R v Walters - [2017] ACTSC 123

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Walters
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 123
Hearing Date:	19 May 2017
DecisionDate:	19 May 2017
Before:	Rangiah J
Decision:	See [28]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7, s 33
Cases Cited:	Douar v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 455; 159 A Crim R 154 R v Gao [2007] NSWCCA 343 R v Malec [2016] ACTSC 329 R v Ngerengere (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 299 R v Walters [2017] ACTSC 77 Wongv The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luke Anthony Walters (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr K Lee (Crown) Mr J Lawton (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Defendant)
File Number:	SCC 62 of 2016

Rangiah J:

On 6 April 2017, following a trial by judge alone, I found Luke Anthony Walters guilty of the offence that between 1 April 2015 and 30 May 2015 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he conspired with Izzak Jacob Silvester-Day to commit an offence; namely, traffic in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone (“a-PVP”).

I am now required to sentence the offender. In doing so, I must have regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and such of the considerations described in s 33 of that Act as are relevant to the case.

The maximum penalty is 1000 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years or both: see ss 48 and 603 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

The facts and circumstances of the offence are set out in detail in my reasons for judgment in R v Walters [2017] ACTSC 77. In those reasons, I accepted the evidence of Silvester-Day as to the involvement of the offender in planning and paying for the procurement of the a-PVP.

Briefly stated the facts are as follows. A Chinese website called Crystal Rows advertised a-PVP for sale. In about April 2015, the offender asked Silvester-Day to order the drug for the offender, the offender saying he did not know how to use a laptop very well or how to make orders online. Silvester-Day agreed and the offender gave him $272 to place the order. At that stage the offender said that the drug was for his personal use. The offender gave Silvester-Day an address that was not the offender’s address for the delivery of the drug.

There were problems with the order, but the offender “just decided to up the order and try again.” The offender gave Silvester-Day about $3,000 and Silvester-Day placed another order for a greater quantity of a-PVP. Silvester-Day used his own address on this occasion.

The a-PVP was sent by mail to Silvester-Day’s address but was detected by customs officials. The Australian Federal Police…

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 Walters

Details

AGLC: R v Walters [2017] ACTSC 123
Case: [2017] ACTSC 123
Decision Date: 19 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walters involved the defendant, Walters, who was charged with conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Walters, along with co-conspirators, had been involved in a substantial drug trafficking operation. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Walters following his conviction.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Walters, considering the gravity of the offence and the role he played within the conspiracy. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the principles of proportionality and individual circumstances. Specifically, the court had to consider the level of culpability, the extent of Walters' involvement, and the potential impact of his actions on the community.

The court found Walters' involvement to be significant, given the scale of the drug trafficking operation and his active role in planning and executing the conspiracy. The court considered various aggravating factors, including the quantity of drugs involved, the sophistication of the operation, and the potential harm to the community. Despite these factors, the court also took into account mitigating factors such as Walters' cooperation with authorities and his otherwise good character. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the principles of justice and proportionality.

The court ordered that Walters be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of seven years, with a non-parole period of five years. The sentencing decision reflected a balance between the need for punishment and deterrence, and the mitigating factors presented in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [28]

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.