R v Pollard (Unreported, 4 June 2009, 28 June 2009, County Court Of Victoria, Judge Gucciardo)
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Director’s appeal – Trafficking in a large commercial quantity of Methylamphetamine – Respondent sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in respect of trafficking count (count 1) – Sentence manifestly inadequate – Appeal allowed – Respondent re-sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment on count 1.
---
Appearances:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellant
Mr T. Gyorffy
Mr C. Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent
Mr O.P. Holdenson QC with Mr M.J. Croucher
Chester Metcalf & Co
BUCHANAN JA:
I will ask Weinberg JA to deliver the first judgment.
WEINBERG JA:
The respondent, Carter Pollard, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne on 8 May 2009 to one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, in a large commercial quantity (count 1), and two counts of possessing a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine and MDMA (counts 2 and 3). He also pleaded guilty to two summary charges, namely possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption (charges 6 and 7). The weapons in question were a sword and a taser gun.
The respondent was subsequently sentenced as follows:
COUNT
SENTENCE IMPOSED
CUMULATION
1
48 months
base
2
6 months
1 month
3
6 months
1 month
CHARGE
6
6 months
-
7
6 months
-
Total effective sentence: 50 months
Non-parole period: 36 months
The Director of Public Prosecutions now appeals against the sentence imposed on count 1, the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period. The Director does not challenge the individual sentences imposed on counts 2 and 3, or
in respect of the summary charges. Nor does he challenge the orders made for cumulation.
The background facts may be summarised briefly. On 19 April 2008, the police arrested one Yassin Tarakci who admitted to having trafficked Methylamphetamine to three individuals over the previous 24 hours. He was released on bail. However, investigations into his activities continued. During the investigation, police became aware that Tarakci and the respondent were frequently taking residence at various hotels in the Melbourne central business district on weekends, and that Tarakci was apparently living beyond his means.
On 31 May 2008, the police learned that the two offenders had taken rooms at Rydges Hotel in Exhibition Street, Melbourne. The respondent occupied room 1612, and Tarakci room 604. They were conducting their trafficking enterprise from the hotel.
Tarakci left the hotel in the early hours of the morning of 1 June 2008. Shortly thereafter he was arrested. He was in possession of a small amount of Crystal Methylamphetamine, commonly known as ‘Ice’. Search warrants were then executed at the hotel.…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Pollard
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Director of Public Prosecutions v Pollard [2010] VSCA 272
Case
[2010] VSCA 272
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Director of Public Prosecutions v Pollard, the respondent, Pollard, was convicted of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The case was heard in a higher appellate court after Pollard was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in respect of the trafficking charge. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed, contending that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and sought a harsher penalty.
The court was required to determine whether the initial sentence was manifestly inadequate and, if so, to what extent the sentence should be increased. This involved an assessment of the severity and circumstances of the crime, the need for deterrence, and the principles of sentencing under Australian criminal law.
The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence, the substantial quantity of methylamphetamine involved, and the significant harm caused by such trafficking activities. It concluded that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime. The court also considered the sentencing principles, including the need for general deterrence and the protection of the community. After a thorough review, the court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced Pollard to five years and six months’ imprisonment for the trafficking count. This new sentence was deemed to be more appropriate given the circumstances and the need to uphold the principles of criminal justice.