MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Barnes v Lodding |
Citation: | [2019] ACTMC 24 |
Hearing Date(s): | 09 July 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 23 July 2019 |
Before: | Magistrate Stewart |
Decision: | See paragraphs [26] – [28] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment - sentencing – trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 375 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 10 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603(7) |
Cases Cited: Cases Considered: | Nchouki v The Queen [2018] ACTSC 28 Parente v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 284 R v Di Bitonton [2016] 280 R v Le Pavoux [2017] ACTSC 330 R v Lou (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 266 |
Parties: | Wayde Barnes (Informant) Robert John Lodding (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr M Wall (Crown) Mr R Thomas (Defendant) |
File Number(s): | CC 14704 of 2018 |
MAGISTRATE STEWART:
INTRODUCTION
Robert John Lodding is charged as follows pursuant to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT):
That he in the Australian Capital Territory on 11 December, 2018 trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine.
FACTS
Police commenced searching Mr Lodding’s premises in Isabella Plains at about 9.30 am on Tuesday 11 December 2018. Other adults and children were present in the home. What turned out to be 114.169 grams of 76.5% pure methylamphetamine was found in a clear, snap-lock bag in a drawer in Mr Lodding’s bedroom.
Police also found a set of digital scales and a number of small clip-seal bags with a rabbit motif on them in the main garage. More than $20,000 in cash was seized by police but the Court was advised this has since been returned to the Lodding family. On that basis, I do not take the cash into account or draw any inferences from it adverse to Mr Lodding.
Mr Lodding chose to participate in a record of conversation during the search. I was provided a copy of the transcript of that interview by his counsel, Mr Thomas. This interview forms the factual basis of the plea as there is no other evidence tendered by the prosecution in terms of a factual basis.
Mr Lodding was cautioned, understood that caution and told police that:
a. there were amphetamines inside the premises in either the bedroom or garage;
b. there was a set of scales in the garage;
c. anything they found was his and not the property of others present at the house;
d. he owned the bag of amphetamines found in his bedroom;
e. his partner Mel and his two little girls also stayed in that bedroom;
f. he sold some of the drug to support…
Continue reading Barnes v Lodding
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Barnes v Lodding [2019] ACTMC 24
- Case
- [2019] ACTMC 24
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether it should be varied by the Court of Appeal. The court had to consider whether the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug and whether it adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence while also considering the principles of proportionality and individual justice.
The Court of Appeal began by reviewing the evidence presented at the trial and the sentencing remarks of the trial judge. The court then assessed the sentence in the context of the principles of sentencing and the relevant statutory provisions. The court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the quantity of the drug involved and the appellant's criminal history. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and was not disproportionate to the crime committed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious drug trafficking offences are sufficiently deterrent and that they reflect the significant harm caused to the community by such activities. The court's decision underscored the need for consistency in sentencing for similar offences to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraphs [26] – [28]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.