R v Mr Z - [2005] VSC 90

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1529 of 2004

THE QUEEN

MR Z

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 March 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 April 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mr Z
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 90	1^st Revision: 1 April 2005

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Trafficking in a drug of dependence in a quantity not less than a large commercial quantity – 2 summary offences – Pleas of Guilty – Substantial past assistance to Police – Undertakings to give substantial future assistance – Major discounts warranted - Exceptional circumstances warranting suspended sentence of 3 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan S.C. With Mr K. Gilligan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S. Langslow	Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Mr. Z, you have pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in Methylamphetamine. More specifically, you have pleaded guilty to having, between 9 January 2004 and 27 July 2004, trafficked in a drug of dependence namely Methylamphetamine in a quantity that was not less than a commercial quantity. You have also pleaded guilty to two other related offences. They are of trafficking on 9 June 2004 in drugs of dependence, in one case amphetamines, and in the other cannabis.

Before I come to the circumstances of the offences, I would note that I have made certain orders because of the opinion I formed as to the need to minimize the risk of endangerment to your physical safety. A pseudonym order has been made with a view to your being referred to publicly only as Mr. Z. I have also made an order closing the court on the hearing of the plea and handing down of this sentence. I have also made an order prohibiting publication of any part of these sentencing remarks until after one hour after the handing down of this sentence. For the reasons that I am about to give, I will be imposing a suspended sentence. Included in the reasons is that you have undertaken to give evidence against certain persons. You are likely to be called on to honour that undertaking soon. I am informed that a committal hearing is scheduled for 18 April. I am obliged to be somewhat circumspect in what I say today. Media representatives will be aware of the need to be careful as to what is published by reason of the law as to contempt and under Witness Protection legislation.

I come back to your offending behaviour. You came to be involved in drug trafficking for a combination of reasons. Despite having two brothers who had had trouble with the law, you had taken a very different path, one of stability, until two or so years ago. You kept away from drugs. You had no convictions. You had stable work. Indeed, you worked with one employer for over 8 years between 1994 and…

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 Mr Z

Details

AGLC: R v Mr Z [2005] VSC 90
Case: [2005] VSC 90
Decision Date: 1 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a defendant, Mr Z, who had entered pleas of guilty to two summary offences related to trafficking in a drug of dependence in a quantity not less than a large commercial quantity. The case was heard in an Australian court, which had to determine an appropriate sentence. The court considered the substantial past assistance provided by Mr Z to the police, as well as undertakings to give substantial future assistance. The court needed to weigh these factors alongside the nature and quantity of the offence to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Mr Z, given the nature of the offences and the mitigating factors presented. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly those relating to drug trafficking offences, and the potential for mitigating factors such as substantial assistance to law enforcement. Additionally, the court had to evaluate whether the exceptional circumstances warranted a departure from the typical sentencing range for such offences.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the significant assistance provided by Mr Z to the police, both in the past and with undertakings for future assistance. The court recognised that these factors warranted a major discount in the sentence. Considering the exceptional circumstances and the substantial assistance provided, the court determined that a suspended sentence of three years was appropriate. This decision balanced the need for punishment with the recognition of Mr Z's contributions to law enforcement.

The court ordered that Mr Z be sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years, reflecting the substantial past assistance provided to the police and the undertakings for future assistance. The sentence was structured in a way that took into account the exceptional circumstances and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders