R v Whitelock

Case [2019] ACTSC 396

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Whitelock

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 396

Hearing Dates:

21 May 2019; 23 August 2019

DecisionDate:

23 August 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [63]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – possession of prohibited weapon – possession of a drug of dependence for the purpose of sale or supply – whether sentence should be served by intensive corrections order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 11, 33, 35, 78

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 22
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) s 164
Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) s 5

Cases Cited:

Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80
R v Di Bitonto [2016] ACTSC 280
R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v Malec [2016] ACTSC 329
R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14
R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48
R v Morales [2019] ACTSC 88
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
R v Srna [2018] ACTSC 337
R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103
Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Texts Cited:

Explanatory Statement, Crimes (Sentencing and Restorative Justice) Amendment Bill 2015 (ACT)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Nicholas Edward Whitelock (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

A Williamson (Crown)

J Masters (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Tu’ulakitau McGuire (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 230 of 2018; SCC 232 of 2018

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:

Introduction

  1. On 28 November 2018, Nicholas Edward Whitelock (the offender) pleaded guilty to:

(a)an offence of the possession of a prohibited weapon, contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) (CC2018/2619). The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units, or both; and

(b)an offence of possession of a drug of dependence for the purpose of sale or supply, contrary to s 164 of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) (Drugs of Dependence Act) (XO2018/31450). The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units, or both.

Agreed Facts

  1. The agreed facts are set out in the Statement of Facts, which forms part of the Crown Tender Bundle. The relevant facts are summarised below.

  1. On 11 February 2018, police attended a hotel in which the offender was staying, after being alerted by hotel staff to the presence of drug paraphernalia in the offender’s room, and unauthorised visitors.

  1. When the offender subsequently arrived at the hotel, he was approached and searched by police officers. He had the following in his pockets: a set of scales, three mobile phones and a flick blade. In his backpack he was found to have two glass…

Continue reading R v Whitelock

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Whitelock [2019] ACTSC 396
Case
[2019] ACTSC 396
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Whitelock was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the appellant, Whitelock, was convicted of two offences: possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of a drug of dependence for the purpose of sale or supply. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the lower court, specifically challenging whether the sentence should be served by an intensive corrections order rather than a term of imprisonment.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and if the sentence could be replaced with an intensive corrections order. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing in relation to these offences and assess the appropriateness of the alternative sentencing option.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles relevant to the offences committed by Whitelock. It considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the offender's culpability, and the need for the sentence to achieve deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. The court also examined the purposes and objectives of intensive corrections orders, as outlined in the relevant legislation. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate and that an intensive corrections order was not a suitable alternative given the seriousness of the offences and the need to ensure community safety. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

As a result, the sentence imposed by the lower court, which included a term of imprisonment, was upheld, and no alternative sentencing order was substituted. The court’s decision focused on the necessity to balance the objectives of punishment and rehabilitation while considering the gravity of the crimes committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [63]

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.