R v Jarryd Kenneth Simpson

Case [2024] QSC 295

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jarryd Kenneth Simpson [2024] QSC 295

PARTIES:

R
v
JARRYD KENNETH SIMPSON

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 196 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial (Judge alone)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

29 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 to 22 November 2024

JUDGE:

Williams J

VERDICT:

1.    Count 1 on Indictment 196 of 2021 (trafficking in dangerous drugs, serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation):  Not guilty.

2.    Alternative count (trafficking in dangerous drugs): Guilty.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS – TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY – where the trial proceeded without a jury – where the defendant pleaded not guilty to trafficking with the serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation, but pleaded guilty to carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs – whether or not a third particularised person was a participant in the criminal organisation for the purposes of s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the particularised individuals were a “criminal organisation” as defined by s 161O – whether the defendant knew or reasonably ought to have known the offence was being committed in association with one or more persons who were participants in a criminal organisation – whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the circumstance of aggravation

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 615C
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) s 5

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 161Q, s 161P, s 161O, 161R, s 251

Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569, cited
R v A2; R v Magennis; R v Vaziri (2019) 373 ALR 214; [2019] HCA 35, cited
R v Hill (2020) 5 QR 225; [2020] QSCPR 14, cited
R v Hill (No 2) (2020) 6 QR 1; [2020] QSC 309, applied
R v Hilton (2020) 3 QR 260; [2020] QSCPR 2, cited
R v Nguyen [2023] QCA 168, cited
R v Pentland [2020] QSC 231, applied

R v Stasiak and Turkyilmaz (2019) 2 QR 533; [2019] QSC 260, applied

COUNSEL:

ZA Kaplan for the prosecution

AJ Kimmins for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution

AW Bale & Son Solicitors for the defendant

  1. The Defendant, Jarryd Kenneth Simpson, is charged in Count 1 on Indictment 196 of 2021 that between 1 August 2016 and 9 October 2017 he carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs, with a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation pursuant to s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (Penalties and Sentences Act).

  2. The Defendant pleaded not guilty to trafficking with the serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation,[1] but pleaded guilty to carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs.[2]  The plea was not accepted by the Crown in discharge of Count 1 on the Indictment.  The matter…

Continue reading R v Jarryd Kenneth Simpson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Jarryd Kenneth Simpson [2024] QSC 295
Case
[2024] QSC 295
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jarryd Kenneth Simpson, the defendant was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs and carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs. Simpson pleaded not guilty to trafficking with the serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation but pleaded guilty to carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs. The central legal issues the court had to address were whether a third particularised person was a participant in the criminal organisation for the purposes of s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), whether the particularised individuals were a "criminal organisation" as defined by s 161O, whether the defendant knew or reasonably ought to have known the offence was being committed in association with one or more persons who were participants in a criminal organisation, and whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the circumstance of aggravation.

The court considered the admitted facts and evidence, including the admissions made by the prosecution and the defendant, and the recordings of telephone intercepts. The court evaluated the credibility of the witnesses, particularly Scott, who had a history of drug addiction, had been intoxicated during the recordings, and had a reduced sentence due to his cooperation with law enforcement. The court also noted that Scott had been convicted of perjury, which further impacted his credibility. Despite these factors, the court could still act on Scott's evidence if satisfied he was a truthful and accurate witness. The court weighed Scott's evidence in conjunction with the other evidence and gave due weight to the dangers of acting on his evidence.

The court concluded that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Simpson was involved in a criminal organisation and that he knew or ought to have known that the offence was being committed in association with one or more persons who were participants in that criminal organisation. The court found that Simpson had carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs, and the serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation was proven. The court considered the totality of the evidence and Simpson's admissions in reaching its decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Next, it is necessary to consider the admitted facts.The agreed facts A number of joint admissions were made by the prosecution and the Defendant. For the purposes of s 644 of the Criminal Code:(a)The admissions made by the prosecution were consented to by the Defendant; and(b)The admissions were made by the Defendant. The admissions are set out in Exhibit 1 and I rely on the full statement of the admissions and treat the facts set out in Exhibit 1 as proved. Following is a summary of the admissions for the purpose of these reasons:(a)The Defendant unlawfully operated in the business of trafficking in the dangerous drugs 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), cocaine and cannabis between 1 August 2016 and 9 October 2017 (Trafficking Business).(b)The Trafficking Business included:(i)A customer base of at least 30 people.(ii)Operated from the Gold Coast to Maroochydore.(iii)Between 1 August 2017[12] and 9 October 2017, the Trafficking Business supplied at least:[12]Exhibit 1 at [4] states “1 August 2017”, although the trafficking period in Count 1 on the Indictment commences at “1 August 2016”.(A) 2112 pounds (958.7 kg) of cannabis.(B) 2.0865kg of cocaine.(C) 4.6978kg and 16,210 pills of MDMA.(iv)Revenue of at least $4,209,010, although the total profit is unknown.(c)To hide the activities of the Trafficking Business the Defendant created a fictitious cleaning business “Sunny Coast Cleaning”, including a website and vehicle with insignia.(d)The Defendant required those associated with him to have the phone application ‘Wickr’ installed, which allows for messages to be deleted within a specified timeframe and the deleted messages are unrecoverable.(e)The Defendant used more than one courier to transport drugs and collect money from customers.(f)Some customers had their own independent trafficking operations.(g)The Defendant knowingly sold MDMA, cocaine and cannabis to those who operated their own drug-businesses. There are further admissions under the headings:(a)Cannabis.(b)MDMA.(c)Cocaine.(d)Ryan.(e)Money.(f)End of operation. The key aspects of these admissions are summarised below. In respect of cannabis:(a)The Defendant sourced cannabis from Quan Tam Tu.(b)The Defendant would obtain 40 to 100 pounds (18kg to 45kg) twice per week, with the most common transaction that occurred being 50 pounds of cannabis for $100,000 to $120,000.(c)The Defendant would sell the cannabis to customers:(i)in amounts ranging from 1 to 2 pounds, to 10 to 15 pounds at a time; and(ii)for between $2450 to $2800 per pound, and would offer lower prices for the more pounds purchased per transaction. In respect of MDMA:(a)The Defendant would obtain MDMA in both powder and pill form, with powder being bought in 30 to 40 ounces (850g to 1.13kg) per transaction.(b)Purchases from one supplier were $5.50 per pill and $1,500 per ounce (28g).(c)The pills were on-sold at a higher price.(d)The powder was repackaged at the Defendant’s direction (at times by Ryan), by use of a capsule machine or pressed or poured into gelatine capsules.(e)10,000 empty capsules were purchased and at least 7,000 were filled with MDMA powder.(f)The cost was $3 per tablet to make but were sold to customers for between $5 and $10.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I direct myself to apply the interpretation of s 161O and the meaning of “group’.Evidence The evidence is:(a)Exhibit 1 being the admissions (which I have summarised above).(b)Exhibit 2 being a USB containing 24 recordings of telephone intercepts.(c)Exhibit 3 being a USB containing a single recording of a telephone intercept.(d)Exhibit 4 being a USB containing a spreadsheet maintained by Ryan in relation to the Trafficking Business.(e)The oral evidence of Scott.(f)The oral evidence of Ryan. I have been provided with a copy of transcripts of the recordings contained in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3[34] and an index to the recordings in Exhibit 2.[35][34]MFI “C” and “D”.[35]MFI “B”. I remind myself that it is important to remember that it is the sounds I hear on the recordings that constitutes the evidence. The transcript itself is not evidence: it is merely an aid to my understanding. If I hear something different from what appears in the transcript, I should act on what I have heard, and not on the transcript. I may notice, as I listen to the recordings, that they have been edited in some respects. That may have been done to remove parts of the recording that are irrelevant to the issues I must decide. It is very common for recordings to require editing in this way before they are used in a trial. I direct myself that I am not to speculate about the parts that have been edited out. I also direct myself not to draw any inference adverse to the Defendant merely because irrelevant material has not been placed before me. To do so would be wrong and unfair. I have not had regard to the transcripts of Items 4 and 26[36] which were not included in the recordings included in Exhibit 2.[36]As described in the Index MFI “B” and which were included in the bundle of transcripts MFI “C”.Particular directions in respect of witnesses The prosecution called Scott and Ryan to give evidence as part of the prosecution’s case. Prior to considering the evidence, it is necessary to direct myself on some specific issues arising in respect of the evidence of Scott and Ryan. In respect of Scott:(a)I heard evidence that Scott was a drug addict at the time of the offending and may have been intoxicated on drugs at the time of the recording of the telephone calls. This is one of the things I may take into account when assessing the credibility of the witness and deciding if I accept his evidence.(b)The prosecution relies on the evidence of Scott, who gave a statement to the police pursuant to s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act, which had the effect of reducing his own sentence. Further,(i)Under that section a sentence may be reduced by the Court where the offender undertakes to co-operate with law enforcement authorities by giving evidence against someone else. (ii)If an offender receives a reduced sentence because of that sort of co-operation, and then does not co-operate in accordance with his undertaking, the sentence may be re-opened and a different sentence imposed. (iii)In these circumstances, there may be a strong incentive for a person in that position to implicate the Defendant when giving evidence. I may take this into account when assessing the credibility of the witness and deciding if I accept his evidence.(c)It became apparent during the trial that Scott also was convicted on his own plea of perjury. That is, Scott took an oath or affirmation to tell the truth and failed to do so. It is a matter for me, but this may be a further feature impacting on the credibility of Scott’s evidence.(d)Evidence has been given that Scott has previous convictions. That is something I can take into account when considering his credibility and the weight to be given to his evidence. Further:(i)The fact that someone has previous convictions does not necessarily mean his evidence has to be rejected out of hand. It is a matter for me what weight I give to the fact that he has been previously convicted. (ii)In deciding that, I look at the rest of the evidence, including any evidence that supports his evidence independently, and weigh his evidence and the fact that he has convictions in that context.(iii)If after I have done that, I am satisfied that he is a truthful and accurate witness I can act on his evidence notwithstanding that he has previous convictions.(iv)The fact that someone has a history of criminal behaviour does not necessarily mean he is lying on this occasion. But I should keep in mind the dangers in accepting him as a truthful witness. I have to exercise caution before I act on his evidence. (v)But, if I am satisfied he is a truthful witness after having seen him give evidence and having considered his evidence in conjunction with the other evidence, and given due weight to the dangers about acting on his evidence, I can act on the version of facts he has given.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.