R v Mackinder - [2021] ACTSC 176

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Mackinder
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 176
Hearing Date:	2 August 2021
DecisionDate:	4 August 2021
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [13]–[15]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trafficking in controlled drug other than cannabis being cocaine – where offender’s role was that of courier– where financial motive was reduction in drug debt – no prior convictions – good prospects for rehabilitation if drug addiction addressed
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code ACT 2002 (ACT) s 603(7)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) William Howard Mackinder (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel D Swan (Crown) S Whybrow (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aulich Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 36 of 2021

BURNS J:

William Mackinder, you appear before me today, 4 August 2021, for sentence with respect to an offence of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis being cocaine (CC2020/6839). You entered a plea of guilty in this Court to that charge on 15 June 2021. It is an offence contrary to s 603 (7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for that offence is 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.

An Agreed Statement of Facts has been provided to the Court and I will not now recite those facts. It is sufficient to provide the following summary. On 5 June 2020 you drove your motor vehicle from Canberra to Sydney, collected a package of cocaine, and then returned to the ACT. Your vehicle was stopped by police in the ACT and searched. Police found the package of cocaine. The cocaine weighed 503.076g and was 77.2 per cent pure.

It has been accepted that your role was simply that of a courier. You were a cocaine user and you had built up a substantial debt to your supplier. Your supplier suggested that you act as a courier to bring the cocaine to the ACT in exchange for which, part of your debt would be remitted. There is some suggestion that you may have been subject to veiled threats by your supplier if you did not undertake this task but there is insufficient evidence before me to enable me to find that as a matter proved on the balance of probabilities.

The street value of the cocaine was estimated to be in excess of $150,000. The Agreed Statement of Facts notes that you had been under police surveillance for some time and that there was no evidence that you were in the business of supplying cocaine or, indeed, any other drug. There is no evidence that you were aware of the precise quantity of cocaine you were carrying but you must have had a pretty good idea. You saw the size of the package and you handled it, so you knew approximately how much it weighed.

I accept that you were not someone involved in purchasing the drug, nor would you have had any role in selling it…

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 Mackinder

Details

AGLC: R v Mackinder [2021] ACTSC 176
Case: [2021] ACTSC 176
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mackinder, William Howard Mackinder was sentenced by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The offender was found guilty of trafficking in a controlled drug, specifically cocaine, in an amount of 503.076g that was 77.2% pure. The offender pleaded guilty on 15 June 2021 to the charge, which is contrary to s 603 (7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for this offence, taking into account the offender's role as a courier, his motive for committing the offence, his prospects for rehabilitation, and other relevant factors.

The court considered the offender's role in the offence, his motive for committing the offence, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court accepted that the offender's role was simply that of a courier, with no intention of receiving any profit from the sale of the drugs. The court also accepted that the offender had a financial motive for committing the offence, as he was attempting to reduce his drug debt to his supplier. The court further considered the offender's prospects for rehabilitation, noting that he had good prospects for rehabilitation if his drug addiction was addressed. The court took into account the offender's plea of guilty, his lack of prior convictions, and the positive testimonials provided on his behalf.

The court ultimately decided to impose a sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order. The court reduced the otherwise appropriate sentence by six months due to the offender's plea of guilty. The court also imposed a condition that the offender complete 300 hours of community service within a period of two years as directed by an authorised officer. The court noted that the offender had already served one day of imprisonment but could not backdate the commencement of the sentence due to the Intensive Correction Order.

The final orders of the court were that William Howard Mackinder was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order. The sentence was to commence on 4 August 2021. The court also imposed a condition that the offender complete 300 hours of community service within a period of two years as directed by an authorised officer. The court further imposed a condition that the offender reside as directed by the Director General with responsibility for ACT Corrective Services or that person's delegate.

Orders