R v Hyde - [2017] ACTSC 337

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hyde
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 337
Hearing Date:	27 October 2017
DecisionDate:	27 October 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [17]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – user/dealer – prior criminal convictions of a similar nature – positive factors towards rehabilitation – consideration of lowest level of objective seriousness – general deterrence – specific deterrence – partially suspended sentence of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 603(7)
Cases Cited:	R v Tran [2014] ACTSC 368
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Natalie Marie Hyde (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Kent (Crown) K Saeedi (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 260 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Natalie Marie Hyde has pleaded guilty to trafficking in a controlled drug, namely, methamphetamine. Trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis is contrary to
s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $150,000, or both.

Facts

In the early hours of the morning of 17 June 2017, the vehicle in which Ms Hyde was travelling in was pulled over by police. As a result of what police were told and what they observed, they conducted a search of the vehicle and found a substance which was later tested and demonstrated to be 20.002 grams of methamphetamine.
They also found a quantity of money wrapped in two bundles and additional loose notes totalling $6107.50, a set of “Sharp scales”, a black case containing a glass methamphetamine pipe and a gold chain bracelet.
The offender pleaded guilty to the charge on the fifth occasion that the proceedings were before the ACT Magistrates Court.
The quantities that can be subject to this charge are between six grams and three kilograms. Having regard to the quantity found, the fact that the offender was found with a substantial quantity of money, and the fact that it is uncontroversial she was a methamphetamine user, I treat this case as not being in the lowest level of such a case, namely a subsistence dealer/user, but just above that level in that dealing was occurring at a level sufficient to accumulate some quantities of money but not any quantity that would permit a more extravagant lifestyle. Nor is there any evidence that she was supplying to other people so that those other people could on-sell the drug. I therefore treat the offending conduct as being at the lower end of the low to mid-range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Subjective Circumstances

The subjective circumstances of the offender are disclosed in the Pre-Sentence Report, which was tendered and became Exhibit 2.
Most significant is that Ms Hyde is currently 38 years old. She described herself as associating with an antisocial peer network since the age of 12…

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 Hyde

Details

AGLC: R v Hyde [2017] ACTSC 337
Case: [2017] ACTSC 337
Decision Date: 27 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Hyde involved a criminal appeal against sentence. The appellant, Hyde, had been found guilty of trafficking in a controlled drug, specifically cocaine, and was appealing against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appeal centred around the severity of the sentence, which the appellant argued was disproportionate to the objective seriousness of his offence and did not sufficiently account for his potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing in relation to the appellant's trafficking offence. This included considerations of the objective seriousness of the offence, the appellant's prior criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also needed to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in terms of general and specific deterrence.

The court found that while the appellant's offence was serious, it did not reach the highest level of objective seriousness. The trial judge had considered the appellant's prior convictions and his potential for rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence, which included a partially suspended sentence of imprisonment, was appropriate. It reflected the need for both general and specific deterrence while also taking into account the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [17]

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.