R v Glynn No. DCCRM-02-861 - [2002] SADC 150

R v JOHN PATRICK GLYNN
[2002] SADC 150
Judge Lunn
Criminal

John Patrick Glynn pleaded guilty in this Court on 11 November 2002 to importing into Australia a prohibited import contrary to Section 233B(1) of the Commonwealth Customs Act 1901 in that on about 4 April 2001 at Adelaide he imported into Australia a prohibited import namely 359.6 gms of amphetamine (“MDMA”) being not less than a trafficable quantity.
Glynn previously resided in England with his defacto wife and their two young children. He had a substantial drug problem. He became indebted to drug dealers for between £1,200 and £1,600 which he could not pay. Those drug dealers put pressure on him to agree to be a courier to bring drugs to Australia. When he initially showed reluctance he was physically assaulted by a drug dealer and suffered an injury to his hand. Eventually he agreed to bring drugs to Australia in return for the cancellation of the debt he owed to the drug dealers but for no other benefit to him. The drug dealers, threatened the safety of his wife if he did not carry out the arrangements. He did not go to the police.
He left England on 2 April 2001 on an international flight bound for Adelaide. He had strapped to his upper body 4,800 Ecstacy tablets weighing 359.6 gms which contained about 28% pure Ecstacy and which had a street value of between $168,000 and $384,000. When going through Customs at Adelaide Airport on 4 April 2001 a sniffer dog detected the Ecstacy tablets and he was arrested. He made full admissions and co-operated with the police by going to the pre-arranged delivery point in Adelaide, but the consignees of the drugs did not appear.
Glynn is 34 years of age. He has a record of minor offending in England and has one conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 1997 for which he was imprisoned for 15 months.
On his initial arraignment Glynn pleaded not guilty. He raised a defence of duress. There was a hung jury on his trial in October 2001. A subsequent application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process was unsuccessful. He remained in custody on remand from 4 April 2001 until 5 April 2002 when he was released on bail, but he was required to stay in this State pending his further trial. His defacto wife and two children came to Australia in April 2002 but they went back to England after about 3 months. Glynn is uncertain whether that relationship will continue when he ultimately returns to England. While on bail he has been having some counselling for his drug problems.
Glynn’s second trial was listed to commence on 12 November 2002. On 11 November he entered his plea of guilty. While he is to receive a significant discount for this plea it is not as great as it would have been if it had been entered before a further trial date had been…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Glynn No. DCCRM-02-861 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] SADC 150
Decision Date: 6 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v John Patrick Glynn involved the defendant, John Patrick Glynn, who was charged with the importation of a prohibited substance, 359.6 grams of amphetamine (MDMA), into Australia. Glynn was arrested at Adelaide Airport on 4 April 2001 after a sniffer dog detected the drugs strapped to his upper body. Glynn had flown in from England, where he had been indebted to drug dealers who coerced him into acting as a courier. He pleaded guilty to the charge on 11 November 2002 before the South Australian District Court.

The primary legal issue in the case was whether the plea of duress, which Glynn initially raised, could be accepted as a defence. The court considered whether Glynn's actions were coerced under the threat of harm to himself and his family, and whether he had reasonable opportunities to report the threats to the authorities. The court also had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the seriousness of the offence, the deterrent value needed, and the mitigating factors present in the case.

The court held that while there were strong mitigating factors, such as Glynn's coercion and his contrition, the defence of duress could not succeed because he did not report the threats to the authorities. The court also took into account the period Glynn had already served on remand and the discount for his guilty plea. After considering these factors, the court sentenced Glynn to imprisonment for 22 months, with a direction that he be released after serving 12 months upon entering into a recognisance to be of good behaviour for two years. The court further directed that Glynn be deported to England upon his release.

The final orders of the court were that John Patrick Glynn be sentenced to imprisonment for 22 months, with release after serving 12 months upon entering into a recognisance, and that he be deported to England upon his release.

Orders