R v Sagnelli - [2020] ACTSC 348

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sagnelli
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 348
Hearing Dates:	14 and 15 December 2020
Decision Dates:	14 and 15 December 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [50]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence – importing a marketable quantity of MDMA – importing a marketable quantity of LSD – scheduled offence of trafficking MDMA – low range of objective seriousness – unsophisticated offending – young offender – no criminal history – low risk of reoffending – custodial sentences to be served by way of
intensive correction order with a community service work condition
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(2)(g), 16BA, 17A, 20, 20AB Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), ss 302.4(1), 307.1(1), 307.2(1) Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth), Schedule 4 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 13, 46C, 46F
Cases Cited:	Adams v The Queen [2008] HCA 15; 234 CLR 143 Dunning v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 21 Ludwig v The Queen [2015] VSCA 35 R v NE [2015] ACTSC 352 R v Faber [2020] SASCFC 49 Woods v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 219
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Benjamin Sagnelli (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
D Berents (Crown)
B Morrisroe (Offender)
Solicitors
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 160 of 2019
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1. The offender, Benjamin Sagnelli, pleaded guilty to two counts of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely 3,4-methylenedioxymethaphetamine (MDMA) and lysergide (LSD) respectively, contrary to s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).

The maximum penalty for each of these offences is 25 years’ imprisonment, 5000 penalty

units or both.

2. The offender has requested that an additional offence be taken into account on sentence pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). That offence is trafficking in a controlled drug, namely MDMA, contrary to s 302.4(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty

for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment, 2000 penalty units or both.

Facts

3. The facts are agreed and, in summary, are as follows. On 29 April 2018 Australian Border Force (ABF) officers at the Sydney Gateway Facility intercepted an envelope that arrived in Australia from the Netherlands. The envelope was addressed to the offender at his residential address. The envelope contained two heat-sealed packages. There were 100 pink tablets in each package. Forensic analysis of the pink tablets revealed that they contained MDMA with a purity of 36.4% and a pure weight of 36.2908 g of MDMA. MDMA is a border controlled drug and a marketable quantity of MDMA for the purposes of s 307.2(1) is 0.5 g: see Schedule 4, Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth). The offender admits that he knew or intended the package to contain MDMA.

4. On 29 June 2018 ABF officers at the Sydney Gateway Facility intercepted an envelope that arrived in Australia from Poland. The envelope was addressed to the offender at…

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 Sagnelli

Details

AGLC: R v Sagnelli [2020] ACTSC 348
Case: [2020] ACTSC 348
Decision Date: 15 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sagnelli, the defendant was charged with multiple drug-related offences including the importation of a marketable quantity of MDMA and LSD, as well as the trafficking of MDMA. The case was heard in the relevant court, where the primary focus was on determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant’s criminal activities. Sagnelli’s defence argued that his involvement in the importation and trafficking was relatively unsophisticated, and that he was a first-time offender with a low risk of reoffending.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences, the consideration of mitigating factors such as the defendant’s age and lack of prior criminal history, and the determination of a sentence that would appropriately reflect both the nature of the crimes and the circumstances of the offender. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the low range of objective seriousness of the offences due to the relatively small quantity of drugs involved and the unsophisticated nature of the offending. The court also considered the defendant’s age, his lack of prior criminal history, and the low risk of reoffending. Consequently, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary but sought to impose a term that would be both punitive and rehabilitative. The court concluded that the sentences should be served consecutively to ensure adequate deterrence and to protect the community.

The final orders of the court were that Sagnelli be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for each of the offences, to be served by way of consecutive sentences, reflecting the court’s considerations of the low range of objective seriousness, the mitigating factors, and the need for both punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [50]

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.