Criminal Law – Particular offences – Drug offences – Dealing and distribution of drugs – Trafficking or sale and supply – Meaning of "traffick" – Continuing activity.
Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 (Tas), s 3.
Giretti v The Queen (1986) 24 A Crim R 112, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2468]
Criminal Law – Particular offences – Drug offences – Dealing and distribution of drugs – Evidence – Relevance – Possession of firearms and drugs not subject of charges.

Sultana v The Queen (1994) 74 A Crim R 267; R v Blackwell (1996) 87 A Crim R 289; R v Edwards [1998] 2 VR 354; R v Georgiou [2009] VSCA 57; Atholwood v The Queen (2000) 110 A Crim R 417; IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14, 90 ALJR 529, referred to.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2469]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Propensity, tendency and co-incidence – Admissibility and relevancy – Propensity evidence – Effect of previous acquittal – Acquittal on charge of contravening order requiring surrender of firearms – Evidence of later possession of firearms – Acquittal not controverted.

Tasmania v Finnegan [2011] TASSC 74, 21 Tas R 116; R v Carroll [2002] HCA 55, 213 CLR 635; Ulutui v The Queen [2014] VSCA 110, 41 VR 676, followed.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2776]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Trafficking in controlled substances – Dealer in business of selling various drugs to users over about three years – Sentence of three years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 months – Not manifestly inadequate.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant (1591/2015)/Respondent (1525/2015):   E Hughes
             Respondent (1591/2015)/Appellant (1525/2015):   J Shapiro
Solicitors:
             Appellant (1591/2015)/Respondent (1525/2015):   Rae & Partners
             Respondent (1591/2015)/Appellant (1525/2015):   Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2016] TASCCA 20
Number of paragraphs: 46

Serial No 20/2016
File Nos: 1591/2015
1525/2015

MARK RAYMOND ROLAND v STATE OF TASMANIA
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v MARK RAYMOND ROLAND

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
ESTCOURT J
BRETT J
22 November 2016

Orders of the Court

Appeal 1591/2015 dismissed.

Appeal 1525/2015 dismissed.

Serial No 20/2016
File Nos: 1591/2015
1525/2015

MARK RAYMOND ROLAND v STATE OF TASMANIA
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v MARK RAYMOND ROLAND

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ

22 November 2016

For the reasons stated by Estcourt J, I agree that both appeals should be dismissed.

File Nos: 1591/2015
1525/2015

MARK RAYMOND ROLAND v STATE OF TASMANIA
DIRECTOR OF…

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 Roland v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Roland v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 20
Case: [2016] TASCCA 20
Decision Date: 22 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Roland v Tasmania*, the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania considered appeals against convictions and sentences for drug trafficking offences. The appellant, Roland, was convicted of trafficking in controlled substances, and appealed both his conviction and the sentence imposed.

The primary legal issues before the Court were the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically evidence relating to the appellant's possession of firearms, and whether the sentence of three years' imprisonment with an 18-month non-parole period was manifestly inadequate. The admissibility of the firearms evidence was contested on the grounds of propensity and relevance, particularly in light of a previous acquittal on a charge related to firearms.

The Court held that the evidence of the appellant's possession of firearms was relevant and admissible. It reasoned that the previous acquittal on a firearms charge did not preclude the admission of evidence of later possession of firearms, as the acquittal did not controvert the fact of possession. The Court further found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate, given the appellant's role as a dealer in the business of selling various drugs to users over approximately three years.

Consequently, both appeals, Appeal 1591/2015 and Appeal 1525/2015, were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 1591/2015 dismissed.

Appeal 1525/2015 dismissed.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Roland v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 20

Most Recent Citation

Tasmania v Taylor [2021] TASSC 39

Cases citing this decision · 7 of 7 shown

Attorney-General's Reference No 1 of 2022
[2024] TASCCA 2

…9 The meaning of 'traffic' in the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 was considered in Roland v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 20 at 12. The Court of Criminal Appeal approved the trial judge's explanation of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act and also the ordinary meaning of 'trafficking'. The trial judge had stated: 'The def…
Tasmania v Taylor
[2021] TASSC 39 Para 9

…The meaning of "traffic" in the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 was considered in Roland v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 20 at 12. The Court of Criminal Appeal approved the trial judge's explanation of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act and also the ordinary meaning of "trafficking". The trial judge had stated: "The defin…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Kobelke
[2020] TASCCA 10 Para 3

…The Director accepted that there is no discernible range of sentence for the crime of trafficking, and referred to Roland v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 20, 26 Tas R 288, in which a number of sentences were discussed. In this context the Director submitted that there has been "an increase in the upper end of the range th…
Davidson v State of Tasmania
[2019] TASCCA 9 Para 1

…As to the crime of trafficking, in Roland v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 20 at [38], and again in Cooper v Tasmania [2017] TASSCA 3 at [7], and then in Le v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 21, I set out written submissions made on behalf of the respondent in Roland . Those cases also involved appeals against sentences for traffic…
Upston v Tasmania
[2018] TASCCA 4 Para 1

…involved in an organised drug distribution network and imposed a six year sentence of imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Roland v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 20 dealt with the adequacy of sentences imposed by courts and referred to cases discussed including DPP v Williamson [2013] TASSC 6 and Stebbins v Tasma…
Le v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 21 Para 1

…In Roland v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 20 at [38], and again in Cooper v Tasmania [2017] TASSCA 3 at [7], I set out written submissions made on behalf of the respondent in Roland . Those cases also involved appeals against sentences for trafficking on the ground of manifest excess.…
Cooper v Tasmania
[2017] TASCCA 3 Para 1

…In Roland v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 20 at [38] I set out the following submissions made on behalf of the respondent. The case was one involving an appeal against sentence by the appellant on the ground of manifest excess.…

View all 7 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 23 of 23 shown

Deakin v Tasmania
[2016] TASCCA 19 Para 4

…st or plainly unreasonable by reason of inadequacy. See merely by way of example the very recent decision of this Court in Deakin v State of Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 19, where a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was upheld in the case of the appellant's "persistent and brazen" course of conduct in importing 212.5 g…
R v Matonwal & Amood
[2016] NSWCCA 174 Para 2

…fel, Bell and Keane JJ said at [46] that "the evidence must be influential in the context of fact finding ". (Emphasis added.) (See also R v Matonwal [2016] NSWCCA 174, per Bathurst CJ at [77]-[78], Rothman J [94] and McCallum J [95].)…
Stebbins v Tasmania
[2016] TASCCA 6 Para 3

…ent), • Wisniewski (4 years imprisonment), and • Leicester (3 years and 4 months imprisonment, 12 months suspended). 25 Stebbins v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 6 involved the most serious example of the crime of trafficking in Tasmania. This was reflected in the twelve and a half year sentence of imprisonment. The sente…
IMM v The Queen
[2016] HCA 14 Para 2

…I do not accept that submission. In IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14, 90 ALJR 529, the High Court was concerned with the meaning of the words "significant probative value" in s 98(1) of the Evidence Act , and in holding that the significance of the probative value must depend on the nature of the fact in issue, Fre…
Tasmania v Roland
[2015] TASSC 38 Para 3

…The learned trial judge dealt with this issue in a discrete ruling ([2015] TASSC 38) in the following terms: "1 Mark Roland is charged with crimes under the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001. By indictment filed on 14 July 2015 he is charged with four counts of trafficking and one count of possessing a thing intended for u…
Ulutui v The Queen
[2014] VSCA 110 Para 2

…idence of convictions relied on by the Crown rather than acquittals. The Court of Appeal in Victoria reviewed the authorities in Ulutui v The Queen [2014] VSCA 110, as did the Court of Criminal Appeal in Gilham v The Queen (2012) 224 A Crim R 22. In Gilham , the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal held that t…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Williamson
[2013] TASCCA 6 Para 3

…In the submissions the following observations were made by Mr Shapiro: " Recent authority 23 DPP v Williamson [2013] TASCCA 6 involved a plea of guilty to a 'commercial operation,' although the particulars related to a single day. He was in possession of a large amount of cash and a large number of capsules. The s…
Bennett v The State of Western Australia
[2012] WASCA 70 Para 2

…appeal in Australia. The Court of Appeal in Western Australia undertook a detailed review of the cases in Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70. That case concerned evidence of convictions relied on by the Crown rather than acquittals. The Court of Appeal in Victoria reviewed the authorities in…
Tasmania v Finnegan
[2011] TASSC 74 Para 1

…ed to be led by the State that raised the circumstances surrounding that charge. The appellant relies on the decision in State of Tasmania v Finnegan [2011] TASSC 74, 21 TasR 116 and R v Carroll [2002] HCA 55, 213 CLR 635.…
R v Georgiou
[2009] VSCA 57 Para 3

…A Crim R 27 per Gleeson CJ at 29-30; R v Blackwell (1996) 87 A Crim R 289 at 290; R v Edwards [1998] 2 VR 354 at 368 per Eames AJA, and R v Georgiou [2009] VSCA 57 at [65]. Those authorities have particular application to a case brought on the basis that the accused was in the business of selling drugs. For the…
Washer v Western Australia
[2007] HCA 48 Para 2

…dismissed the Crown appeal against the quashing of the conviction.' 17 I refer also to the decision of the High Court in Washer v Western Australia (2007) 234 CLR 492. The line of authority to which Blow J referred has been considered in subsequent cases by intermediate courts of appeal in Australia. The Court of App…
R v Komljenovic
[2006] VSCA 136 Para 5

…d I observe that his Honour's conclusion was reinforced by and not solely based upon the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in R v Komljenovic [2006] VSCA 136, 163 A Crim R 298. Any criticism of his Honour's reasoning based on the precedential value of that case or its reach is not of assistance on this gro…
Oxford v Tasmania
[2006] TASSC 41 Para 3

…tice Estcourt summarised a number of sentences for commercial trafficking of amphetamines, namely; • Oxford (3 years) ; Oxford v Tasmania [2006] TASSC 41 • Jones (4 years) • Billinghurst (4 years) • Pregnell (3 years) • Daly (3 years) • Picard (3 years) • Reader (4.5 years) • Swan, Royden (4 years)."…
R v Carroll
[2002] HCA 55 Para 1

…cumstances surrounding that charge. The appellant relies on the decision in State of Tasmania v Finnegan [2011] TASSC 74, 21 TasR 116 and R v Carroll [2002] HCA 55, 213 CLR 635.…
Atholwood v the Queen P35/2000
[2000] HCATrans 637 Para 3

…that the accused was in the business of selling drugs. For the same reason I regard the evidence of the presence of other drugs as also relevant: see Atholwood v The Queen (2000) 110 A Crim R 417, a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. To adapt the words of the Chief Justice in that case at [9], if th…
Walsh v Tattersall
[1996] HCA 26 Para 2

…the rule against duplicity. Giretti and Giretti (1986) 24 A Crim R 112 to that effect was cited with approval by the High Court in Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77 by Dawson and Toohey JJ at 87, and by Kirby J at 108. Kirby J said at 107: "Particular problems arose for the application of the duplicity rule in th…
Sultana v The Queen
[1995] HCATrans 123 Para 3

…other drugs. I would not exclude that evidence on the basis that it is irrelevant. The evidence of firearms is relevant for the reasons explained in Sultana v The Queen (1994) 74 A Crim R 27 per Gleeson CJ at 29-30; R v Blackwell (1996) 87 A Crim R 289 at 290; R v Edwards [1998] 2 VR 354 at 368 per Eames AJA, and R v Georgi…
Rogers v The Queen
[1994] HCA 42 Para 2

…ontrovertible. That rule has emerged from the High Court decisions in Garrett v R (1977) 139 CLR 437, R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364, and Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251.' 14 A little later in his reasons, at [8], his Honour said this: 'I think it must follow that, at least as a general rule, when a magistrate acquits a…
R v Storey
[1978] HCA 39 Para 2

…l in the earlier proceedings is incontrovertible. That rule has emerged from the High Court decisions in Garrett v R (1977) 139 CLR 437, R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364, and Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251.' 14 A little later in his reasons, at [8], his Honour said this: 'I think it must follow that, at least as a genera…
Garrett v The Queen
[1977] HCA 67 Para 2

…nt criminal trial, the acquittal in the earlier proceedings is incontrovertible. That rule has emerged from the High Court decisions in Garrett v R (1977) 139 CLR 437, R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364, and Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251.' 14 A little later in his reasons, at [8], his Honour said this: 'I think it must fo…
[2000] 2 AC 483
[2000] 2 AC 483 Para 2

…adduced even though the accused had earlier been charged with, tried for, and acquitted of an offence said to be constituted by that conduct. R v Z [2000] 2 AC 483], R v Arp [1998] 3 SCR 339] and R v Degnan [2001] 1 NZLR 280] are cases of that kind. In such cases, the earlier acquittal would not be controverted by…
[1998] 3 SCR 339
[1998] 3 SCR 339 Para 2

…cused had earlier been charged with, tried for, and acquitted of an offence said to be constituted by that conduct. R v Z [2000] 2 AC 483], R v Arp [1998] 3 SCR 339] and R v Degnan [2001] 1 NZLR 280] are cases of that kind. In such cases, the earlier acquittal would not be controverted by a guilty verdict at the se…
[2001] 1 NZLR 280
[2001] 1 NZLR 280 Para 2

…th, tried for, and acquitted of an offence said to be constituted by that conduct. R v Z [2000] 2 AC 483], R v Arp [1998] 3 SCR 339] and R v Degnan [2001] 1 NZLR 280] are cases of that kind. In such cases, the earlier acquittal would not be controverted by a guilty verdict at the second trial.' 16 Their Honours refe…

Legislation cited in this decision · 6

Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 (TAS)
3 2 mentions (from Para 2)
Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic)
1 mention (from Para 9)
Evidence Act 2001 (TAS)
137 1 mention (from Para 3)
Family Violence Act 2004 (TAS)
35 1 mention (from Para 2)
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 2)