R v Matthew John Wilson - [2002] ACTSC 14

R v Matthew John Wilson [2002] ACTSC 14 (7 March 2002)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – prohibition of publication of evidence – power to exclude public from courtroom – whether power can arise before order prohibiting publication - Evidence Act 1971 s 83 - whether practice of prohibiting publication of identity of informers extends to all evidence of all persons who give useful information to police.

SENTENCING – trafficking in amphetamines – whether Court entitled to recognise link between amphetamine trafficking and organised crime and violence – trafficking in MDA – whether Court entitled to have regard to harmful effect of drug without pharmacological evidence.

Evidence Act 1971, s 83

Drugs of Dependence Act 1989, s 164

Crimes Act 1900

XZ v R [2000] FCA 1143

Jacobs v The Queen [2001] FCA 1192

No. SCC 205 of 2001

Judge: Miles CJ

Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 7 March 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. SCC 205 of 2001

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN

MATTHEW JOHN WILSON

ORDER

Judge: Miles CJ

Date: 7 March 2002

Place: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

On the charge of possession of methamphetamine for sale or supply, the offender be sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
On the charge of possession of MDA, the offender be sentenced to one year imprisonment concurrent.
Non-parole period of one year to commence from 7 March 2002 and to expire on 6 March 2003.
There be a forfeiture order in relation to the money found on the premises.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The papers be marked "Prisoner at risk to himself and generally".

HIS HONOUR: Before sentencing proceeds there is a preliminary matter about which I need to say something.
Yesterday when Matthew John Wilson was called for sentence, Mr Sabharwal made an application for an adjournment on the ground that further time was needed to prepare the case.
Although the prosecution did not oppose that application, I refused it, bearing in mind that Mr Wilson had pleaded guilty before a Magistrate and was committed to this Court as long ago as 7 December 2001, and the matter had been the subject of a callover before the hearing date was fixed. Therefore the case proceeded, and Matthew John Wilson continued his plea of guilty in this Court.
At the conclusion of the prosecution case Mr Sabharwal indicated that he wished to call evidence from a Sergeant Thrift, but that the evidence of that witness would be so sensitive that the public should be excluded from the courtroom when it was given.
At that stage I did not understand what the evidence would be. I ordered members of the public from the courtroom in order to understand what the evidence might be and I then took the evidence of the witness in-camera, that is to say in the absence of the public.
It became clear enough that the concern of Mr Sabharwal was well justified, having regard especially to the decision…

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 Matthew John Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Matthew John Wilson [2002] ACTSC 14
Case: [2002] ACTSC 14
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the case of R v Matthew John Wilson was heard, where Matthew John Wilson was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and MDA for sale or supply. The court faced preliminary concerns regarding the exclusion of the public from the courtroom during sensitive evidence. The court determined that while it had the power to prohibit the publication of evidence under the Evidence Act 1971, the authority to exclude the public from the courtroom only arose after an order prohibiting publication was made. This left the court in a situation where it could not exclude the public without knowing the content of the evidence, which was not possible before the order was made. The court suggested this issue should be addressed by the legislature.

The legal issues involved the interpretation of the Evidence Act 1971 and the implications of the Full Court decision in XZ v R. The court had to decide whether the practice of prohibiting publication of the identity of informers extended to all evidence of persons who provide useful information to the police. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate sentence for the drug trafficking offences, taking into account the harmful effects of amphetamine trafficking and the lack of pharmacological evidence regarding the harmful effects of MDA.

The court reasoned that the serious nature of the offences, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, warranted a significant sentence. It acknowledged the link between amphetamine trafficking and organised crime and violence, despite the lack of pharmacological evidence. The court sentenced Matthew John Wilson to three years’ imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine for sale or supply, and one year concurrent for possession of MDA. A non-parole period of one year was set to commence from the date of sentencing and expire on 6 March 2003. The court also marked the papers "Prisoner at risk to himself and generally" and ordered a forfeiture of the money found on the premises.

Orders