R v Vakatini

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Vakatini [2020] QSC 107

PARTIES:

R

v

VAKATINI, Norman Rarua Dick Duke

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 10 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED EX-TEMPORE ON:

31 March 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2020

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDER:

Sentence imposed in accordance with ex-tempore reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – HARDSHIP – TO OFFENDER – where the defendant was a drug courier intercepted carrying 99.432 grams of pure methylamphetamine – where the defendant was on bail and complying with bail conditions – where, in an era where matters were commonly adjourned due to Covid-19, the defendant opted to proceed to sentence rather than seek an adjournment – where, due to Covid-19,  no visitors would be allowed during a significant portion of the defendant’s possible period of imprisonment – where there was a possibility of stricter precautions being imposed during the course of the defendant’s period of imprisonment – whether the circumstances of the defendant’s period of imprisonment during the Covid-19 pandemic should be taken into account as a mitigating factor or a factor justifying a discount on the sentence

COUNSEL:

E Coker for the Crown

A J Kimmins for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)
O’Reilly Stevens Lawyers for the defendant

Norman Vakatini, you pleaded guilty to possession of methylamphetamine with a circumstance of aggravation.  You were, you now acknowledge, transporting, essentially in the role of a courier, a substantial amount of methylamphetamine from Sydney to Cairns when you were caught by police, armed with a search warrant, in possession of the drug at Fishery Falls between Innisfail and Cairns.

The drug was contained in crystal form in a single clip-sealed bag inside a tissue box on the front passenger seat.  It was 71.3 per cent pure methylamphetamine, gross weight 139.457 grams, pure weight, 99.432 grams.  You denied knowledge of the drug being there.  Obviously, you knew it was there.  You were charged and bailed that day.  You have been on bail ever since.  The gross weight of the drug was pretty close to about five ounces.

It was inherently a commercial amount and it is not suggested otherwise.  Its wholesale value would have been well above $10,000, and its value assessed through street value sales would be much higher again.  No evidence was found to suggest that you yourself were a drug dealer, indeed, the entire circumstances are entirely consistent with you being caught acting as a courier of the drug.  Through your counsel, you do not dispute that, indeed, you acknowledge as much.  The psychologist who provided exhibit 3 indicated you anticipated, on your instructions, to receive two to two and a-half thousand dollars in payment for performing this task for unnamed criminals. 

You come before the Court without having ever been convicted of a criminal offence.  You were 26 at the time of the offence, and are now 27, so whilst you are…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Vakatini and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] QSC 107
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vakatini involved the defendant, who was apprehended as a drug courier transporting 99.432 grams of pure methylamphetamine. The defendant was on bail and adhering to the bail conditions at the time of sentencing. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account the unique circumstances surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the defendant’s potential period of imprisonment during this period warranted consideration as a mitigating factor or a justification for a reduced sentence.

The legal issue before the court was whether the particular hardships faced by the defendant due to the Covid-19 pandemic should be taken into account in sentencing. These hardships included the inability to receive visitors during a significant portion of the defendant’s potential imprisonment, and the possibility of stricter health precautions being imposed during the course of the defendant’s imprisonment. The court had to weigh these factors against the severity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

In delivering its decision, the court acknowledged the unusual circumstances posed by the Covid-19 pandemic but ultimately determined that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the seriousness of the defendant’s offence. The court recognised the potential hardships but found that they did not warrant a reduction in the severity of the sentence. The court proceeded to impose a sentence in line with the ex-tempore reasons provided.

The court did not grant a discount on the sentence based on the circumstances of the defendant’s potential imprisonment during the pandemic. The final orders were to impose the sentence in accordance with the court’s ex-tempore reasons, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the principles of justice and public safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence imposed in accordance with ex-tempore reasons.

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.