SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Srna |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 337 |
Hearing Dates: | 16 February 2018, 18 May 2018, 1 August 2018, 23 August 2018, 13 September 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 13 September 2018 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | See [17]-[18] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis – additional offences – plea of guilty – subjective circumstances – objective seriousness – consideration – intensive correction order assessment – not bound by an assessment of unsuitability – reasons given – Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 46D – sentence to be served by way of an intensive correction order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 114C Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 46D |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Sebastian Srna (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (16 February and 18 May); Ms A Jamieson-Williams (1 August, 23 August and 13 September) (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 123 of 2017; SCC 124 of 2017 |
BURNS J:
Mr Srna, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to one charge of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis. That offence occurred on 5 October 2016. It is an offence contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $150,000. In sentencing you with respect to that offence, you ask that I take into account two offences contained on a list of additional offences. The first such offence is a charge of dealing with the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and/or a fine of $30,000. The second such offence is one of unauthorised possession of ammunition which is an offence contrary to s 249(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $1,500. All of these offences, including the offences on the list of additional offences occurred on 5 October 2016.
A comprehensive Statement of Facts has been tendered in the proceedings without objection. I will not read the Statement of Facts in its entirety. I do note however that the proceeds of crime charge relates to a sum of $29,230 in cash. The unauthorised possession of ammunition charge relates to 37 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition.
A very brief summation of the facts will be sufficient. On 5 October 2016, police were conducting a mobile patrol on Banfield Street in Downer. At that time, they stopped a blue Nissan motor vehicle, driven by you. You were the sole occupant of the vehicle. Police conducted a consensual search of the vehicle and located 938.1 grams of cannabis packed in six clip seal bags in the rear boot of the vehicle,…
Continue reading R v Srna
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Srna [2018] ACTSC 337
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 337
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with assessing whether an intensive correction order (ICO) was suitable for Srna's case. Under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), the court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, and any other relevant factors. The court was not bound by an assessment of unsuitability for an ICO and was required to give reasons for its decision. The court considered the defendant's guilty plea, his lack of a criminal record, and his remorse as mitigating factors. However, the court also considered the significant quantity of cannabis involved and the potential harm caused by the trafficking activities as aggravating factors.
After careful consideration, the court determined that an ICO was an appropriate sentence for Srna. The court found that an ICO would allow for effective rehabilitation and reintegration into society while also serving as a punishment for the crimes committed. The court outlined its reasoning, focusing on the need to balance the defendant's personal circumstances with the seriousness of the offences. Ultimately, the court sentenced Srna to an intensive correction order, with specific details and conditions outlined in the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [17]-[18]
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.