R v Strawhorn - [2006] VSC 462

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1427 of 2003

THE QUEEN

WAYNE GEOFFREY STRAWHORN

---

JUDGE:	HABERSBERGER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 and 29 NOVEMBER 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 DECEMBER 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v STRAWHORN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 462

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Trafficking in a drug of dependence in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity – Accused a police officer – Member of Drug Squad – General deterrence – Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s. 71AA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Elston SC with Mr M. Tinney	Ms A. Cannon Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Morrissey with Mr J. O’Sullivan	Galbally & O’Brien

HIS HONOUR:

Wayne Geoffrey Strawhorn, you have been found guilty by the jury empanelled on your trial of one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely pseudoephedrine, in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence, contrary to s.71AA of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

My first task is to identify the facts which are relevant to the charge upon which you have been convicted. Any finding of fact which I make in that process must be consistent with the jury verdict and consistent with the manner in which the Crown put its case against you to the jury.

In 1999 and 2000 you were a Detective Senior Sergeant attached to unit 2 of the Drug Squad. That unit was responsible for the investigation of clandestine amphetamine laboratories. One investigative technique used by unit 2 was that of a controlled chemical delivery. This involved the police purchasing sought after precursor chemicals and other products and then selling them to illegal drug manufacturers via informers or covert operatives. The plan was that the chemicals would be followed by physical and/or electronic surveillance with a view to locating the whereabouts of clandestine laboratories. In fact, you were largely responsible for the introduction of this innovative method of investigation in Victoria following an overseas study tour in 1996. Controlled chemical deliveries were thereafter successfully used on numerous major drug operations on which you worked.

One such operation was codenamed Operation Vere. It targeted the Moran family, in particular Mark Moran. This operation was instigated following an approach to the Drug Squad by two former policemen, whom I shall call “BC” and “DE”. The latter was friendly with Mark Moran and his father, Lewis Moran. It was agreed that BC and DE would work as informers under your control although they were never registered as such.

Contact was made by DE with Mark Moran, who indicated that he was interested in purchasing all sorts of chemicals, including pseudoephedrine. These requests were passed on to you by BC. Your initial response was that pseudoephedrine was not available. Authorisation was obtained for the delivery of other chemicals or…

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 Strawhorn

Details

AGLC: R v Strawhorn [2006] VSC 462
Case: [2006] VSC 462
Decision Date: 11 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Strawhorn, the respondent, a police officer and member of the Drug Squad, was convicted of trafficking in a drug of dependence in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary concern was the appropriateness of the sentence handed down to the respondent, considering his position as a police officer and the need for general deterrence in such cases. The respondent argued that the sentence was unduly harsh and should be reduced.

The court needed to consider several legal issues, including the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking offences, the impact of the offender's position as a police officer, and the importance of general deterrence in the context of drug trafficking. The court was tasked with balancing these considerations to determine an appropriate sentence.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking, acknowledging the severity of such offences. It recognised the importance of general deterrence and the need to maintain public confidence in law enforcement. However, it also considered the respondent's position as a police officer and the impact this had on his culpability. The court concluded that, while the respondent's conduct was serious, his role as a police officer warranted a degree of leniency. Consequently, the sentence was deemed appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed. The respondent's sentence was upheld, reflecting the court's balance of deterrence, culpability, and the offender's role as a police officer.

Orders