R v Mort (a pseudonym) - [2021] ACTSC 175

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Mort (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 175
Hearing Date:	20 July 2021
DecisionDate:	3 August 2021
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [26]–[31]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trafficking in controlled drug other than cannabis namely methylamphetamine – trafficking in controlled drug other than cannabis namely MDA – unlawful possession of stolen property – unlawful possession of drug of dependence – pleas of guilty – assistance to authorities – general deterrence important sentencing consideration for offences of drug trafficking – prospects for rehabilitation guarded – consideration of lack of motivation in seriously addressing drug addiction
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 324(1), 603(7) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) s 169
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Jaxon Mort ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Marson ( Crown) T Taylor ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) McKenna Taylor ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 111 of 2021; SCC 112 of 2021

BURNS J:

Jaxon Mort, on 12 May 2021 you entered pleas of guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court to the following offences:

(a)a charge of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both (CAN 3476/2020);
(b)a charge of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely 3, 4 Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) which is contrary to the same provision and subject to the same maximum penalty;
(c)a charge of possession of property that is reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, a fine of $32,000 or both; and
(d)a charge of possession of a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine contrary to s 169 of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, a fine of $8,000, or both.

Each of these offences was committed on 1 February 2020.

The facts

On the afternoon of 31 January 2021, you checked into the Hyatt Hotel in Canberra, paying $1,149 in cash for one night’s accommodation. You were observed to have a large wad of cash. You were also in possession of a black computer bag. The next morning you and your co-offender, Kaelyn Annabelle (a pseudonym), and two young children left the Hotel. You handed the black laptop computer bag to a young male of approximately 5 years of age who was with you.

A short time later a member of the public approached the bell boy at the Hotel and handed him the black laptop computer bag. The bag was handed to the front desk staff as lost property. Staff checked the contents of the bag in an attempt to identify the owner and observed a sum of cash, a quantity of…

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 Mort (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Mort (a pseudonym) [2021] ACTSC 175
Case: [2021] ACTSC 175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Jaxon Mort, also known as the offender, faced multiple charges, including trafficking in controlled drugs and unlawful possession of property. The case was presided over by Justice Burns. The legal issues that the court needed to address were the appropriate sentences for the offender's various convictions, taking into account the nature of the crimes, the offender's criminal history, and the mitigating factors such as early guilty pleas and assistance to authorities.

Justice Burns meticulously assessed the seriousness of the offences, the offender's criminal history, and the subjective factors that could influence the sentencing. The court determined that the trafficking offences were serious, involving significant quantities of drugs with potential street values ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The offender's significant criminal history, starting from a young age and including previous drug trafficking convictions, indicated a pattern of criminal behaviour that warranted stringent penalties. However, the court also considered the offender's early guilty pleas, which resulted in a 25% discount, and his assistance to authorities, which led to an additional 25% discount on the sentences.

Given these factors, Justice Burns decided that the offender's prospects for rehabilitation were guarded, though the assistance provided to authorities was a positive sign. The court emphasized the importance of general deterrence in drug trafficking cases and concluded that immediate imprisonment was necessary to achieve this goal. The final sentences imposed were a total of one year and seven months in prison, with a non-parole period of eleven months, reflecting the discounts for early pleas and assistance to authorities.

Orders