R v Baker (No 3) - [2019] ACTSC 365

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Baker (No 3)
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 365
Hearing Date:	15 August 2019
DecisionDate:	6 September 2019
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [63]–[72]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – jury trial – attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug – trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug – trafficking of a controlled drug other than cannabis – trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis – dealing with proceeds of crime – importance of individual deterrence – reasonable prospects for rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 114B Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AB(3)(b) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), ss 11.1, 307.1(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 603(3), 603(5), 603(7), 618(2) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), s 171(1)(b)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Brendan Leigh Baker (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Keks (Crown) S Boxall (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 285 of 2018; SCC 286 of 2018

BURNS J

Brendan Leigh Baker, on 3 June 2019 you were arraigned on an indictment containing 12 counts. You entered pleas of not guilty to each of those counts and the charges proceeded to trial before a jury. On 18 June 2019, the jury returned verdicts of guilty to all counts except Count 2 on which they were unable to agree. It now falls to me to sentence you with regard to those charges upon which the jury returned verdicts of guilty. In addition, there are two Summary Charges transferred to this Court as charges related to those on the Indictment. You have entered pleas of guilty to those

Summary Charges and I must also sentence you with respect to those matters.

The charges on which the jury found you guilty were:

· Count 1 (CC2018/5497), a charge of attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, being methylone, contrary to ss 11.1 and 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (the Commonwealth Criminal Code), between 30 September 2016 and 3 February 2017. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding 7,500 penalty units.

· Count 3 (CC2018/11945), a charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug being cannabis, contrary to s 603(3) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code), between 1 May 2016 and 30 June 2016. This offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years and/or a fine not exceeding 2,500 penalty units.

·
Count 4 (CC2018/5496), a charge of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely MDMA or a related drug, contrary to s 603(7) of

the Criminal Code, between 1 May 2016 and 1 November 2016. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years and/or a fine not exceeding

1,000 penalty units.

·
Count 5 (CC2018/5498), a charge of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis,…

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 R v Baker (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Baker (No 3) [2019] ACTSC 365
Case: [2019] ACTSC 365
Decision Date: 6 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baker (No 3) was heard in a higher court in Australia, where the defendant, Baker, appealed against his conviction and sentence. The defendant was found guilty of several serious drug-related offences, including attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, trafficking of a controlled drug other than cannabis, trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis, and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The case involved an intricate legal analysis of the principles of individual deterrence and the prospects for rehabilitation in sentencing.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate consideration to the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to examine the extent to which individual deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation should inform the sentencing decision, especially in cases involving large-scale drug trafficking.

In assessing these issues, the court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing. It held that while individual deterrence and the prospects for rehabilitation are significant factors, they must be balanced with the gravity of the offence. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, albeit with a particular focus on the substantial nature of the drug trafficking activities. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, affirming the decision of the lower court.

The orders of the court included confirming the defendant's conviction and sentence, while also providing guidance on the appropriate weight to be given to individual deterrence and rehabilitation prospects in similar future cases. The court's decision underscored the necessity for a balanced approach in sentencing, taking into account the severity of the crime and the potential for reform of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [63]–[72]

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.