R v Heaven - [2019] ACTSC 31

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Heaven
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 31
Hearing Date:	6 February 2019
DecisionDate:	6 February 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [33]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis – plea of guilty in Magistrates Court – previous criminal history on similar charges in Victoria – offender a resident of Victoria – no assessment made for Intensive Correction Order – general deterrence – specific deterrence – partially suspended sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 603(5) Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT), Sch 1, Pt 1.2
Cases Cited:	Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5 R v Bui [2017] ACTSC 262 R v Hasani [2015] ACTSC 161 R v Hoang [2016] ACTSC 272 R v King [2017] ACTSC 119 R v Robertson [2014] ACTSC 354
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Aaron Heaven (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel V Conliffe (Crown) J Stewart (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 275 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Aaron Heaven has pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $150,000 or 10 years imprisonment or both.

Facts

At about 4.00pm on 4 June 2018 police were conducting surveillance in Melba in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). They observed a white coloured Ford utility vehicle park in the driveway of an address of interest to police. A short time after parking, the vehicle left the driveway and drove eastbound on John Cleland Crescent. Police then observed the vehicle turn right into Coulter Drive, Belconnen. A short time later, police activated their emergency lights and sirens directing the vehicle to stop, which it did. Police asked the offender if he would consent to a search being conducted of his person and of the vehicle he was driving. He did consent.

In the tray of the vehicle police observed two large locked compartments. Police asked the offender if he had a key for the compartments and he said that he did not. They asked him to empty his pockets and a key fell from the back pocket of his pants. Police used the key to open the compartments. In the passenger side compartment police observed three large green bags which smelt strongly of cannabis. One of the bags was opened and it was observed to contain cannabis head. The offender told police that the cannabis in the bags weighed 30 pounds. Subsequent laboratory testing confirmed that the substance in the bags was cannabis and that it had a total weight of 14.915kg. The offender was transporting the drugs from the address in Melba to a McDonald’s carpark in Banks. He was there to hand over the drugs in exchange for an unspecified amount of money, return the money…

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 Heaven

Details

AGLC: R v Heaven [2019] ACTSC 31
Case: [2019] ACTSC 31
Decision Date: 6 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Heaven involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis in the Magistrates Court. The appeal was against both his conviction and the sentence imposed, though the appeal against the conviction was withdrawn. The central legal issue was whether the sentence was appropriate, particularly in light of the offender's previous criminal history of similar charges in Victoria, and whether an assessment for an Intensive Correction Order should have been made. Additionally, the court needed to consider the principles of general and specific deterrence in sentencing, as well as the appropriateness of a partially suspended sentence.

The court considered the appellant's extensive history of drug-related offences, which included multiple convictions in Victoria for similar charges. This history was a significant factor in the court's assessment of the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also noted that no assessment for an Intensive Correction Order was made, which is typically required for first-time offenders but may be considered for repeat offenders if there is a likelihood of rehabilitation. The court found that the sentence, which included a partially suspended sentence, was appropriate given the appellant's history and the need for both general and specific deterrence.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of considering the offender's history and the potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate as it balanced the need for general deterrence with the specific circumstances of the offender. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed and the original sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [33]

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.