R v Peter John Roberts No. DCCRM-00-637 - [2001] SADC 188

R v Peter John Roberts
[2001] SADC 188
CRIMINAL
JUDGE DAVID SMITH

On the 3^rd May 2001 Peter John Roberts pleaded guilty to the following charges:-
Count 2. Selling amphetamine and methylamphetamine contrary to s32(1)(c) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984.
The particulars being that on the 28^th August 1997 at Plympton he knowingly sold a quantity of a substance containing amphetamine and methylamphetamine, drugs of dependence, to another person.
Count 3. Possessing amphetamine and methylamphetamine for sale contrary to s32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984.
The particulars being that on the 28^th August 1997 at Plympton he knowingly had a substance containing amphetamine and methylamphetamine, drugs of dependence, in his possession for the purpose of selling it to another person.
The information in fact charged four offences. Upon his plea of guilty to the above two counts, the Crown entered a nolle prosequi in relation to Counts 1 and 4. The penalty for these two offences is set out in s32(5)(B)(b)(i) and (ii) of the said Act.
Circumstances of Offending
On the 28^th August in the car park of the Bilo Supermarket at Plympton, the defendant sold three bags of powder containing amphetamine and methylamphetamine to an undercover police officer. Each bag held 27.5 grams of powder. Precisely what was in each bag is as follows:-
·The first bag contained 3.10 grams of amphetamine and 0.08 grams of methylamphetamine;
·The second bag contained 3.08 grams of amphetamine and 0.08 grams of methylamphetamine; and
·The third bag contained 2.85 grams of amphetamine and 0.07 grams of methylamphetamine.
The defendant was arrested. His vehicle was searched and 10 bags of white powder containing amphetamine and methylamphetamine were located. Each of the 10 bags weighed between 0.6 and 0.8 grams or 7.5 grams in total. These bags contained about 11 percent amphetamine (i.e. 0.84 grams) and 0.25 percent of methylamphetamine (i.e. 0.01 grams in total).
On arrest the defendant declined to answer questions. The considerable evidence in the Crown case discloses that this offending occurred against a background of the defendant being involved in a commercial trading or dealing operation in amphetamine and methylamphetamine; (see R vMangelsdorf (1995) 66 SASR 60).
History since the arrest
Following the arrest of the defendant on the 28^th August 1997, he was released on bail. He then absconded to Perth. He was arrested on a bench warrant on the 22^nd March 2000. On the 26^th June 2000, he was committed for trial on the charges the subject of the information in this matter. On the 5^th March 2001, he was arraigned on all the charges set out on the information and pleaded not guilty. There followed a Voir Dire hearing in which the defendant applied, pursuant to Rule 9, to exclude the evidence of the undercover operative known as “Peter” on the basis that the renewal of the authority to conduct an undercover operation pursuant to the Criminal Law (Undercover…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Peter John Roberts No. DCCRM-00-637 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] SADC 188
Decision Date: 21 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter John Roberts was convicted and sentenced for selling and possessing amphetamine and methylamphetamine, as well as for various other offences committed while on bail. The case involved multiple charges, including serious criminal trespass, illegal use of a motor vehicle, driving at a dangerous speed, and driving while disqualified. The court considered various factors, including the defendant's history of offending, his personal circumstances, and the severity of the crimes committed. The judge allowed a discount for the defendant's guilty plea but denied credit for time spent on home detention bail. The court imposed a sentence of four years for the drug offences, 18 months for the serious criminal trespass offences, one month for illegal use of a motor vehicle, and another month for driving while disqualified, all to be served cumulatively. The total period of imprisonment was set at five years and eight months, with a non-parole period of two and a half years.

The legal issues in this case primarily revolved around the sentencing considerations for multiple offences, especially the drug-related crimes and the offences committed while on bail. The court had to decide on the appropriate discount for the defendant's guilty plea, the impact of his personal history and circumstances, and the necessity of imposing deterrent penalties in line with legislative intent. Additionally, the court needed to address the cumulative sentencing for multiple offences and the determination of the non-parole period considering the defendant's potential for rehabilitation.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of deterrence, proportionality, and the specific circumstances of the defendant's offending history. The judge emphasised the severe penalties prescribed by Parliament for drug trafficking and serious trespass, indicating that these penalties should be imposed to deter such activities. The court also took into account the defendant's troubled background, his efforts towards rehabilitation, and his current prospects for a settled life. However, the judge concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant a suspended sentence or a significantly reduced non-parole period. The cumulative nature of the sentences for the various offences reflected the court's intent to address the seriousness of the crimes and the defendant's repeated breaches of bail conditions.

Orders