Drug Court of New South Wales CITATION : R v Sloane [1999] NSWDRGC 10 PARTIES : Crown SLOANE, Robert FILE NUMBER(S) : 0063/99 of 1999 CORAM: at 1 CATCHWORDS: Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW) - No Useful Purpose - Termination :- Whether there is no useful purpose to be served in the drug offender's further participation in a program. LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) CASES CITED: R v Armanios [1999} NSWDRGC 5 DATES OF HEARING: 6/12/99 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6 December 1999 J. Pheils, Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: A. Coultas, Legal Aid Commission (NSW) JUDGMENT: 1. The argument before the Court is whether the Drug Court participant, Mr Sloane's program should be terminated because of the provision of s10(1)(b) of the Drug Court Act. 2. Section 10 provides that: "...If it is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that a drug offender has failed to comply with his or her program, the Drug Court..." and then going to (a) "...May, in accordance with the program impose anyone or more of the sanctions specified in the Act, or if it is also satisfied there is no useful purpose to be served in the drug offender's further participation to the program may decide to terminate the program..." Section 10(2) provides that "Without affecting the other circumstances in which a drug offender is taken to have failed to comply with his or her program, a drug offender is taken to have failed to comply with a program if the drug offender is charged before a Court with an offence referred to in s5(2).…" 3. In this case there appears to me to be no dispute that Mr Sloane has failed to comply wit the conditions of his program. 4. His program required a number of things of him. It required, without having the particular program he has signed, but I know condition three of the standard program is to commit no further offences "...that I will faithfully perform and satisfactorily complete my program and I will comply with reasonable requirements. I will not use medication. I will not use drugs. I will submit...and I will punctually attend all court sittings, treatments, counselling, personal development courses...". 5. Now, so far as attendance is concerned, it is conceded that for a period of time since 27 August until arrested for these charges, Mr Sloane was failing to attend. There has been, I think an unequivocal breach of his program. 6. Think it is nonetheless relevant to consider whether the further offences he is charged with do amount to offences that would breach s5(2), because s5(2) offences are offences which cannot come within the Drug Court's oversight and I think that is something that should be taken into consideration when the Court considers useful purpose in the future. 7. The defendant's charges are, in particular, three offences of armed robbery. They involve the production of what is said to be a firearm to shopkeepers and stealing, or taking money from those people following the production of the firearm. I have only had a very brief time to read the brief, but at least, on one occasion there was somebody else with him. He was spoken to the charge of attempt. 8. There have been a number of decisions within the Drug Court to what involves offences involving violent conduct, and the earlier decision by her Honour, in relation to Mr Sloane is one of those many cases. 9. More recently, a decision in the matter of R v Armanios [1999} NSWDRGC 5 was made where this progression from offences which are violent by description, but do not involve actual violent conduct, through to offences involving more and more and more threats of violence were coming before the Court, and eventually in Armanios the view was taken that the implicit threat of violence was so great that it did involve violent conduct. There, it was a case of, in company with another person armed with a syringe and a stick with a nail through it, I think it was from memory, to force the handing over of property, was such that I took the view and I will read "...It is my view that an offence against s97 of the Crimes Act with facts that include the defendant and another person in company, each producing weapons, in the form of a piece of wood with nails driven through it and protruding in a syringe is, in fact, an offence which does involve violent conduct and was excluded by s 5(2)(b)..." 10. The violence was so implicit within the actions that it should be excluded and it is my view that the production of a firearm is also an offence where the degree of violence, that is implicit by the production of a firearm is quite clearly a matter that ought to be excluded and was intended to be excluded by the provisions of s 5(2)(b) referring to offences involving violent conduct. 11. I am satisfied that the program has been breached in those two ways, but as Ms Love has appropriately pointed out that of itself does not create the grounds for termination, because the Court must also be satisfied that there is no useful purpose to be served. 12. The argument raised by the Crown so far as "useful purpose" is that the behaviour of Mr Sloane appears to be unrelated to his drug dependency, but that has been brought under control by his own actions and by the Drug Court program, but this is just a repetition of serious criminal behaviour, rather than a further demonstration of the fact that he is a person who is so dependent on drugs that he desperately needs help, but he cannot organise in any other way and the Drug Court would be an appropriate way of doing it. 13. Certainly, Ms Sunjic's report to the Court suggests that Mr Sloane did particularly well on the program. She does, incidentally, report the fact that he had mentioned on several occasions that he had been harassed by detectives who had a previous involvement with him, but she said that his excellent progress continued until just prior to him absconding. When he was actively engaged in the program he made excellent progress, above expectations. In the event that these new charges were not proven, I would support Mr Sloane's continuation on the program. 14. It is accepted that he has not pleaded guilty or admitted these further offences. It is arguable, I guess whether there is a strong case or not, but that is something that is in the long run for another court to decide, at another time. 15. A "useful purpose", of course, the Act says "no useful purpose" and I guess it is arguable whether there is any useful purpose so far as his health issues are concerned, because they seem to be under control. He returned to a methadone program voluntarily. He had done very well under the supervision of the treatment provider and it appears that that might well no longer in his life be an issue that he cannot deal with without the involvement of the Drug Court. The Drug Court certainly does have two aspects to its consideration and that is the reduction of crime and the dealing with the drug dependent people. 16. I think, finally, I should say that this remains a criminal court and it has been said time and time again that the purposes of courts when it comes to sentencing for criminal offences the principal purpose is the protection of the community, and if that purpose is not being served by people who are on the program, then there is "no useful purpose". 17. I am satisfied firstly, on the balance of probabilities that Mr Sloane has failed to comply with his program and I am secondly, satisfied there is no useful purpose to be served by his further participation in the program and I now terminate his 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.