Knight v The Queen

[2019] NSWDC 328

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Knight v R [2019] NSWDC 328
Decision date:	08 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	C Craigie SC DCJ
Decision:	Appeal upheld
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Chantelle Knight (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr Killen (Appellant) Mr Kiru (DPP)
File Number(s):	2018/00397947
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Local Court Jurisdiction: Criminal

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal by Chantelle Knight, a young woman of 24, who pleaded guilty before a Magistrate for possession of a prohibited drug. The maximum penalty in the circumstances is two years imprisonment and a fine of $2,200. The learned Magistrate recorded a conviction with a fine half the maximum.

2. The circumstances of the offending, I have to say, are all too familiar. The appellant was attending the Olympic Park at a function described as The Knockout Destiny Music Festival held at The Dome on 8 December 2018. She was, I have to say it might have almost been predictable, approached by a drug detection dog which reacted to her. She was taken and searched and what was found and where it was found bespeaks a very unfortunate, and I have to say in general terms, shocking situation for a person of good character.

3. The reference from the appellant’s employer tells me that she has occupied responsible positions. She has attained a high level of qualification. She is a presentable young woman, as she appears before me; one could truly say that before this matter she had something of a shining prospect before her with every likelihood of success in her life and career.

4. I find it astonishing that someone in that position, and I add a young woman, should use her body in a way that is appallingly undignified, inserting well prepared drugs that is, packaged in a way that indicates some deliberation under a tampon with a condom and go to an entertainment function in that condition. It is very hard for the Court to reconcile that sort of behaviour with the person described to me in Mr Kopolanski’s reference.

5. I have to say, with great respect to Mr Kopolanski, either he does not take these things seriously or the appellant must indeed be a person of very remarkable good character to merit the kind of response from an employer that I see.

6. Now ordinarily when people come before this Court seeking an outcome that does not involve a conviction, a very frequent claim is that their immediate employment is in peril. Mr Kopolanski certainly does not promote any such argument. That, of course, is not the end of that topic, because even in these supposedly enlightened times someone who wishes to progress a career, I am sure, is not advanced if they are honest and a potential employer, in this instance of the sources of employment that interests the appellant is in government, is very unlikely to be impressed if an honest answer is given to the question: “Have you had a prior criminal conviction?”, “What was it you did?” and the answer is: “I went to a dance party with drugs inserted in my vagina.”

7. The criminal law is not designed to humiliate people. It is designed to punish them where that is necessary for the protection of the community. In so saying I do not disregard, as I hope is the case, that the appellant very likely has been humiliated by the experience that she very readily courted herself.

8. Mr Kiru asked some questions of the appellant. They were entirely apposite and appropriate. They go to the fact - not that there is anything wrong with going to a dance party or any other sort of entertainment - but there is a great deal wrong with going to such a function with ten capsules of a drug or unknown quality inserted in one’s private parts. That bespeaks a level of stupidity frankly that does not sit comfortably with the presentation of this young woman who I accept otherwise is intelligent, presentable and socially responsible.

9. The easier course would be for me to say that the learned Magistrate was within his or her rights. A fine of less than half the maximum in an atmosphere when so many young people are frankly dicing with death with these drugs and that is not to adopt some pursed lipped prohibitionist view that no one should have fun. People can have all the fun that they like but not at the cost of endangering themselves and others and setting an example that it is, as I am appalled to hear from this appellant, “It’s normal” to go to a function and to find enjoyment, not in the music or in company, but by sticking some indeterminate substance down your throat or worse still giving it to someone else so they can do it.

10. The appellant, I am satisfied, knows that she put a great deal at risk when she committed this offence. I have now seen her in evidence and she certainly conveys some sense, albeit still requiring development, of how close to a variety of disasters she has brought herself, and I am not simply referring to her reputation.

11. In the circumstances, whilst I find considerable force in Mr Kiru’s submission that it is about time that the courts indicated a consistent condemnation of this kind of conduct, I am satisfied that this appellant now represents a less appropriate vehicle for the full measure of punishment which was certainly within the Magistrate’s capacity properly to exercise at first instance.

12. I will, however, make orders that will place the appellant under some restraint. It will preserve her from the status of being a convicted criminal but will also serve as a long-term reminder to her that all she has to do is adhere to the law. I am not at all impressed by this business of not going to dance parties anymore; she can go to any sort of entertainment she likes, provided it is lawful and what she does there is lawful.

13. On consideration of all of those matters I set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, I uphold the appeal to the extent that I will make a community corrections order pursuant to s 9(1)(b) and s 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, binding the appellant to be of good behaviour for a period of two years without conviction conditional upon her appearing before this Court at any time during that two years if required to do so; of keeping the Registrar of this Court at all times advised of her place of residence. I have considered whether she should be placed under supervision of Community Corrections. I frankly think they have better things to do than see whether people of otherwise intelligence can behave themselves. That will be up to the appellant herself.

14. Do you understand what I have done?

15. APPELLANT: Yes.

16. HIS HONOUR: You have been preserved from getting a conviction but you are going to be on a leash that goes right back to this Court for two years; any misbehaviour on your part that brings you into contact with the law and it will be brought back before me; do you understand that?

17. APPELLANT: Yes.

18. HIS HONOUR: You are a very fortunate young woman.

19. KILLEN: If it please the Court.

**********

Decision last updated: 17 July 2019