R v Thorn - [2015] ACTSC 218

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Thorn
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 218
Hearing Date(s):	29 July 2015
DecisionDate:	29 July 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment for two years and one month, to be released after serving 12 months on a recognizance release order, subject to conditions.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – drug importation offences – import commercial quantity of border controlled drug – Gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) – scheduled offences – pleas of guilty – cooperation with law enforcement authorities – long history of substance abuse – general deterrence – rehabilitation – discount for pleas of guilty and cooperation with law enforcement authorities
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 16BA Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 307.1, 307.8, 307.11, 308.1 Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth) sch 3
Cases Cited:	DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50 R v Karan [2013] NSWCCA 53 R v Phelps (Unreported, NSW District Court, Ellis J, 5 September 2014)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Christopher Walter Thorn (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K Musgrove (Crown) Mr S Whybrow (Offender)
Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich and Associates (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 108 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

The offender entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court to the offence that between 12 October and 20 October 2014 he imported a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely Gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), contrary to s 307.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code).

Pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act1914 (Cth) (Crimes Act), I take into account two scheduled offences:

(a)On 15 October 2014, in the ACT, the offender attempted to commit an offence against s 307.8 of the Criminal Code in that he attempted to possess a commercial quantity of GBL; and
(b)On 15 October 2014, in the ACT, the offender possessed a controlled drug, methamphetamine, contrary to s 308.1 of the Criminal Code.

The maximum available penalty for the principal offence is life imprisonment, a fine of $1.275M or both. The maximum available penalty for the first scheduled offence is the same as that for the principal offence. The maximum available penalty for the offence of possession of a controlled drug is two years' imprisonment, a fine of $68,000 or both.

The offender indicated the pleas in the Magistrates Court at an early stage, albeit in the face of a strong prosecution case. It should also be noted that the offender was immediately forthcoming with police when they attended his premises in October 2014; he readily admitted his involvement and proffered information. The offender is entitled to a discount of at least 20% for his willingness to facilitate the course of justice, and I will allow 25%.

Facts

The agreed facts indicate that, on 12 October 2014, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service intercepted a package addressed to the offender in the ACT. The package had been sent from a company in Shanghai,…

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 Thorn

Details

AGLC: R v Thorn [2015] ACTSC 218
Case: [2015] ACTSC 218
Decision Date: 29 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Thorn, was convicted for importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, specifically Gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), which is a scheduled offence. Thorn pleaded guilty to the charges and demonstrated cooperation with law enforcement authorities. The case came before the court to determine an appropriate sentence, considering Thorn's long history of substance abuse and the need for general deterrence and rehabilitation.

The central legal issues revolved around the severity of the offence, Thorn's criminal history, and the extent of his cooperation with authorities. The court needed to balance these factors with the objectives of sentencing, which include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and recognition of any mitigating circumstances. The court also considered the statutory maximum penalties for such offences and the discount that may apply for pleas of guilty and cooperation with law enforcement.

In reaching its decision, the court took into account Thorn's extensive history of substance abuse, which was seen as both a mitigating and aggravating factor. While it suggested a need for rehabilitation, it also demonstrated a persistent pattern of unlawful conduct. The court also recognised Thorn's cooperation with law enforcement and his early guilty pleas. After weighing these factors, the court sentenced Thorn to imprisonment for two years and one month, with a release after serving 12 months on a recognizance release order, subject to conditions.

The final orders of the court were for Thorn to serve a total sentence of two years and one month, with an actual imprisonment term of 12 months, followed by a recognizance release. Thorn was required to adhere to specified conditions during the release period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment for two years and one month, to be released after serving 12 months on a recognizance release order, subject to conditions.

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.