehabilitation once returned to the community. It is apparent that the sentence proceeding before the Magistrates Court will be able to take that information into account. This information includes that Mr Weldon has been found suitable for an intensive correction order.

9. It is preferable, as the prosecution conceded, that in all of the circumstances there be no impediment by any orders of this Court that limit the sentencing options available to the Magistrates Court. The offending the subject of the sentencing exercise in the Magistrates Court will include consideration that the offences were committed while on conditional liberty. That sentencing exercise will also be able to take into account that Mr Weldon has now spent 308 days in presentence custody, which will have had a deterrent effect on him as to the consequences of offending while on conditional liberty.

10. There is no breach beyond the suggestion of the re-offending which will be the subject of sentencing consideration in the Magistrates Court. A final consideration as to the course to be taken is that the order the subject of the breach has since expired.

Determination

11. I am satisfied that the offender has breached his good behaviour order obligations and that s 110 of the Sentence Administration Act does not apply to the good behaviour order: R v Slattery (No 3); DPP v Slattery [2025] ACTSC 125 at [140]; s 108(1) Sentence Administration Act.

12. Pursuant to s 108(2)(a) of the Sentence Administration Act, it is appropriate to take no further action with respect to the breach.

Orders

13. For those reasons, the following order is made: (1) The breach of the good behaviour order is proved, and no further action is taken.

I certify that the preceding thirteen [13] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: 15 May 2025