R v Erntner - [2018] ACTSC 335

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Erntner
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 335
Hearing Date:	1 August 2018
DecisionDate:	1 August 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [8] – [15]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trafficking in controlled drug other than cannabis – trafficking in cannabis – plea of guilty – longstanding problem with drug addiction – suitability for an intensive corrections order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 11(3)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Ryan Erntner (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Jamieson Williams (Crown) Mr J Lawton (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aulich Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 39 of 2018

BURNS J:

Mr Erntner, you have pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, being MDMA (CC2017/11063), and one count of trafficking in cannabis (CC2018/3400). There is a Statement of Facts which has been put before me as an Agreed Statement of Facts. I will not recite that at the present time. It is sufficient to note that the MDMA was in the form of pills, and indeed two clip seal bags containing about 139 pills were found during a search of your premises. Not only were those tablets found but a significant amount of cannabis in several areas of the residence was located. The total amount of the cannabis was approximately 1.5 kilograms.

In addition, scales with residue on the surface were located, together with unused clip seal bags and $5050 in Australian currency. The Statement of Facts says at the time of your arrest, a mobile phone was located and seized by police. The mobile telephone was subsequently analysed by police and the analysis suggested that you had been selling illicit substances for a period of time. It is difficult in those circumstances to determine the precise period over which your involvement in the trafficking of drugs occurred. The prosecutor pointed to the fact that the charges against you specified a period and that I should proceed on the basis that the period in which you were involved in the trafficking of cannabis was between 15 November 2016 and 6 October 2017.

I accept that there was a plea of guilty by you to that charge and that I should proceed on the basis that there had been some supply of cannabis by you over that period of time. I do note, however, that there was no indicia of very significant profits being made as a consequence of your involvement of the supply of cannabis or indeed in trafficking in MDMA. Of course, a not insignificant sum of just over $5000 was located at the time that you were arrested. I am satisfied that you were involved in trafficking these substances for two reasons; firstly, I am satisfied that it was in order to provide you with money in order to fund your own drug use, but secondly, you were also involved…

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 Erntner

Details

AGLC: R v Erntner [2018] ACTSC 335
Case: [2018] ACTSC 335
Decision Date: 1 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Erntner involved the defendant, Erntner, who was charged with trafficking in controlled drugs, specifically cannabis, and other controlled substances. Erntner pleaded guilty to the charges. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account his longstanding struggle with drug addiction and the potential suitability of an intensive corrections order as an alternative to imprisonment. The matter was heard in a court with relevant sentencing jurisdiction.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Erntner's drug trafficking offences. The key legal issue was whether an intensive corrections order was suitable for Erntner, given his history of drug addiction, or if a custodial sentence was more appropriate. The court also had to consider the seriousness of the offences, Erntner's culpability, and the need for general deterrence.

The court considered Erntner's lengthy history of drug addiction, which suggested that an intensive corrections order could be a more suitable sentence than imprisonment. An intensive corrections order aims to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour, such as addiction, and provide rehabilitation opportunities. However, the court also had to weigh the seriousness of the drug trafficking offences and the need for general deterrence. After careful consideration, the court decided that an intensive corrections order was suitable for Erntner, taking into account his addiction issues and the potential for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of addressing Erntner's drug addiction as a means of reducing the likelihood of reoffending.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of an intensive corrections order for Erntner. The court specified the terms and conditions of the order, including mandatory drug treatment and regular reporting to a corrections officer. The court also noted the importance of Erntner participating in the order's rehabilitation programs to address his drug addiction and reduce the risk of reoffending.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [8] – [15]

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.