R v Daquinta - [2014] ACTSC 131

THE QUEEN v DANIEL DAQUINTA
[2014] ACTSC 131 (24 April 2014)

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Trafficking in methylamphetamines

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 57
Medicines Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (ACT), s 36

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 334, 603(7), 614

Fiori Rinaldi, Drug Offences in Australia Volume 1 Sentencing (1986, Lawbook Co: Sydney)
Peter Zahra et al, Drug Laws in New South Wales (2014, 3^rd ed, Federation Press: Annandale)

Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353
Lawrence v The Queen (2007) 171 A Crim R 286
R v Avis, Bonifini and Pyke (Unreported, ACTSC, Refshauge J, 2 October 2009)
R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20
R v Holmes (Unreported, ACTSC, Penfold J, 3 May 2012)
R v Klobucar (Unreported, ACTSC, Penfold J, 19 September 2013)
R v Louis (Unreported, ACTSC, Nield AJ, 28 October 2010)
R v Stott (Unreported, ACTSC, Refshauge J, 24 October 2011)
Shore v The Queen (1992) 66 A Crim R 37
Yenice v The Queen (1994) 72 A Crim R 234

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 218 of 2013

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 24 April 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 218 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN
v
DANIEL DAQUINTA

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  24 April 2014
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Daniel Daquinta be convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine between 5 March 2013 and 20 May 2013.

Daniel Daquinta be sentenced to thirty months’ imprisonment to commence on 17 April 2014.

The period from today to 23 October 2014 be set as a period during which the imprisonment is to be served by periodic detention, the first period of periodic detention to commence on Friday 2 May 2014.

The sentence be suspended on 24 October 2014, for a period of two years.

Daniel Daquinta be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of three years from today with a probation condition that he be subject to the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for a period of two years or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him considers it appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him.

The reason why members of our community succumb to drug addiction are quite diverse, but the destructive effects of such addiction remain the same, causing havoc and real suffering to families and communities. For this reason and, rightly, the parliaments of our nation have shown, by the severe penalties they set for trafficking in illegal drugs, that the courts must use their sentencing powers to show how unacceptable such behaviour is and to try and stop it.

Daniel Daquinta has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in methylamphetamines between 5 March 2013 and 20 May 2013. That is an offence against s 603(7) of the Criminal…

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 Daquinta

Details

AGLC: R v Daquinta [2014] ACTSC 131
Case: [2014] ACTSC 131
Decision Date: 24 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Daquinta, Daniel Daquinta was charged with trafficking in methylamphetamines over a period spanning from 5 March 2013 to 20 May 2013. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central issue in the case was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that Daquinta was involved in trafficking methylamphetamines during the specified period, and if so, what appropriate sentence should be imposed.

The court examined the evidence, which included intercepted communications and other corroborative material, to determine Daquinta's involvement in the drug trafficking activities. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The sentencing process then involved considering the seriousness of the offence, Daquinta’s criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court decided on a sentence of thirty months’ imprisonment, with a specific arrangement for periodic detention to commence on 2 May 2014, and a subsequent suspension of the sentence on 24 October 2014, for a period of two years. Furthermore, Daquinta was mandated to comply with good behaviour obligations and probation conditions for a specified duration.

The court ordered that Daniel Daquinta be convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamines between the dates mentioned. He was to serve thirty months’ imprisonment, with the first period of periodic detention commencing on 2 May 2014, and the sentence suspended on 24 October 2014, for two years. Additionally, Daquinta was required to sign an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations for three years, and to be under the supervision of the Director-General for two years, or as deemed appropriate by the delegate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Daniel Daquinta be convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine between 5 March 2013 and 20 May 2013.

2. Daniel Daquinta be sentenced to thirty months’ imprisonment to commence on 17 April 2014.

3. The period from today to 23 October 2014 be set as a period during which the imprisonment is to be served by periodic detention, the first period of periodic detention to commence on Friday 2 May 2014.

5. The sentence be suspended on 24 October 2014, for a period of two years.

6. Daniel Daquinta be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of three years from today with a probation condition that he be subject to the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for a period of two years or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him considers it appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him.

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.