R v Pearce - [2018] ACTSC 140

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Pearce
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 140
Hearing Date:	8 May 2018
DecisionDate:	10 May 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [33]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely heroin – possessing a prohibited weapon – dealing with proceeds of crime – user/dealer – dealing to support own and partner’s habits and to make a profit – significant criminal history – pleas of guilty – consideration of illicit drug use rehabilitation – general deterrence – specific deterrence – sentenced to a period of full‑time imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1990 (ACT), ss 114A, 114C Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 601(1), 603(7) Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT), sch 1 Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT), s 5, pt 1.4 sch 1 item 6
Cases Cited:	Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5 R v Johnston [2017] ACTSC 280
Parties:	The Crown (Crown) Adam Pearce (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel J Walker (Crown) M Kukulies-Smith (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 340 of 2017 SCC 341 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Adam Pearce has pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(1)trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT) (maximum penalty $140,000 or imprisonment for 10 years or both);
(2)nine charges of possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) (maximum penalty $70,000 or imprisonment for five years or both); and
(3)one transferred charge of dealing with the proceeds of crime contrary to s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (maximum penalty $28,000 or imprisonment for two years or both).

For the purposes of the trafficking offence, the drug in question was heroin. A trafficable quantity of heroin is a quantity between 5g and 2.5kg: Criminal Code, s 601(1); Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT), sch 1.

Facts

The facts relating to the offences were agreed and recorded in a Statement of Facts which was admitted into evidence without objection.

Search 7 November 2016

Police executed a search warrant on the offender’s home in Palmerston on 7 November 2016. During that search police located:

(1)an electrical discharge device, designed to appear to be identical to a white and black iPhone 4 (CC2017/4321);
(2)a black hand-held electrical discharge device with silver electrical tape on the handle (CC2017/4322);
(3)an unknown brand, 18 centimetre long black electrical discharge device, with a model name ‘FOX-910A’, designed to appear identical to a flashlight (CC2017/4323); and
(4)an unknown brand ‘800 type’, 11 centimetre long, five centimetre wide, black electrical discharge device (CC2017/4324).

Each of these items was a prohibited weapon as described by item 4, pt 1.4 of sch 1 of the Prohibited Weapons Act. That item in the schedule is in the following terms:

4A hand-held or other electric device designed to administer an electric shock on…

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 Pearce

Details

AGLC: R v Pearce [2018] ACTSC 140
Case: [2018] ACTSC 140
Decision Date: 10 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pearce involved the defendant, Pearce, who was charged with various drug-related offences, including trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely heroin, possessing a prohibited weapon, and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Pearce entered guilty pleas to all charges, which led to a sentencing hearing where the court had to determine the appropriate punishment.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were the appropriate level of general and specific deterrence in sentencing, as well as the need to consider the defendant's significant criminal history and potential for rehabilitation. The court had to balance these considerations against the gravity of the offences and the circumstances in which they were committed. Pearce's drug use was not only to support his own and his partner's habits but also to generate profit.

The court, in delivering its judgment, found that the offences were serious and warranted a substantial sentence. The judge considered the defendant's criminal history and his involvement in drug trafficking to support his lifestyle and make a profit. While there was an acknowledgment of the need for rehabilitation, the court determined that the need for general and specific deterrence outweighed this factor. Consequently, Pearce was sentenced to a period of full-time imprisonment. The exact length of the sentence was detailed in the court's written reasons for judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [33]

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.