Drug Court of New South Wales CITATION : R v Sheedy (No.2) [2001] NSWDRGC 14 Regina PARTIES : -v- Sheedy, Shane Mark FILE NUMBER(S) : 0190 of 2001 CORAM: His Honour Judge Neil Milson CATCHWORDS: :- Discretion under s7(2) - seriousness of offences - risk to community - finding of appropriateness to enter into a Drug Court program LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 13/12/2001 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13 December 2001 Regina - D. Muddle, Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Offender - S. Healy, Legal Aid Commission (NSW) JUDGMENT: 1. The submissions which have been made by the prosecution opposing the entry of the offender to a Drug Court program, and the concerns of the police officers which those submissions support go right to the heart of the Drug Court process. The very nature of a Drug Court program is that people who are highly likely to go to prison are going to be released into the community. This will inevitably pose some risk which the court, by its supervision and by the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service and by keeping people in treatment, is to try to minimise or eliminate. This process is directed substantially towards rehabilitation and stopping people offending again, rather than punishment. By the legislation, the Parliament is saying that the community is, to some extent, prepared to forego the need for people to suffer punishment which they deserve or which would be appropriate to deter other offenders, if they enter into and are successful in a rehabilitation program. 2. Almost all of the arguments that have been raised so far as the offender is concerned, can be raised in respect of many of his predecessors who have applied for entry to the Drug Court. The fact that he consistently disobeys court orders and conditional liberty is a very common instance. There are many people on Drug Court programs who have committed offences in breach of parole and the Parole Board has allowed them to stay on a Drug Court program. What could be a greater breach of conditions of conditional liberty? That does no mean that Mr Sheedy's behaviour in any way is accepted as being appropriate or not worthy of condemnation or even punishment but it certainly does not distinguish him from other Drug Court participants. It has been argued that he has been untruthful in the past. To apply a standard of honesty to Drug Court program applicants would eliminate almost all, either before or after their enter into a Drug Court program. 3. The fact that his offences show signs of organised crime distinguishes him from many others. From the reading of the facts his offences show a degree of planning, of organisation, of intent to make major profit from crime as opposed to merely support a drug habit. Many in the community would say that people who break into private homes and steal the jewellery or those irreplaceable keepsakes from generations past are far more of a concern than those who steal container loads of toys from commercial enterprises. Again, it does not mean that the large organised crime is not very serious and not deserving of punishment but the risk the Drug Court takes in allowing people who do housebreakings to remain in the community can be very great, yet the Court often knowingly takes those risks. 4. His driving record is also of concern. There have been eight occasions between 1997 and 2001 when Mr Sheedy has driven when disqualified by a Court and five further occasions when driving whilst unlicensed. There was a dangerous driving offence in 1996 about which I know nothing so far as the details. There are two careless driving offences in Victoria, which I understand that to be akin to negligent driving in New South Wales as opposed to the more serious driving in a manner dangerous. Then there is the offence on 3 October 2001 which was dangerous in every respect. It is consistent with the manner of driving described on the last occasion that it was an amphetamine induced attempt to evade apprehension rather than some of those others the court has considered where there have been repeated events, where stolen cars are taken and crashed, regardless of the consequences to the passengers or property. 5. Of course this record is of concern. However, despite the existence of this variety of risk factors, it is not my view that the risks this man poses to the community from serious offences that involve physical harm, significant property loss or damage is greater than many other people who are already on the program. It certainly will be the case that if he is on a Drug Court program he will need to be very closely watched and he will be strongly warned about the consequences. But it a case of balancing the risk. Another factor that suggests to me that he is not an inappropriate person to enter a Drug Court program is the relative shortness of his criminal history, particularly so far as offences of dishonesty is concerned. It is not a lifetime of crime and if we can stop it now, perhaps we can stop it forever. The alternative may be to give the opportunity and perhaps even the encouragement by long gaol sentences to continue forever in a life of crime. 6. I am satisfied that the several criteria for eligibility exist. I have previously found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Sheedy is a drug dependent person, and I accept that he lives within the region of the Drug Court, and that he is highly likely to receive a prison sentence for the offences to which he has pleaded or will plead guilty which are or are coming to the Court and that those offences are not excluded from this Court's jurisdiction. For those reasons, he is an eligible person and I find that it is appropriate for him to enter a Drug Court program. ******** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.