R v Davidson - [2018] ACTSC 227

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Davidson
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 227
Hearing Date:	21 May 2018
DecisionDate:	25 May 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [34] – [40]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – receiving stolen property – trafficking methylamphetamine – trafficking MDMA – trafficking heroin – trafficking cocaine – transfer charges – possession of ammunition – dealing in the proceeds of crime – pleas of guilty – extensive psychiatric history – objective seriousness of offence of receiving stolen property – whether reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – whether concurrency is appropriate with respect to drug trafficking offences
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 114C Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 313, 603 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 249 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68E
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Nathan Davidson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Naidu (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 28 of 2018; SCC 29 of 2018

BURNS J

Nathan Davidson, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to five offences: an offence of receiving stolen property contrary to s 313 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code); an offence of trafficking methylamphetamine contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code; an offence of trafficking MDMA contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code; an offence of trafficking heroin contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code; and an offence of trafficking cocaine contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $150,000.00, or both.

In addition, I am to sentence you with respect to two offences transferred to this court from the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 68E of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). The first such offence is one of possession of ammunition contrary to s 249(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $1,500.00. The second is an offence of dealing in the proceeds of crime contrary to s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment, a fine of $30,000.00, or both.

With regard to the offence of receiving stolen property, on 30 August 2017 police executed search warrants at your residence on London Circuit in Canberra. Your residence was an apartment which included a secure underground car parking space. During the search of your apartment police located a large number of tools and household fittings in their original packaging with price labels still attached. You told police that you had acquired the property over the years, or you had received them as gifts. You did not have any receipts for any of the property and you told police that you could not remember when or where you had purchased it.

Police also located five live…

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 Davidson

Details

AGLC: R v Davidson [2018] ACTSC 227
Case: [2018] ACTSC 227
Decision Date: 25 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Davidson involved an appellant who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including receiving stolen property, trafficking in methylamphetamine, trafficking in MDMA, trafficking in heroin, trafficking in cocaine, transfer charges, and possession of ammunition. The court was required to consider the objective seriousness of the offence of receiving stolen property, whether there were reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, and whether concurrency was appropriate with respect to the drug trafficking offences. The appellant had an extensive psychiatric history, which was a relevant factor in the sentencing considerations.

The court had to weigh the objective seriousness of the offence of receiving stolen property against the appellant’s prospects of rehabilitation, considering his psychiatric background. The court also needed to decide on the appropriateness of concurrent sentencing for the drug trafficking offences. In determining these issues, the court considered the totality of the appellant’s offending and the likelihood of rehabilitation, alongside the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court found that while the offence of receiving stolen property was objectively serious, the appellant's extensive psychiatric history and potential for rehabilitation warranted a sentence that took these factors into account. The court deemed it appropriate to impose concurrent sentences for the drug trafficking offences to avoid an excessive cumulative penalty. The court balanced these considerations and determined that an appropriate sentence would reflect both the seriousness of the offences and the appellant’s circumstances.

The final orders included a sentence that recognised the objective seriousness of the offences but also took into account the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and the need for proportionality in sentencing. The court imposed a sentence that was deemed to appropriately reflect the balance between punishment, deterrence, and the appellant's personal circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [34] – [40]

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.