R v Di Bitonto

Case [2016] ACTSC 280


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Di Bitonto

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 280

Hearing Date(s):

17 August 2016

DecisionDate:

22 August 2016

Before:

Refshauge J

Decision:

1.    Emma Maree Di Bitonto be convicted of trafficking in 3, 4- methylenedioxymethylamphetamine.

2.    Emma Maree Di Bitonto be sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.

3.    The sentence be suspended today for 12 months.

4.    Emma Maree Di Bitonto be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 12 months with the following conditions:

(a)   a probation condition that she be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for a period of 12 months or such lesser period as the person supervising her considers appropriate and that she obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising her, including as to drug rehabilitation;  and

(b)   that she continue counselling with Dr Meredith Whiting and Ms Sarah Gosper for the period they reasonably consider is appropriate.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – drug trafficking – drug possession – consideration  – no prior criminal record – guilty plea – suspended sentence – Good Behaviour Order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), ss 169(1), 187

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 603(7)
Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT), Sch 1

Cases Cited:

Amos v The Queen (Unreported, Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, Bowen CJ, Fox and Blackburn JJ, 6 February 1985)

Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5
Coggan v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 49
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
Kennewell v Rand [2005] ACTSC 89
Mattas v Hawke [2013] ACTSC 90
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20
R v Carney [2013] ACTSC 266
R v Daquinta [2014] ACTSC 131
R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117
R v Dudeck [2015] ACTSC 80
R v Himbert (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 124
R v Honeyman [2016] ACTSC 2
R v Jury (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Higgins CJ, 8 February 2013)
R v Lanham [2014] ACTSC 128
R v Liv (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 13 December 2012)
R v M T [2014] ACTSC 162
R v NF (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 216
R v Nguyen (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 9 July 2013)
R v Obi (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 18 October 2012)
R v Robertson [2014] ACTSC 354
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
R v Tran [2014] ACTSC 368
R v Veljaca (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 19 October 2012)
R v Verdins (2009) 16 VR 269
R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145
Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65

Texts Cited:

F Rinaldi, Drugs…

Continue reading R v Di Bitonto

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Di Bitonto [2016] ACTSC 280
Case
[2016] ACTSC 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Emma Maree Di Bitonto was convicted of trafficking in a quantity of 3, 4- methylenedioxymethylamphetamine and the matter came before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for sentencing. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence and the conditions that should be attached to any suspended sentence. The court considered the offence to be serious but recognised that Ms Di Bitonto had no prior criminal record, and had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The court also considered that there were substantial and compelling circumstances that justified the imposition of a non-parole period that was less than half of the maximum penalty. The court held that a suspended sentence was appropriate and ordered that the sentence be suspended for 12 months. The court also ordered that Ms Di Bitonto be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 12 months. The conditions of the order included that Ms Di Bitonto be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for a period of 12 months and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising her, including as to drug rehabilitation, and continue counselling with Dr Meredith Whiting and Ms Sarah Gosper for the period they reasonably consider is appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Emma Maree Di Bitonto be convicted of trafficking in 3, 4- methylenedioxymethylamphetamine.

2. Emma Maree Di Bitonto be sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.

3. The sentence be suspended today for 12 months.

4. Emma Maree Di Bitonto be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 12 months with the following conditions:

(a) a probation condition that she be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for a period of 12 months or such lesser period as the person supervising her considers appropriate and that she obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising her, including as to drug rehabilitation; and

(b) that she continue counselling with Dr Meredith Whiting and Ms Sarah Gosper for the period they reasonably consider is appropriate.

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.