R v Clifford - [2013] VSC 252

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0086

THE QUEEN

SEAN ANDREW CLIFFORD

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	29 April 2013 and 3 May 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Clifford
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 252

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Trafficking in a not less than commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (Methylamphetamine) – Possession of precursor chemicals – Drugs and precursor chemicals located in a storage locker and offender’s home – Pleas of guilty – Relevant prior convictions – TES: 4 ½ years imprisonment – Non-parole period of 2 ½ years imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kissane	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms M. Fox	Lethbridges Barristers & Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

Sean Andrew Clifford, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, in not less than a commercial quantity and three charges of possession of precursor chemicals, being hypophosphate salt, iodine and phenylamine. You have also admitted prior convictions. The charges arose from search warrants executed at a storage locker, to which you had access, and your home.

On 8 March 2011, the police executed a covert search warrant and video recorded the contents of locker number 134 at Rose’s Storage, Preston. A large amount of scientific glassware was located, a single punch tablet press and, amongst other items, a green bag containing bags of pills and powdered substances. Some of the bags were vacuum sealed, others not. The locker was re-locked at the conclusion of the search. The police re-attended the next day pursuant to another search warrant, and this search was again video recorded. The green bag and its contents were still in place. All the bags were weighed, the total weight of all the pills was 2.55 kilograms. Samples were taken from the unsealed bags and later analysed by forensic chemists and found to contain methylamphetamine of varying but low purity, between .04 and .07 grams, and variously caffeine and morphine. Two of the samples (4(b) and 5(b)) contained such small amounts of methylamphetamine that the purity could not be determined. The weight of the bags containing the pills from which the samples were taken was 1276 grams.

Video surveillance had earlier been set up outside the locker, providing a direct view of those having access to it. On 10 March 2011, you were seen attending the locker, taking items, placing them on a trolley and leaving. You also attended on 13 and 20 April 2011, and were observed to remove a black tub on the first occasion and the green shopping bag on the second. No other persons entered the locker between 9 March and 20 April 2011, when another covert search warrant was executed. The green bag that had previously contained the pills and powdered substance was gone…

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 Clifford

Details

AGLC: R v Clifford [2013] VSC 252
Case: [2013] VSC 252
Decision Date: 10 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Clifford, the defendant, Clifford, faced a criminal court in relation to his involvement in the trafficking of a significant quantity of methylamphetamine and possession of precursor chemicals. The drugs and chemicals were discovered in a storage locker and at the offender's residence. Clifford entered pleas of guilty to the charges. The case involved sentencing issues, considering the gravity of the offence, the quantity of drugs involved, the possession of precursor chemicals, and the offender's criminal history.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Key considerations included the nature and extent of the offender's criminal conduct, the quantity of drugs involved, the use of precursor chemicals, and the offender's prior convictions. The court also had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

The court examined the totality of the evidence and the offender's background, including prior convictions. It found that the totality of the circumstances warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court determined that a total effective sentence of 4 ½ years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 ½ years, was appropriate. The court considered this sentence to be proportionate to the severity of the offender's criminal conduct, while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that Clifford be imprisoned for a total effective sentence of 4 ½ years, with a non-parole period of 2 ½ years. This decision was based on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and extent of the offender's criminal conduct, the quantity of drugs involved, and the offender's criminal history.

Orders