R v Slater - [2016] ACTSC 198

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Slater
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 198
Hearing Date:	7 July 2016
DecisionDate:	7 July 2016
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of 20 months and two weeks and good behaviour orders.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trafficking in methylamphetamine – summary offences transferred – on conditional liberty – guilty plea CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – re-sentence – breach of good behaviour order – trafficking in methylamphetamine – trafficking in cannabis
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603 Magistrates Court Act 1900 (ACT) s 90B
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Daniel Austin Slater (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S Saikal (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 250 of 2015; SCC 251 of 2015; SCC 142 of 2012

MURRELL CJ:

The offender pleaded guilty to the offence that, on 29 April 2015 at Canberra, he trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment and/or a fine of $150,000.

The amount of methylamphetamine was 10.457g. The trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine is six grams. The commercial quantity is three kilograms.

Four summary offences were transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1900 (ACT):

(a)possess prohibited substance, namely cannabis (maximum penalty two years' imprisonment and/or a $7,000 fine);
(b)possess knife in a public place (maximum penalty six months' imprisonment and/or a $1,500 fine); and
(c)two counts of unlawful possession of property reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained (maximum penalty six months' imprisonment and/or a $7,500 fine).

The offences place the offender in breach of a good behaviour order imposed by Higgins CJ on 10 February 2014 for very serious offences of trafficking in methylamphetamine and trafficking in cannabis. The quantity of methylamphetamine was 248g and the facts referred to a number of firearms and a large amount of cash. For the offence of trafficking in methylamphetamine, his Honour imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment. For the offence of trafficking in cannabis, his Honour imposed a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment. The sentences were to be served concurrently and were backdated to 17 June 2013, although the offender was not actually in custody during the period from June 2013 to February 2014. From 10 February 2014, the sentences were suspended and the offender was released on a three-year good behaviour order (until 9 February 2017).

In relation to the drug trafficking matter before the Court, the offender pleaded guilty after he was committed to the Supreme Court, but before a trial date was set. The Crown case was strong. The sentences…

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 Slater

Details

AGLC: R v Slater [2016] ACTSC 198
Case: [2016] ACTSC 198
Decision Date: 7 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis. He had pleaded guilty to these offences in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The matter was then transferred to the County Court of Victoria for the purpose of sentence. The appellant had been on conditional liberty at the time of the offence, having previously been convicted of drug trafficking. The appellant sought a re-sentencing hearing due to his breach of a good behaviour order. The court considered the appellant’s offending history, his breach of the good behaviour order, and the severity of the current offences. The court held that the appellant’s criminal history, particularly his history of drug trafficking, indicated a pattern of behaviour that required a firm response. The court imposed a sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of 20 months and two weeks. The court also issued good behaviour orders to the appellant. The court ordered that the appellant serve his sentence in custody, reflecting the seriousness of his offending and the need to deter him and others from engaging in similar criminal activity.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of 20 months and two weeks and good behaviour orders.

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.