R v Rasic - [2016] ACTSC 156

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Rasic
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 156
Hearing Date:	24 May 2016
DecisionDate:	3 June 2016
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [20]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – conspiracy – conspiring to traffic in a controlled drug other than cannabis – plea of guilty – good prospects of rehabilitation – general deterrence – offer of assistance to authorities – suspended sentence.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 48, 603(7) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 90B
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Bianca Rasic (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Fernandez (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Prosecutions (Crown) Rachel Bird & Co (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 56 of 2015; SCC 65 of 2015

BURNS J:

Bianca Rasic, you have pleaded guilty to conspiring with Thor Kristiansen, Anthony Hagen, Ryan Malec, NL and Adley Tsang to trafficking methylamphetamine between 1 June 2013 and 14 May 2014. The Crown accepts that you participated in that conspiracy from January 2014 until 14 May 2014. You were part of an ongoing drug trafficking conspiracy within the Australian Capital Territory. The key organisers of the conspiracy were Thor Kristiansen and Anthony Hagen. Messrs Kristiansen and Hagen used mobile phones to arrange the purchase, packaging and delivery of methylamphetamine into the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC). They also used their mobile phones to organise and control the sale of drugs by associates on the outside of the AMC. At some time prior to 29 January 2014 and continuing through until around 14 May 2014, you performed a number of overt acts as part of your involvement in the conspiracy. At various times you:

(a)accepted delivery of methylamphetamine from Adley Tsang or an associate;
(b)stored methylamphetamine until it could be sold or introduced in to the AMC, or provided to a third party for the purpose of sale;
(c)were involved in preparing methylamphetamine for sale or distribution;
(d)were involved in selling methylamphetamine; and
(e)utilised bank accounts for payments relating to the sale of methylamphetamines and confirm receipt of payments to Mr Kristiansen.

Between 31 January 2014 and 26 March 2014, you also arranged for Louise Simpson, a friend of yours, to store $79,540.00 that had been derived from the sale of methylamphetamine. You participated in discussions with Mr Kristiansen about feedback from customers, including drug quality and prices, and debts owed by various customers. Around 28 February 2014, you provided Mr Kristiansen’s phone number to NL to enable NL to participate in the conspiracy.

The maximum penalty for the offence of conspiring to traffic in methylamphetamine contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code) by virtue of s 48 of the Criminal Code is imprisonment for 10 years, a fine of $150,000, or both. You were first charged before the Magistrates Court on 4 December 2014 with a number of offences, including: conspiracy to traffic a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely…

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 Rasic

Details

AGLC: R v Rasic [2016] ACTSC 156
Case: [2016] ACTSC 156
Decision Date: 3 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rasic involved the defendant, Rasic, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to traffic in a controlled drug other than cannabis. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which examined the appropriate sentence for Rasic’s involvement in the conspiracy. The court needed to consider various factors, including the nature of the offence, Rasic’s prospects of rehabilitation, and the need for general deterrence, alongside his offer of assistance to the authorities. The central legal issue was the determination of a suitable sentence that balanced punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court was tasked with interpreting the relevant provisions of the criminal law to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence while also taking into account mitigating factors. Specifically, the court had to weigh the seriousness of the conspiracy against Rasic's prospects of rehabilitation and his cooperation with law enforcement. The court also needed to consider the principle of general deterrence to ensure that the sentence served as a warning to others who might be tempted to engage in similar criminal activities. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the extent to which Rasic's offer of assistance to authorities could mitigate the sentence.

Upon considering these factors, the court decided on a sentence that included a period of suspension. The reasoning behind this decision was that, while the offence was serious, the court recognised Rasic's potential for rehabilitation and his cooperation with the authorities. The court concluded that a suspended sentence would adequately serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence without unnecessarily imposing immediate custodial punishment, which could hinder Rasic's rehabilitation efforts. The court's decision was also influenced by the need to encourage similar cooperation from others in future cases. The court’s final orders, as noted in paragraph [20], reflect this balanced approach to sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [20]

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.