R v Walters - [2017] ACTSC 77

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Walters
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 77
Hearing Dates:	6, 7, 8, 9 December 2016 and 15 February 2017
DecisionDate:	6 April 2017
Before:	Rangiah J
Decision:	Luke Anthony Walters is 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.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – trial by judge alone – conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug – verdict
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 3E Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 48, 600, 602, 603, 603(7)CC Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT), Schedule 1 (part 1.2 - Prohibited Substances) Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 38(1), 128(7), 165(1), 165(2) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68B, 68C Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) s 16 Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 46
Cases Cited:	Bui v The Queen [2011] VSCA 404 DPP v Fattal [2013] VSCA 276 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 Quaid v The Queen (2011) 210 A Crim R 374 R v Anderson (2001) 127 A Crim R 116 R v LK and RK (2010) 241 CLR 177 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 R v Orton [1922] VLR 469 R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162 Rolls v The Queen; Sleiman v The Queen [2011] VSCA 401 Tully v The Queen (2006) 230 CLR 234
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luke Anthony Walters (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr K Lee (Crown) Mr J Lawton (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 62 of 2013

Rangiah J:

The accused, Luke Anthony Walters, is charged with the following offence:

THAT between 1 April 2015 and 30 May 2015 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory LUKE ANTHONY WALTERS conspired with Izzak Jacob Silvester-Day to commit an offence, namely traffic in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely Alpha-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone.

The accused has pleaded not guilty. He has made an election under s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) for trial by judge alone.

The case for the Crown and the case for the defence

The Crown led oral evidence from five witnesses. The Crown, with the consent of the accused, also tendered a number of documents and photographs and a “list of admissions”. The Crown’s case depends heavily upon the credibility of evidence given by two witnesses, Izzak Silvester-Day and Tamara Sabol, implicating the accused.

Silvester-Day has previously pleaded guilty to a charge that he conspired with the accused to traffic in alpha-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone (“a-PVP”). In this matter, the Crown alleges that Silvester-Day placed an order for a-PVP from a website in China at the request of the accused. That order failed. The Crown alleges that the accused then asked Silvester-Day to place a second order for…

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 77
Case: [2017] ACTSC 77
Decision Date: 6 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walters involved the defendant, Luke Anthony Walters, who was charged with conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug. The court, which heard the matter, was the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute centred on whether the defendant had conspired with another individual, Izzak Jacob Silvester-Day, to traffic in a controlled drug, specifically Alpha-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone, between 1 April 2015 and 30 May 2015 in Canberra.

The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that a conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug existed, and if so, whether Walters was a party to that conspiracy. The court had to consider the nature of the evidence presented, including any statements made by the defendant, the credibility of witnesses, and the overall reliability of the evidence. The court also needed to consider the applicable legal standards for proving conspiracy, including the requirement to establish an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that a conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug had occurred and that Walters was a party to that conspiracy. The court found that the evidence, particularly the statements made by Walters and the conduct of the parties, demonstrated a clear agreement to commit the offence. The court concluded that the prosecution had met the necessary burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court found Luke Anthony Walters guilty of the offence of conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug.

Orders

Orders of the court

Luke Anthony Walters is 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.

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.