R v Ta

The case involves an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal in Western Australia. The applicant had pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge made errors in her findings regarding the applicant's responsibility for drugs found at a storage shed and the nature of the relationship between the applicant and his associate. Specifically, the court examined whether the storage shed was rented on the applicant's behalf and if there was a second phone used by the associate for communication with the applicant.

The court concluded that the sentencing judge's findings were well-supported by the evidence. The judge determined that the storage shed was rented on the applicant's behalf based on the relationship between the applicant and his associate, which was found to be that of employer and employee within the trafficking business. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the judge erred in describing the associate as an employee, noting that the term was used in the context of subordination and direction rather than an industrial relations sense. The court also found no error in the judge's decision not to make an intermediate finding about a second phone, as the evidence did not compel such a finding. The court was satisfied that the sentencing judge was adequately convinced by the evidence to make the findings in question.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the credibility and consistency of the evidence presented, particularly in relation to the roles of the parties involved in the drug trafficking operation. The applicant's arguments regarding the credibility of the associate's evidence and the specific findings about the rental agreement and communication methods were not persuasive to the court.

ORDERS:
The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.