R v French - [2020] ACTSC 133

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v French
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 133
Hearing Dates:	24 June 2019; 18 November 2019; 4 February 2020
DecisionDate:	14 February 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [47]-[53]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – two counts of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – one count of dealing in the proceeds of crime – pleas of guilty – drug and alcohol addictions – mental health conditions – reasonable prospects for rehabilitation if mental health issues and substance addictions addressed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 114C Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603(7)
Cases Cited:	R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Christopher Michael French (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel V Conliffe (24 June 2019); K Reardon (18 November 2019; 4 February 2020; 14 February 2020) (Crown) K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 65 of 2019; SCC 66 of 2019

BURNS J:

Christopher French, on 13 May 2019 you entered pleas of guilty to the following two charges on an indictment dated 15 April 2019:

· Count 1, a charge of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely heroin, on 29 September 2016; and

· Count 2, a charge of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, on 29 September 2016.

Each such offence is contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding $150,000, or both.

In addition, on 13 May 2019 you also pleaded guilty to an offence of dealing in the proceeds of crime, being money to the value of $21,335.00, between 19 June 2016 and 23 September 2016.

This is an offence contrary to s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding $30,000.00, or both. This charge was transferred to this Court from the ACT Magistrates Court.

The facts

On 29 September 2016, police executed a search warrant at your then residence in Palmerston, ACT. During the search, police smelt paint fumes inside the residence. You were wearing black and green camouflage cargo pants which had blotches of white paint on them. You had white paint on your hands. Police observed that the storage area underneath the internal staircase was a plasterboard lined space. The walls were freshly painted with white paint. There was an open tin of white paint in the storage area, as well as an electric cordless drill, scissors, blue masking tape, a paint scraper and a sanding block.

The manhole at the far end of the storage space was covered over with a wood board, fixed to the wood studs with screws and plaster, and painted white. Police used the electric drill to unscrew the screws and remove the wood panel. Behind the wood panel…

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 French

Details

AGLC: R v French [2020] ACTSC 133
Case: [2020] ACTSC 133
Decision Date: 14 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v French, the accused pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis and one count of dealing in the proceeds of crime. The case was heard by the court which had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the personal circumstances of the offender. French had a history of drug and alcohol addiction and mental health issues, which the court considered as factors that could contribute to the rehabilitation of the offender.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentence for the offences committed, taking into account the personal circumstances of the offender, including their addictions and mental health conditions. The court was required to weigh these factors against the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. Additionally, the court had to balance the prospect of rehabilitation against the need to impose a sentence that reflects the gravity of the crimes.

The court examined the personal circumstances of the offender, including their addictions and mental health issues, which were deemed to have played a significant role in their offending behaviour. The court found that addressing these issues would improve the prospects for rehabilitation. In light of this, the court decided to impose a sentence that would provide an opportunity for French to address these underlying issues, while also considering the need for deterrence and community protection. The court ultimately determined that a balanced approach was necessary, and the sentence imposed reflected this consideration.

The final orders of the court included a sentence that recognised the need to address French's drug and alcohol addictions and mental health conditions to improve their prospects for rehabilitation. The court also took into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The specific details of the sentence were outlined in paragraphs [47] to [53] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [47]-[53]

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.