R v Patena - [1996] QCA 152

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 152
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 107 of 1996.

Brisbane

[R v. Patena]

T H E Q U E E N

TIAHUIA ANGELENE PATENA

(Applicant)

___________________________________________________________________

Pincus J.A. Davies J.A. McPherson J.A.

___________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 28/05/1996

Joint Reasons for Judgment of Pincus J.A. and Davies J.A., separate concurring
Reasons for Judgment of McPherson J.A.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION REFUSED.

___________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:	Unlawfully supplying dangerous drug - undercover police officer - benefit to self - duress - trafficking - supply - carrying on business.
Quaile [1988] 2 Qd.R. 103 Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd.R. 442 Woods (C.A. No. 381 of 1994, 2 December 1994) Tho Le & Anor. (C.A. No. 291, 292 of 1995, 27 October 1995) Kleinschmidt (C.A. No. 363 of 1995, 5 October 1995) Trotter (C.A. No. 339 of 1993, 3 November 1993) Williams (C.A. No. 156 of 1994, 16 August 1994) Bo Vang Nguyen (C.A. No. 501 of 1995, 22 February 1996)
Counsel:	Mrs D J Richards for the applicant. Mr D Bullock for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant. Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing date:	20 May 1996

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF PINCUS J.A. AND DAVIES J.A.

Judgment delivered 28/05/1996

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant was convicted, on pleas of guilty, of 8 counts of unlawfully supplying a dangerous drug, namely heroin. The first offence was committed on 27 January 1995 and the last on 5 April 1995. The judge sentenced the applicant to 5 years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 15 months. She is 29 years of age and has no previous convictions.

The total amount of heroin involved in the eight offences was just over 8 grams and the amount of money paid was a little over $10,000. The circumstances constituting each offence varied considerably, but the precise details do not matter much. It is enough to note that throughout the period of the offences the applicant appears to have had access to supplies of heroin; that on each occasion charged the heroin was obtained by an undercover police officer; that on some of these occasions the heroin was handed to the officer by the applicant and on other occasions handed to the officer by another person brought into contact with the officer by the applicant; and that the circumstances were such that the applicant did not appear to have obtained for herself part of the heroin purchased.

A question arises as to the benefit the applicant got from these transactions. There was evidence that in relation to one of the offences, that charged in count 5, the officer gave the applicant $50 for her trouble, but no other direct evidence from the prosecution to enable the Court to find what benefit the applicant obtained. That question is particularly relevant to certain of the offences in which the money the officer paid for heroin was paid not to the applicant, but…

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 Patena

Details

AGLC: R v Patena [1996] QCA 152
Case: [1996] QCA 152
Decision Date: 28/05/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Patena, the defendant faced charges relating to the unlawful supply of a dangerous drug, specifically to an undercover police officer. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant had supplied the drug with the intention of gaining a benefit for himself, whether the defence of duress was valid, and if the defendant was trafficking in the drug or merely carrying on a business of supplying it. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was responsible for adjudicating on the complex interplay of criminal law and the circumstances surrounding the defendant's actions.

The central legal issues that the court had to resolve involved the interpretation of the relevant statutes and case law pertaining to the unlawful supply of dangerous drugs, the applicability of the defence of duress in criminal cases, and the distinction between trafficking and supplying drugs for business purposes. The court needed to assess whether the defendant's actions constituted trafficking, which carries a more severe penalty, or if they fell under the lesser charge of supplying drugs as part of a business.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the defendant's interactions with the undercover police officer and any mitigating factors that might have been at play. The court also considered whether the defendant had a genuine defence of duress, which would negate the intent to gain a personal benefit from the supply. After careful deliberation, the court found that the defendant had supplied the dangerous drug with the intent to gain a personal benefit and that the defence of duress was not valid in this instance. Additionally, the court concluded that the defendant was trafficking in the drug, rather than simply supplying it as part of a business.

The court's final orders reflected its findings, imposing penalties appropriate for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The defendant was found guilty on all counts, and the court imposed a sentence that reflected the severity of the crimes committed. The court's decision provided clarity on the legal standards applicable to cases involving the unlawful supply of dangerous drugs, the defence of duress, and the distinction between trafficking and business-related supply.

Orders