R v Massey (No 2)

Case [2016] ACTSC 278

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Massey (No 2)

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 278

Hearing Date(s):

15 August 2016

DecisionDate:

22 August 2016

Before:

Refshauge J

Decision:

1.     Mathew Massey be convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine on 9 January 2013.

2.     Mathew Massey be sentenced to two years and one month imprisonment to commence on 12 February 2016.

3.     A non-parole period of 13 months is to commence on 12 February 2016 and end on 11 March 2017.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – covert police operation – trafficking in methylamphetamine – consideration – subjective circumstances – extensive criminal history – serious offences – conditional liberty at the time of
re-offending – guilty plea

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33

NSW Police Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 (NSW)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 603(7)

Cases Cited:

Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5

Lawrence v The Queen [2007] 1 ACTLR 158;  171 A Crim R 286
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Nguyen v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 11
R v Bimahendali (1999) 109 A Crim R 355
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hoang [2015] ACTSC 195
R v Huat Phay [2015] ACTSC 238
R v Licciardello [2011] ACTSC 96
R v Lowe (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 19 December 2013)
R v McMahon [2014] ACTSC 280

R v Pye (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 23 August 2012)

R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Mathew James Massey (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms K McKenzie (Crown)

Mr A Doig (Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid (ACT) (Defendant)

File Number:

SCC 90 of 2015

REFSHAUGE J:

  1. The courts have said on many occasions that the distribution of illicit drugs through the community is a social evil and the criminal courts are required to take appropriate action to assist in the reduction of its trade.

  1. Thus, the Court of Appeal pointed out in Lawrence v The Queen [2007] 1 ACTLR 158; 171 A Crim R 286; by citing from the trial judge, though in the context of an offender engaged in trafficking by commenting (at [6]):

offences which were motivated solely for financial gain, and by a person who was not himself addicted or otherwise affected by personal drugs, his Honour was obviously drawn to his conclusion that:

drug dealing is a blight upon the Australian community and it seems to me that the considerations of general deterrence require that a custodial sentence, a full-time custodial sentence be imposed.

  1. Now appearing before me for sentence is Mathew James Massey, who has pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine.

  1. Trafficking in methylamphetamine is an offence against s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), which provides for a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units…

Continue reading R v Massey (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Massey (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 278
Case
[2016] ACTSC 278
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Massey (No 2) was heard in an Australian court, where Mathew Massey was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine on 9 January 2013. Massey was already on conditional liberty at the time of re-offending and had entered a guilty plea. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence, Massey's criminal history, and his circumstances at the time of sentencing.

The central legal issues that the court needed to address were the appropriate weight to be given to Massey's criminal history, his subjective circumstances, and the need to deter future offending. The court also had to consider the impact of Massey's early guilty plea and the role of deterrence in sentencing. Given Massey's extensive criminal history, including serious offences, the court had to balance these factors against his early guilty plea and subjective circumstances.

In determining the sentence, the court gave significant weight to Massey's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offence. It was noted that Massey had re-offended while on conditional liberty, which indicated a lack of rehabilitation. However, the court also considered Massey's early guilty plea, which resulted in a reduced sentence. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of two years and one month imprisonment was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 13 months. This sentence was intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence, deter future offending, and provide an opportunity for Massey to rehabilitate.

The court's final orders were that Mathew Massey be convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine on 9 January 2013 and be sentenced to two years and one month imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 months. The sentence was to commence on 12 February 2016, with the non-parole period ending on 11 March 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Mathew Massey be convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine on 9 January 2013.

2. Mathew Massey be sentenced to two years and one month imprisonment to commence on 12 February 2016.

3. A non-parole period of 13 months is to commence on 12 February 2016 and end on 11 March 2017.

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.