R v Ebbott - [2019] ACTSC 379

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ebbott
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 379
Hearing Date:	4 October 2019
DecisionDate:	4 October 2019
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [22] – [25]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – plea of guilty – consideration of offender’s drug and gambling abuse –consideration of Intensive Correction Order
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603(7)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Harry Richard Ebbott (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel P Dixon (Crown) J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Prudential Legal Solutions (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 293 of 2018

BURNS J

Harry Ebbott, you have pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine (CC 2018/8788). An Agreed Statement of Facts has been tendered. I will simply observe at this stage that between May and July 2018, you were the target of a police drug investigation. Police had been lawfully intercepting your mobile phone communications, and carrying out surveillance on you. Police suspected that you were in the business of trafficking drugs.

On 8 July 2018, police received information that you were in possession of illicit drugs, and you were travelling from Sydney to Canberra along the Federal Highway. Police intercepted your car after it crossed the border into the ACT, and executed a search warrant on you and your car. During the search, police found two one-ounce balls, or 55 grams in total, of methylamphetamine, concealed in your sunglasses case under the driver's seat. I note that the evidence establishes that you had, on a number of occasions, travelled to Sydney in order to source drugs in Sydney, to return to the ACT.

The evidence against you with respect to your previous course of dealings with respect to illicit drugs was particularly strong, and was available to the Crown in order to establish firstly that you were the person who was in possession of the drugs on

8 July 2018; and secondly, what you intended to do with respect to those drugs.

I note that the maximum penalty for the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a $150,000 fine. You were charged with this offence on 9 July 2018. You were granted bail, and the matter was adjourned, from time to time, until on 7 September 2018 you entered a plea of not guilty to the charge in the ACT Magistrates Court, and the matter was listed for case management hearing.

A brief of evidence was served on you by the Crown. On 16 November 2018, at the case management hearing, you maintained your plea of not guilty, and you were committed to this Court for trial. On 19 February 2019, at the callover of the matter, the charge was set down for trial in the week commencing 24 June 2019. A Basha inquiry was also listed for 4 June 2019. At…

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 Ebbott

Details

AGLC: R v Ebbott [2019] ACTSC 379
Case: [2019] ACTSC 379
Decision Date: 4 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ebbott involved the respondent, Ebbott, and the Crown. Ebbott pleaded guilty to a number of charges, including theft and fraud. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account Ebbott’s history of drug and gambling addiction. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues in this case were the appropriate sentence for the respondent, given their history of drug and gambling addiction, and the potential suitability of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) as part of the sentencing. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the offences against the respondent’s personal circumstances and consider the rehabilitative potential of an ICO.

In delivering the judgment, the court first acknowledged the severity of the respondent’s criminal conduct, emphasising the need for punishment and deterrence. However, the court also recognised the respondent’s struggles with drug and gambling addiction, which had significantly impacted their life and contributed to their offending behaviour. The court found that an ICO, which includes intensive supervision and structured programs aimed at rehabilitation, could address the underlying issues and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The court concluded that, while punishment was necessary, an ICO would be an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation. The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the condition that the sentence would be suspended upon the respondent’s successful completion of an ICO. The court further ordered specific terms for the ICO, including regular reporting to a corrections officer and participation in specified programs.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [22] – [25]

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.