R v Hagan

Case [2016] ACTSC 343

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Hagan

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 343

Hearing Date:

10 August 2016

DecisionDate:

4 November 2016

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [77]-[80]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – serious drug offences – trafficking in large commercial quantity of a controlled drug – 30 kilograms of methylamphetamine – trafficking in a controlled drug – plea of guilty – utilitarian value – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – terms of imprisonment.
Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 128
Cases Cited:

Andros Steve Klobucar v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 6

Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5
Dong Pei Wang v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 161
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Jeremy Nguyen v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 11
Jones v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 230
O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
Plaisted v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 287
R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez‑Rios [2016] NSWCCA 147
R v Man Kit Li [2014] NSWCCA 327
R v Peng Gao; R v Benjamin Lim; Benjamin Lim v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 343
R v Zolfonoon [2015] NSWDC 296; 21 DCLR (NSW) 336

Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Alexander Hagan (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr S Drumgold (Crown)

Mr J Lawton (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 155 of 2015

BURNS J:

  1. Alexander Hagan, you have entered pleas of guilty to the following offences:

(a)Count 1, trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, in this case cocaine;

(b)Count 2, trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug, in this case methylamphetamine; and

(c)Count 3, trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, in this case 3, 4- methylenedioxymethlyamphetamine (MDMA).

  1. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for these offences. In sentencing you I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any fact in dispute which would make your offence more serious, but I need only to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities of any fact which may make your offence less serious.

  1. The maximum penalty for the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, being cocaine, contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code), is 10 years imprisonment and a fine of $150,000.00 or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug, contrary to s 603(1) of the Criminal Code, is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely MDMA, is 10 years imprisonment and a $140,000 fine.

  1. An Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered at your sentence hearing. I will not recite the facts as they…

Continue reading R v Hagan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hagan [2016] ACTSC 343
Case
[2016] ACTSC 343
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hagan was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where Hagan was charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug, specifically 30 kilograms of methylamphetamine. Hagan pleaded guilty to the charges, and the matter proceeded to sentencing. The central legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence, taking into account the quantity of the drug, Hagan’s plea of guilty, and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court also had to determine whether the sentence should reflect the utilitarian value of the drugs trafficked and the broader implications for public safety and deterrence.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the seriousness of the offence, which involved a significant quantity of a highly dangerous drug. The court recognised the plea of guilty as a mitigating factor but also emphasised the need for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the crime. The court noted Hagan’s reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, which were supported by evidence of his background, character, and efforts towards rehabilitation. The court weighed these factors against the need for deterrence and the protection of the community. Ultimately, the court determined that a term of imprisonment was necessary to address the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent to others who might engage in similar criminal activities.

The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account all the relevant factors. The judgment detailed the considerations that led to the specific term of imprisonment, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the offence while also reflecting the potential for rehabilitation. The court provided a comprehensive rationale for its decision, balancing the need for punishment with the opportunity for reform. The final orders, as outlined in the judgment, specified the term of imprisonment and any additional conditions or requirements for Hagan’s release and supervision.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [77]-[80]

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.