R v Watson
[2017] ACTSC 265
•25 August 2017
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 offence, which is contrary to s 164(2)(c) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989, is five years imprisonment, a fine of $75000 or both. The Crown Prosecutor submitted that this matter would fall within the mid-range of offences of this nature. Mr Sharman, who appears on your behalf, submitted that it falls towards the very bottom of the range. In my opinion, neither of those submissions should be accepted. The offence is objectively a serious one and this is a serious example of this type of offending but I would say that it falls somewhere between the two submissions that were made by the Crown Prosecutor and Mr Sharman. The total amount of substance of methylamphetamine that you possessed was more than 24.5 grams and the trafficable quantity is 6 grams so that is indicative of the fact that a significant quantity was involved. For that reason, in my opinion, albeit that most of that substance was not to be used for the purpose of supply to others, this still remains a serious example of this type of offending. As such, both general and specific deterrence are relevant sentencing considerations. General deterrence is always a relevant sentencing consideration with regard to drug sale or supply offences. In your case, of course, you were in possession of two quantities some six months apart which speaks of the need for specific deterrence.
I note that you are 32 years old and that you come from a good family and that you reported having good relationships with your parents and also your siblings. You identified no negative events that impacted your formative years. You are very fortunate that you have a wife who has stood by you during the period of what clearly has been a very difficult time for your family whilst you have been abusing drugs and not working. As I understand it from the Pre-Sentence Report, you and your wife have reconciled since you have been in custody and you have not been using methylamphetamine. I accept your evidence that whilst you have been in custody, you have not used illicit drugs. It is proposed when you are released that you will return to live with your wife and your three children. I note in that regard that your rehabilitation prospects must be seen as being reasonable. You have family support. You have skills that will enable you to support yourself and your family and you also apparently have work available to you once you are released from custody.
You entered a plea of guilty to this charge. It was a late plea in the scheme of things but I accept that this was the appropriate charge rather than the two more serious charges which were originally laid and which have not been proceeded with by the Crown. I will allow some reduction in the otherwise appropriate sentence in order to reflect your plea of guilty.
I note that you have been continuously in custody since 20 February 2017. You were, as I understand it, arrested on 14 August 2016 with respect to this charge and subsequently released on 15 August so that I will backdate the commencement of the sentence which I intend to impose to 18 February 2017.
I note that you have a criminal history although it is not a particularly significant one with respect to sentencing for the present offence. It does, however, speak of the need for continuing treatment with respect to substance abuse. I take into account the contents of the two character references which have been put before me. I also take into account the letter which you wrote and which was tendered during the course of your case and, of course, the evidence that you gave.
I am satisfied that a term of imprisonment should be imposed with respect to this matter but the question is how that is to be served. I propose to impose a term of imprisonment which is to be served partly by way of full-time imprisonment but then which is also partly suspended.
Sentence
I will record a conviction and you will be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment which I have reduced from 15 months in order to reflect your plea of guilty. That sentence will commence on 18 February 2017 and expire on 17 February 2018. Of that period, a period commencing on 18 February 2017 and expiring on 24 August 2017 is to be served by way of full-time imprisonment.
The balance will be suspended and there will be a Good Behaviour Order for a period of two years from today with conditions that you are to accept the supervision of the Director-General and obey all reasonable directions of the Director-General or her delegate, particularly in relation to counselling or treatment to address substance abuse issues. Secondly, you are to participate in any programs as directed by the Director-General or her delegate. That supervision will be for a period of two years or such lesser period as deemed appropriate by your supervising officer.
The effect of that is that I have imposed 12 months imprisonment commencing from February this year. You would be entitled to be released on the Good Behaviour Order that I have referred to immediately but you will remain in custody at the present time because, as I understand it, bail has been refused on the other charges upon which you are currently awaiting trial.
| I certify that the preceding twelve [12] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Burns Associate: Date: 13 September 2017 |
0
1