R v White - [2022] ACTSC 178

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v White
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 178
Hearing Date:	18 July 2022
DecisionDate:	18 July 2022
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [47]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – gamma-butyrolactone – failure to comply with an order made under s 3LA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – importation at low end of objective seriousness – failure to comply with s 3LA(2) order at low to mid-range of objective seriousness – discount for guilty pleas – limited criminal history – steps taken to reduce risk of reoffending – significant period of pre-sentence custody – recognizance order imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 3LA, 19AC, 20(1)(b) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 307.1(1)
Cases Cited:	DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50; 228 A Crim R 218 R v Colledge [2010] NSWCCA 302 R v Hill, Bakir, Gray and Broad; ex parte Cth DPP [2011] QCA 306; 212 A Crim R 359
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Vanessa Lee White (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A von Treifeldt (Crown) E Chen (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 62 of 2022

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Vanessa Lee White, pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)One count of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (CC2021/7085). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for life or 7500 penalty units, or both.
(b)One count of failing to comply with an order made under s 3LA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), contrary to s 3LA(6) (SCCAN2022/46). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years or 600 penalty units, or both.

Facts

The facts are agreed and are, in summary, as follows.

Count 1

On 8 February 2021 the offender registered an account with Coinspot, software that enables the trading of cryptocurrency. The offender registered the account in her own name, providing a proof of age card and Medicare card as identification.

On 25 March 2021 the offender converted approximately $2631.46 worth of Bitcoin to Monero. Monero is considered a more secure form of cryptocurrency than Bitcoin, which provides a higher degree of privacy and anonymity to its traders.

On 2 April 2021 the offender sent approximately $1142.66 (calculated according to the market value of Monero as at 2 April 2021) worth of Monero to a United Kingdom-based dark web seller called ‘thehypnotoad’.

On 24 June 2021 Australian Border Force officers examined a Royal Mail consignment addressed to Vanessa White at an address in Hughes, Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The consignment was described as “CeraVe Foam Cleanser 1 litre”.

The consignment contained a bottle labelled “CeraVe Foam Cleanser 1 litre” with a clear liquid inside.

A sample of the clear liquid was tested with a presumptive result for gamma‑butyrolactone (GBL).

Forensic…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2022] ACTSC 178
Case: [2022] ACTSC 178
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the offender, Vanessa Lee White, was convicted on two counts: importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, specifically gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), and failing to comply with an order made under s 3LA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these offences, considering the objective seriousness of the crimes, the offender's subjective circumstances, and other relevant factors such as her plea of guilty and time already spent in custody.

The key legal issues before the court included the assessment of the objective seriousness of each offence, the offender's subjective circumstances, and the appropriate discount for her early guilty pleas. The court had to balance the need for general and specific deterrence against the offender's personal history, her conduct in custody, and her motivation to remain crime-free. The maximum penalties for the offences were severe, reflecting the gravity of the crimes in the eyes of the legislature.

Justice Mossop, after considering the relevant factors, determined that the objective seriousness of the importation offence was at the lower end, given the quantity and the relatively low level of sophistication of the operation. The failure to comply with the s 3LA order, while serious, was considered to be in the low to mid-range of objective seriousness. The court also took into account the offender's favourable conduct in custody, her history of drug use, and her efforts to create a safe environment for her children. The offender's significant period in pre-sentence custody and her steps to reduce the risk of reoffending were considered mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence of 27 months for the importation offence and 12 months for the s 3LA offence, to run concurrently with a six-month overlap. Because the total sentence was less than three years, the court made a recognizance release order, suspending the sentences after the offender had served nine months and 14 days.

The final orders of the court were that the offender be sentenced to imprisonment for 27 months on count CC2021/7085, commencing on 3 October 2021 and ending on 2 January 2024, and for 12 months on count SCCAN2022/46, commencing on 3 July 2023 and ending on 2 July 2024. The sentences were suspended after the offender had served nine months and 14 days, upon her entering into a recognizance in the sum of $100 and agreeing to be of good behaviour for two years.

Orders