R v Goatcher - [2016] ACTSC 114

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Goatcher
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 114
Hearing Date:	26 May 2016
DecisionDate:	26 May 2016
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended upon entering into an 18-month good behaviour order with conditions.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – cultivate trafficable quantity of cannabis – early guilty plea – lower objective seriousness – strong subjective circumstances – rehabilitation – suspended sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12, 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 616(5)
Cases Cited:	R v Mayberry (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 5 September 2013) R v Quzag [2015] ACTSC 52
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Keiron Goatcher (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 133 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to the offence that between 30 September and 4 December 2014 at Canberra he cultivated a trafficable quantity of cannabis with the intention that the plants or their products would be sold.

This is an offence against s 616(5) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). It carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.

The offender was committed for trial on the charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis. Following discussions, five days before the trial was scheduled to commence, the offender pleaded guilty to the lesser charge.

A commercial quantity of cannabis is 100 plants or more. A trafficable quantity is 10 plants or more.

Having regard to the facts to which I will come in a moment, it seems that the offender had good reason to plead not guilty to the original indictment. The Court is informed that, at an early stage, he identified the issue as whether the quantity of cannabis at the premises was the commercial quantity or a lesser quantity, and that this hinged upon whether plant items found at the premises were sufficiently viable to be "plants". At no stage did the offender deny criminal culpability. In these circumstances, the appropriate discount for the plea is 20–25%; such a discount acknowledges the utilitarian value of the plea, the offender’s remorse, the strength of the Crown case and other considerations.

Facts

In August 2014, the offender approached a real estate agent and stated that he wished to rent a four-bedroom house. He agreed to rent the premises in question, which are in the Gungahlin area, for $650 a week from 1 October 2014. From time to time, he paid rent in cash. Rent was paid until 11 December 2014.

A services account for electricity, water and gas was opened in the name of an acquaintance of the offender.

In early October 2014, tradespersons attended the house to install vents in the roof and the offender purchased equipment that was later used to grow cannabis at the house.

Neighbours observed the…

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 Goatcher

Details

AGLC: R v Goatcher [2016] ACTSC 114
Case: [2016] ACTSC 114
Decision Date: 26 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Goatcher, was charged with cultivating a trafficable quantity of cannabis. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Goatcher entered an early guilty plea, which significantly reduced the objective seriousness of his sentencing. However, the court had to consider strong subjective circumstances, including his rehabilitation efforts and prospects for reintegration into society.

The legal issues for the court's consideration were the appropriate sentence for cultivating a trafficable quantity of cannabis, and the impact of the early guilty plea on the sentencing. The court also needed to weigh the objective seriousness of the offence against the subjective circumstances of Goatcher's rehabilitation and prospects for reintegration.

The court acknowledged the early guilty plea, which reduced the objective seriousness of the offence. However, it also considered the subjective circumstances, including Goatcher's efforts at rehabilitation and his prospects for reintegration into society. Given these factors, the court determined that a suspended sentence was appropriate, and sentenced Goatcher to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended upon entering into an 18-month good behaviour order with conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended upon entering into an 18-month good behaviour order with conditions.

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.