SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
No S APCR 2009 0947
| CRAIG ASHLEY BENNETT | Applicant |
| v | |
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
---
| JUDGES | ASHLEY and WEINBERG JJA |
| WHERE HELD | MELBOURNE |
| DATE OF HEARING | 20 October 2010 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 22 October 2010 |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION | [2010] VSCA 280 |
| JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM | R v Bennett (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Howard, 9 June 2009) |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Drug offences – ‘Operation Jedi’ – Trafficking in cannabis – Conspiracy to cultivate cannabis – Delay – Whether insufficient weight given to applicant’s mental health – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 – Manifest excess – Leave to appeal refused.
---
| Appearances: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr N Pappas SC with Ms O Ondrik | Balot Reilly Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr S Cooper | Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
ASHLEY JA:
I agree with Weinberg JA.
WEINBERG JA:
The applicant, Craig Ashley Bennett, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely Cannabis L (count 1), and one count of conspiracy to cultivate a narcotic plant, also Cannabis L (count 2). The maximum penalty on each count was 15 years’ imprisonment. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each of counts 1 and 2. The sentencing judge ordered that six months of the sentence on count 1 be served cumulatively upon the sentence on count 2 making a total effective sentence of two years and six months. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of one year and eight months.
The applicant is one of a number of offenders whose criminality was brought to light as a result of an investigation into major drug dealing carried out by Victoria Police between August 2005 and January 2006. That investigation was code-named ‘Operation Jedi’. The sentencing judge observed that it involved the time and effort of many police officers and forensic and drug experts, the covert recording of thousands of hours of telephone intercepts, surveillance of suspects, and the seizure of substantial quantities of drugs. His Honour commented, when sentencing the applicant, that he had recently sentenced three of the principal offenders, John Waters, Boris Trajkovski and Tomislav Samac to lengthy terms of imprisonment.
The applicant was sentenced on 1 December 2009. He was originally scheduled to be sentenced on 20 November 2009, along with two other co-offenders, David Reilly and Carly Maziarz. However, he failed to appear on that day, having been hospitalised as a result of attempting suicide on the previous night. His Honour, upon being apprised of that fact, revoked the applicant’s bail, and issued a warrant for his arrest. At the request of the other two co-offenders, his Honour proceeded to sentence them on 20 November 2009.
Count 1 concerned the trafficking of cannabis between 2 November 2005 and 5 January 2006. During that period, the applicant conducted what his Honour described as a Giretti[1] business of wholesale trafficking of about 13 pounds, or 5.89 kilograms of…
Continue reading Bennett v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bennett v The Queen [2010] VSCA 280
- Case
- [2010] VSCA 280
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court thoroughly reviewed the evidence regarding the applicant's mental health, including expert psychiatric assessments. The trial judge had considered the mental health issues but ultimately determined that they did not sufficiently mitigate the seriousness of the crimes. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating factors with the gravity of the offences and concluded that no manifest excess had occurred in the sentencing process. The court also noted that the applicant's criminal history and the substantial quantity of drugs involved warranted a significant sentence. As a result, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
The final orders of the court were to refuse the applicant’s application for leave to appeal. The court maintained that the trial judge had correctly assessed the mitigating factors, including the applicant's mental health, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the applicant's appeal was denied.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused.
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.