Legal Research
Cases
R v Richards

R v Richards

Case [2017] QCA 299 8 December 2017

Appeal

Misdirection and Non-Direction

Jurisdiction

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Richards [2017] QCA 299

PARTIES:

R
v
RICHARDS, Daniel John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 318 of 2016
SC No 54 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 27 October 2016 (North J)

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Henry J

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Set aside the convictions on counts 1 and 3 and quash the sentences on those counts.

3.   Enter verdicts and judgments of acquittal on those counts.

4.   Quash the sentence on count 2 and substitute a sentence of imprisonment for four years.

5.   Order that the term of imprisonment on count 2 be suspended after serving a period of 20 months imprisonment, and the appellant must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of four years if he is to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug, unlawful possession of a dangerous drug with the circumstance of aggravation that the quantity of the dangerous drug exceeded two grams, and possessing a vehicle he had used in connection with the commission of a crime – where the conduct alleged to constitute the offence was the appellant aiding Mr Moran to carry on his business of trafficking – where the appellant contended that, in the absence of any direct evidence of any conversation or conduct evidencing knowledge by the appellant of any intention of Mr Moran to repeat the transaction or follow it by any further conduct relating to the drug, the jury could not exclude the reasonable hypothesis consistent with the appellant’s innocence of count 1 that, to the knowledge of the appellant, Moran acted only as a one-off courier – whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug, unlawful possession of a dangerous drug with the circumstance of aggravation that the quantity of the dangerous drug exceeded two grams, and possessing a vehicle he had used in connection with the commission of a crime – where the conduct alleged to constitute the offence was the appellant aiding Mr Moran to carry on his business of trafficking – where there were jointly admitted facts – where one of those facts was that the other person was convicted by his own plea of guilty of one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine – where during the hearing the respondent acknowledged that evidence…

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 Richards

Details

AGLC: R v Richards [2017] QCA 299
Case: [2017] QCA 299
Decision Date: 8 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Richards, the appellant appealed against his conviction on count 1 of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug, unlawful possession of a dangerous drug with the circumstance of aggravation that the quantity of the dangerous drug exceeded two grams, and possessing a vehicle he had used in connection with the commission of a crime. The case arose from the appellant's alleged involvement in aiding Mr. Moran in the trafficking of drugs, with the appellant arguing that there was no evidence to exclude the possibility that Moran acted as a one-off courier. The appellant also argued that the trial judge erred in directing the jury regarding the use of the co-offender's plea of guilty as evidence of his guilt.

The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury in relation to the use of the co-offender's plea of guilty. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, and found that the trial judge did indeed err in directing the jury regarding the use of the co-offender's plea of guilty, as evidence of the appellant's guilt. The court also found that the verdict on count 1 was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, as there was no direct evidence of the appellant's knowledge or involvement in the trafficking business beyond the one-off transaction with Moran.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions on counts 1 and 3, and quashed the sentences on those counts. The court entered verdicts and judgments of acquittal on those counts, and quashed the sentence on count 2 and substituted a sentence of imprisonment for four years. The court also ordered that the term of imprisonment on count 2 be suspended after serving a period of 20 months imprisonment, and the appellant must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of four years if he is to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Set aside the convictions on counts 1 and 3 and quash the sentences on those counts.

3. Enter verdicts and judgments of acquittal on those counts.

4. Quash the sentence on count 2 and substitute a sentence of imprisonment for four years.

5. Order that the term of imprisonment on count 2 be suspended after serving a period of 20 months imprisonment, and the appellant must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of four years if he is to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Richards [2017] QCA 299

Most Recent Citation

R v Ta [2018] QCA 342

Cases citing this decision · 11 of 11 shown

R v SEP
[2025] QCA 117 Para 11

…ent suspended after 20 months for his possession, as transporter, of methylamphetamine with a pure weight of 176.6 grams. [2][2004] QCA 244. [3][2017] QCA 299.…
R v Hoch [No 2]
[2023] QCA 200 Para 22

…The sentence on count 1 became “anomalous” due to the setting aside of the conviction on count 2: see R v Richards [2017] QCA 299 at [82]-[83] and [127]. The anomaly arose because the suspension of the sentence after two of three years of the sentence for count 1 had been served (which was more than half the sent…
R v Morris
[2021] QCA 221 Para 7

…ng on the business of trafficking, which in turn, usually requires a degree of repetition and continuity and an intention to profit: see R v Richards [2017] QCA 299 at [32] to [36]. He then argued that whilst the evidence clearly suggested two actual supplies and that some other offers and discussions had taken p…
R v Armitage; R v Armitage; R v Dean
[2021] QCA 185 Para 5

…f guilt of the ‘other offence’ the Court has a discretion to substitute a verdict of guilty for that offence.” [59] [2017] QCA 299, [65] ( per curiam ).…
Pezzano v The State of Western Australia
[2020] WASCA 181 Para 14

…me the section necessarily applies in such case. [108] Spies [23]. To similar effect see the dicta of the Queensland Court of Appeal in R v Richards [2017] QCA 299 [67].…
Brewster v BMW Australia Ltd
[2020] NSWCA 272 Para 33

…f a majority of the High Court; see also Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 23 at [473]; and R v Richards [2017] QCA 299 at [124].…
R v Armitage, Armitage and Dean
[2020] QSC 41

…inguished R v McDougall; R v Collas [2007] Qd R 87, cited R v NQ [2013] QCA 402, distinguished R v Richards [2017] QCA 299, applied R v Richardson [2010] QCA 216, cited R v T [1995] 2 Qd R 192, distinguished R v Taylor and Hicks [2011] QCA 207, distinguished R v WAW [2013] QCA 22, distinguished R v Wellham and Ma…
R v Dalton
[2020] QCA 13 Para 11

…In Simpson , this court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and ordered a retrial.[15] [15]In R v Richards [2017] QCA 299 [16] - [17], this court (Sofronoff P, Fraser JA & Henry J) cited with approval the conclusions and observations (to which I have referred) in Kirkby and Simpson .…
R v Lambert
[2019] QCA 219 Para 29

…four years was imposed. It was suspended after 20 months, to reflect reasons of parity and factors to do with the offender’s overall character. [22][2017] QCA 299.…
R v Quagliata
[2019] QCA 45 Para 5

…ant and the respondent to make submissions as to the orders which should be made in relation to those counts, it being noted that in R v Richards [2017] QCA 299, this Court held that s 668F of the Criminal Code confers on it power to resentence in similar circumstances.…
R v Ta
[2018] QCA 342 Para 20

…v Luu [7] was also relied on. [1][2004] QCA 244. [2](2015) 255 A Crim R 57; [2015] QCA 170. [3][2014] QCA 90. [4][2016] QCA 10. [5][2018] QCA 22. [6][2017] QCA 299. [7][2018] QCA 281.…

View all 11 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 35 of 35 shown

R v Phillips
[2017] QCA 41 Para 1

…and he was found to have given dishonest evidence which reflected upon his lack of remorse and prospects for rehabilitation. [87][2015] QCA 170. [88][2017] QCA 41.…
R v Baden-Clay
[2016] HCA 35 Para 1

…CLR 400 at [11]-[14]; BCM v The Queen (2013) 88 ALJR 101 at [31]. [16] MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 624, 634. [17] R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308 at 329 [65].…
R v Connolly
[2016] QCA 132 Para 1

…n being twice punished for the same act or omission.[39] The present was such a case. [39] R v Bobonica & Runcan [2009] QCA 287 at [38]; R v Connolly [2016] QCA 132 at [16]; R v Kiripatea [1991] 2 Qd R 686 at 701-702.…
R v Duong
[2015] QCA 170 Para 1

…a low level courier, and he was found to have given dishonest evidence which reflected upon his lack of remorse and prospects for rehabilitation. [87][2015] QCA 170. [88][2017] QCA 41.…
R v Illin
[2014] QCA 285 Para 1

…n his own plea of guilty his sentence to that term with parole eligibility after two years otherwise supplies only limited guidance here. [85][2014] QCA 285 at [25].…
BCM v The Queen
[2013] HCA 48 Para 1

…ppeal which has not seen or heard the witnesses called at trial”.[17] [15] SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400 at [11]-[14]; BCM v The Queen (2013) 88 ALJR 101 at [31]. [16] MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 624, 634. [17] R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308 at 329 [65].…
R v Roberts and Pearce
[2012] QCA 82 Para 1

…l facts of the principal offender’s offence, including any required state of mind of the principal offender.[1] [1]See R v Roberts & Pearce [2012] QCA 82 at [170]-[171]; R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30 at 38; R v Tabe [2003] QCA 356 at [36].…
SKA v The Queen
[2011] HCA 13 Para 1

…e advantage enjoyed by the jury over a court of appeal which has not seen or heard the witnesses called at trial”.[17] [15] SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400 at [11]-[14]; BCM v The Queen (2013) 88 ALJR 101 at [31]. [16] MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 624, 634. [17] R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308 at 329 [6…
R v Thomas
[2010] QCA 201 Para 1

…l Division. It is not necessary to pursue that topic. [26][2004] 1 Qd R 685, 689 at [12] – [13]. [27][2004] QCA 140 at [3]. [28][2010] QCA 201 at p 3.…
R v Bobonica & Runcan
[2009] QCA 287 Para 1

…of the Criminal Code against a person being twice punished for the same act or omission.[39] The present was such a case. [39] R v Bobonica & Runcan [2009] QCA 287 at [38]; R v Connolly [2016] QCA 132 at [16]; R v Kiripatea [1991] 2 Qd R 686 at 701-702.…
Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
[2009] HCA 23 Para 1

…in those cases were not the culmination of long-established authority supporting a single view.[84] [84] cf. Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1 at [473] per Heydon J.…
R v Simpson
[2008] QCA 413 Para 1

…”. [4][2000] 2 Qd R 57 at 71-2 [44]. [5][2000] 2 Qd R 57 at 81 [82]. [6][2000] 2 Qd R 57 at 72 [45] (McMurdo P) and 78 [71] (Thomas JA). [7][2008] QCA 413 at [40].…
R v Dobie
[2004] QCA 140 Para 1

…ion to be heard in the Trial Division. It is not necessary to pursue that topic. [26][2004] 1 Qd R 685, 689 at [12] – [13]. [27][2004] QCA 140 at [3]. [28][2010] QCA 201 at p 3.…
R v Hesketh; Ex parte Attorney-General
[2004] QCA 116 Para 1

…ustodial sentence to a minimum. Such guidance as may be obtained from that case suggests that the appellant’s sentence should be more severe. [86][2004] QCA 116.…
R v Tabe
[2003] QCA 356 Para 1

…e of mind of the principal offender.[1] [1]See R v Roberts & Pearce [2012] QCA 82 at [170]-[171]; R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30 at 38; R v Tabe [2003] QCA 356 at [36].…
MFA v The Queen
[2002] HCA 53 Para 1

…alled at trial”.[17] [15] SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400 at [11]-[14]; BCM v The Queen (2013) 88 ALJR 101 at [31]. [16] MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 624, 634. [17] R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308 at 329 [65].…
R v Dent
[2002] QCA 247

…The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 452; [2000] HCA 46, cited R v Dent (2002) 132 A Crim R 151; [2002] QCA 247, cited R v Edirimanasingham [1961] AC 454, cited R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442; (1988) 33 A Crim R 155, cited R v Hervey & Goodwin (1940) 27 Cr App R 146, cited R v Kirkby [2000] 2 Qd R 57; [1998] QCA 445, cite…
R H McL v The Queen
[2000] HCA 46

…ueen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, cited R H McL v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 452; [2000] HCA 46, cited R v Dent (2002) 132 A Crim R 151; [2002] QCA 247, cited R v Edirimanasingham [1961] AC 454, cited R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442; (1988) 33 A Crim R 155, cited R v Hervey & Goodwin (1940) 27 Cr App R 146,…
DJL v Central Authority
[2000] HCA 17

…[59](1971) 125 CLR 529; and see DJL v The Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226 at 244-246, 262-263, 289-291.…
R v Antipas
[1999] QCA 168

…[22] R v Quaile [1988] 2 Qd R 103, R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442, R v Goulden [1993] 2 Qd R 534, R v Patena [1996] QCA 152, and R v Antipas [1999] QCA 168.…
R v Kirkby
[1998] QCA 445

…cited R v Hervey & Goodwin (1940) 27 Cr App R 146, cited R v Kirkby [2000] 2 Qd R 57; [1998] QCA 445, cited R v Lovelock [1956] 1 WLR 1217; (1956) 40 Cr App R 137, cited R v O’Grady (1943) 28 Cr App R 33, cited R v Patena [1996] QCA 152, cited R v RH McL [1999] 1 VR 746; [1998] VSCA 61, cited R v Simpson [2008] Q…
R v McL
[1998] VSCA 61

…28 Cr App R 33, cited R v Patena [1996] QCA 152, cited R v RH McL [1999] 1 VR 746; [1998] VSCA 61, cited R v Simpson [2008] QCA 413, cited Ryan v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 1; [1982] HCA 30, cited COUNSEL: J Trevino for the appellant N Rees for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Dire…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57

…Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 188 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, cited R H McL v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 452; [2000] HCA 46, cited R v Dent (2002) 132 A Crim R 151; [2002] QCA 247, cited R v Edirimanasingham [1961] AC 454, cited R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442; (1988) 33 A C…
Postiglione v the Queen
[1997] HCA 26 Para 1

…ences than would have been imposed for a single offence so as to ensure that the total penalty is not excessive.[35] [35] Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 at 308 per McHugh J.…
R v Patena
[1996] QCA 152

…; (1956) 40 Cr App R 137, cited R v O’Grady (1943) 28 Cr App R 33, cited R v Patena [1996] QCA 152, cited R v RH McL [1999] 1 VR 746; [1998] VSCA 61, cited R v Simpson [2008] QCA 413, cited Ryan v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 1; [1982] HCA 30, cited COUNSEL: J Trevino for the appellant N Rees for the respondent SOLIC…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70

…[33]Thomas, Principles of Sentencing , 2 nd ed. (1979), pp. 56-57; cited in Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 at 63 per Wilson, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ.…
Neal v The Queen
[1982] HCA 55 Para 1

…oned those appeals when the Court of Appeal intimated that the Court might be minded to increase them.[72] [71][1999] 1 VR 746. [72] Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305.…
Ryan v the Queen
[1982] HCA 30

…VSCA 61, cited R v Simpson [2008] QCA 413, cited Ryan v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 1; [1982] HCA 30, cited COUNSEL: J Trevino for the appellant N Rees for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent…
Bailey v Marinoff
[1971] HCA 49

…[59](1971) 125 CLR 529; and see DJL v The Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226 at 244-246, 262-263, 289-291.…
Cobiac v Liddy
[1969] HCA 26 Para 1

…f s 668F(1). [60]See e.g. s 648 of the Criminal Code and R v Lowrie and Ross [2000] 2 Qd R 529 at 539 per McPherson JA. [61] Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 273 per Windeyer J; Griffiths v The Queen (1976) 137 CLR 293 at 301 per Barwick CJ, at 317 per Jacobs J.…
Griffiths v The Queen
[1977] HCA 44 Para 1

…rie and Ross [2000] 2 Qd R 529 at 539 per McPherson JA. [61] Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 273 per Windeyer J; Griffiths v The Queen (1976) 137 CLR 293 at 301 per Barwick CJ, at 317 per Jacobs J.…
[1985] QB 115
[1985] QB 115 Para 1

…55]s 635 of the Criminal Code . [56] R v Cosgrove [1948] Tas SR 99; R v Martens (No 2) [2011] 1 Qd R 575 at 586, footnote 29. [57] R v Foster [1985] QB 115.…
[1956] 1 WLR 1217
[1956] 1 WLR 1217

…7 Cr App R 146, cited R v Kirkby [2000] 2 Qd R 57; [1998] QCA 445, cited R v Lovelock [1956] 1 WLR 1217; (1956) 40 Cr App R 137, cited R v O’Grady (1943) 28 Cr App R 33, cited R v Patena [1996] QCA 152, cited R v RH McL [1999] 1 VR 746; [1998] VSCA 61, cited R v Simpson [2008] QCA 413, cited Ryan v The Queen (1982)…
[1961] AC 454
[1961] AC 454

…6, cited R v Dent (2002) 132 A Crim R 151; [2002] QCA 247, cited R v Edirimanasingham [1961] AC 454, cited R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442; (1988) 33 A Crim R 155, cited R v Hervey & Goodwin (1940) 27 Cr App R 146, cited R v Kirkby [2000] 2 Qd R 57; [1998] QCA 445, cited R v Lovelock [1956] 1 WLR 1217; (1956) 4…
[1967] 1 WLR 645
[1967] 1 WLR 645 Para 1

…is no appeal and which stands.”[46] No reliance was placed upon the fact that the appellant happened to have appealed against the sentences. [45][1967] 1 WLR 645. [46] supra , at 646.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 8

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
5 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
188 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1907 (UK)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 c.19
1 mention (from Para 1)
Criminal Code Amendment Act 1913 (WA)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Act 1989 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Richards [2017] QCA 299
PARTIES:	R v RICHARDS, Daniel John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 318 of 2016 SC No 54 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 27 October 2016 (North J)
DELIVERED ON:	8 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 May 2017
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Henry J
ORDERS:	1. Allow the appeal. 2. Set aside the convictions on counts 1 and 3 and quash the sentences on those counts. 3. Enter verdicts and judgments of acquittal on those counts. 4. Quash the sentence on count 2 and substitute a sentence of imprisonment for four years. 5. Order that the term of imprisonment on count 2 be suspended after serving a period of 20 months imprisonment, and the appellant must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of four years if he is to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug, unlawful possession of a dangerous drug with the circumstance of aggravation that the quantity of the dangerous drug exceeded two grams, and possessing a vehicle he had used in connection with the commission of a crime – where the conduct alleged to constitute the offence was the appellant aiding Mr Moran to carry on his business of trafficking – where the appellant contended that, in the absence of any direct evidence of any conversation or conduct evidencing knowledge by the appellant of any intention of Mr Moran to repeat the transaction or follow it by any further conduct relating to the drug, the jury could not exclude the reasonable hypothesis consistent with the appellant’s innocence of count 1 that, to the knowledge of the appellant, Moran acted only as a one-off courier – whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug, unlawful possession of a dangerous drug with the circumstance of aggravation that the quantity of the dangerous drug exceeded two grams, and possessing a vehicle he had used in connection with the commission of a crime – where the conduct alleged to constitute the offence was the appellant aiding Mr Moran to carry on his business of trafficking – where there were jointly admitted facts – where one of those facts was that the other person was convicted by his own plea of guilty of one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine – where during the hearing the respondent acknowledged that evidence…