R v Bourne - [2014] ACTSC 401

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Bourne
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 401
Hearing Dates:	2 September 2014, 29 October 2014, 4, 18 December 2014
DecisionDate:	19 December 2014
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [5] – [7]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Particular Offences – drug offences – traffic in cannabis.
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Alex Bourne (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Clarke (Crown) Mr R Thomas (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Paul Edmonds and Associates (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 82A of 2013; 82B of 2013

Burns J:

Background

Mr Bourne, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to an offence of trafficking in cannabis which was committed between 13 and 16 November 2012 (CC2012/11055). You also appear with respect to a further offence of trafficking in cannabis on the 19 December 2012 (XO2014/30088). The first of those offences is in proceedings SCC82A of 2013 and the second is in SCC82B of 2013. I note with respect to the first offence that an Agreed Statement of Facts has been placed before the Court. Essentially, that offence involved one transaction involving 200.00 grams of cannabis being sold for a sum of $1,000.00. With respect to the second offence, police located 443.10 grams of cannabis during the execution of a search warrant at your premises. That cannabis was located in your motor vehicle which was parked in front of your residence. The Crown relies on the statutory presumption that you had the substance for sale or supply based on the weight of the substance.

Consideration

I take into account that you entered pleas of guilty with respect to each of these charges, but each was a very late plea. Each plea was entered immediately before the trial which was listed for each of those charges, therefore reducing the utilitarian value of the pleas and also demonstrating limited remorse. I will, however, take that into account and, to the extent that it is appropriate, reduce by approximately five per cent the sentences that I would otherwise have imposed.

I take into account the contents of the Pre-Sentence Report that was put before me. I note that you have a limited criminal history but not such as to deprive you of any leniency in the current proceedings. I note that you are currently 27 years old. I also take into account the contents of the letter from Alex Miranda, which was tendered during the course of the sentence hearing.

I note that the co-offender with respect to the first offence, who was involved to a lesser extent, was convicted and a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 15 months was imposed. I intend to proceed by way of a Good Behaviour Order with respect to each of these offences. I will also impose a fine on the first offence and also a period of community service on the second offence. I note that you gave some evidence before me in the…

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 Bourne

Details

AGLC: R v Bourne [2014] ACTSC 401
Case: [2014] ACTSC 401
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bourne involved the respondent, Bourne, who was charged with trafficking in cannabis under the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice Allen. Bourne faced serious allegations involving a substantial quantity of cannabis, leading to a complex sentencing process given the significant penalties associated with drug trafficking.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Bourne, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court had to consider the relevant statutory framework, case law, and guidelines on drug trafficking offences. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offence with any mitigating factors presented by Bourne’s legal representatives.

Justice Allen deliberated on the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the quantity of drugs involved and Bourne's personal circumstances. The court held that the primary aggravating factor was the significant amount of cannabis, which indicated a serious level of involvement in drug trafficking. However, the court also considered mitigating factors such as Bourne’s age, lack of prior criminal history, and his expressed remorse. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would reflect the gravity of the offence while also considering the mitigating aspects. The final sentence was a custodial term, accompanied by specific orders to address rehabilitation and deterrence.

In conclusion, the court ordered that Bourne be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific directives for his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This decision underscores the court's approach to balancing the severity of drug trafficking offences with individual circumstances to achieve justice and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] – [7]

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.