R v Clark

Case [2019] ACTSC 147


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Clark

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 147

Hearing Date:

6 June 2019

DecisionDate:

6 June 2019

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [28] and [30]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – trafficking in a controlled drug, namely cocaine and possessing a prohibited weapon – early pleas – no criminal history – general and specific deterrence and rehabilitation – custodial sentences served by way of intensive correction

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 194

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 80
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 603(7)
Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT), s 5, Sch 1, Pt 1.2

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Lucas Clark (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

D Sahu Khan (Crown)

K Ginges (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Aulich Criminal Law (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 67 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. The offender, Lucas Clark, has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(1) traffic in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely cocaine on 9 November 2018 contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), the maximum penalty being 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both; and

(2) possess a prohibited weapon when not authorised to do so on 9 November 2018 contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT), the maximum penalty being 500 penalty units, imprisonment for five years or both.

  1. The offender pleaded guilty to these charges in the Magistrates Court before they were committed to this Court for sentence.

Facts

  1. On 6 November 2018, the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) issued a s 194 warrant under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) for the offender’s residence.

  1. At about 8:45am police attended and gained entry to the premises with the assistance of Australian Federal Police (AFP) Specialist Response group. The offender was in the main bedroom of the premises.

  1. The offender stated to officers, “Okay, what you’re looking for is in the top drawer”.

  1. Police conducted a search of the main bedroom of the premises. During this time, police located, in the top drawer of bedside table beside the main bed, one yellow coloured ‘Nature’s Way’ container, which contained the following:

a)     five plastic bags with a white coloured substance believed to be cocaine; and

b)     one plastic bag containing a pink/red coloured substance.

  1. A further search of the top drawer of the bedside table, beside the main bed, located one ‘Emirates’ brand travel bag, which contained the following:

a)     three freezer bags with a white substance believed to be cocaine;

b)     two clear sealable bags with a cream coloured powder; and

c)     three plastic bags containing 26 rounds of ammunition.

  1. Each package was estimated to contain about an ounce of cocaine. The total amount of cocaine found was 217.848g.

  1. A further search of the main bedroom located two silver ‘knuckle duster’ handheld weapons.

  1. Police conducted…

Continue reading R v Clark

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Clark [2019] ACTSC 147
Case
[2019] ACTSC 147
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Clark involves the appellant, Clark, who was convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug, specifically cocaine, and possessing a prohibited weapon. The matter was heard in the relevant appellate court. Clark's appeal was centered on the severity of his sentence, which included a term of imprisonment with conditions of intensive correction orders (ICOs). The legal issues the court needed to determine were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, including Clark's early guilty plea, lack of criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the purposes of general and specific deterrence, as well as the need for rehabilitation. It considered the seriousness of the offences and the mitigating factors such as Clark's early guilty plea and absence of prior convictions. The court also assessed the appropriateness of ICOs in this context. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence was within the range of what could be considered reasonable and just, taking into account all relevant factors. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to balance the seriousness of the crimes with the potential for rehabilitation and the deterrence effects of the sentence. The decision highlighted that while ICOs are intended to provide an alternative to traditional imprisonment, they can still impose significant restrictions and obligations on the offender. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the mitigating factors present in Clark's case. As a result, the original judgment and sentence were confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [28] and [30]

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.