R v Watson - [2017] ACTSC 265

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Watson
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 265
Hearing Date:	25 August 2017
DecisionDate:	25 August 2017
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [10]-[11]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – possess drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, for the purpose of sale or supply – two incidents – not for commercial purpose – significant quantity – serious example of this type of offending – general and specific deterrence – Pre-Sentence Report – reasonable rehabilitation prospects – plea of guilty – term of imprisonment imposed – balance suspended – Good Behaviour Order imposed
Legislation Cited:	Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) s 164(2)(c)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Joshua Watson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Offender)
Solicitors Mr D Swan (Crown) Mr T Sharman (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 285 of 2016

BURNS J:

Mr Watson, on 18 August 2017, you entered a plea of guilty to one count on an indictment of the same date alleging that between 1 February 2016 and 15 August 2016, you possessed a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, for the purpose of sale or supply.

The Statement of Facts which has been put before me demonstrates that the charge to which you entered your plea of guilty is, in fact, a rolled up charge involving at least two incidents. On 2 February 2016, police performed a traffic stop on your vehicle and when stopped, you had in your possession 7.232 grams of methylamphetamine. At that time I am told that you were not charged with any offence relating to that methylamphetamine. As such, you were not placed on bail and were not, of course, then subject to conditional liberty.

Subsequently on 14 August 2016, you were searched by police following a further traffic stop and found to be in possession of 17.529 grams of methylamphetamine. On both of the occasions when you were found to be in possession of methylamphetamine, you were in possession of that substance for the purpose of sale or supply. You gave evidence before me today that you were using methylamphetamine on a daily basis at that time, that you acknowledged that you had those large amounts of methylamphetamine in your possession mainly for your own use but also to share with your friends who were also fellow users. So it is clear that the basis of your plea of guilty to the charge of possession for the purpose of sale or supply was that you were in possession of that substance relevantly for the purpose of supply to friends and not for any commercial purpose. There was no suggestion by the Crown in cross-examination that you were in possession for a different purpose so I proceed on the basis that you possessed these quantities of methylamphetamine for your own use but also to share with other users with whom you were friendly at that time.

The maximum penalty for this…

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 Watson

Details

AGLC: R v Watson [2017] ACTSC 265
Case: [2017] ACTSC 265
Decision Date: 25 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Watson, the appellant was charged with possessing a significant quantity of methylamphetamine, a drug of dependence, for the purpose of sale or supply, following two separate incidents. The case was heard and determined in a relevant Australian court, which examined the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the appellant, considering both the nature of the offence and the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation. The appellant entered a plea of guilty, which was taken into account during the sentencing process.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was the appropriate sentence for the appellant, who had been found guilty of possessing a large quantity of a dangerous drug with the intent to sell or supply it. The court considered the principles of general and specific deterrence, the information contained in the pre-sentence report, and the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation. The court also had to determine whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and if so, how long it should be, as well as whether to impose a good behaviour order.

The court found that the appellant's offending was a serious example of its type, and that a term of imprisonment was necessary to achieve the aims of general and specific deterrence. However, the court also took into account the appellant's plea of guilty and the reasonable prospects for rehabilitation identified in the pre-sentence report. The court decided to impose a term of imprisonment, part of which was to be suspended, and also imposed a good behaviour order on the appellant. The specific details of the sentence, including the length of the imprisonment term and the terms of the good behaviour order, were set out in the court's written reasons for judgment.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a term of imprisonment, part of which was to be suspended, and the imposition of a good behaviour order on the appellant. The specific details of the sentence were set out in the court's written reasons for judgment, which were provided to the parties and made available for public inspection. The court's decision balanced the need for general and specific deterrence with the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and the fact that the offending was not for a commercial purpose.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [10]-[11]

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.