The Queen v Michael Labaro

THE QUEEN v MICHAEL LABARO [2004] ACTSC 24 (7 APRIL 2004)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Crimes Act 1900, s 375

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90A

No. SCC 3 of 2004

Judge:          Gyles J
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           7 April 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 3 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
  )
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION                   )

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

AND:MICHAEL LABARO

ORDER

Judge:  Gyles J
Date of order:  7 April 2004
Date of judgment:  7 April 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The indictment be quashed.

2. Pursuant to s 90A(9) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930, the proceedings before the Magistrates Court be continued at the Magistrates Court, Knowles Place, Canberra, ACT, before Magistrate Fryar at 11.30 am on 3 May next.

3. Bail be continued as before to appear at the Magistrates Court on 3 May as aforesaid.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 3 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
  )
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION                   )

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

AND:MICHAEL LABARO

Judge:  Gyles J
Date of order:  7 April 2004
Date of judgment:  7 April 2004
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 8 April 2003 Michael Labaro was charged with a series of offences following the execution of a search warrant at Room 252 of the Quality Inn, Benjamin Way, Belconnen.  There were several other persons present at that time.

1. During the search items of property were found consistent with dealing in heroin and $1,208 in Australian currency was in a wallet in the rear pocket of a pair of pants being worn by Mr Labaro.  He made admissions to the police concerning his participation in the sale and supply of heroin from about 25 March 2003 until the time of his arrest.

1. Late the evening before or early on that morning the death had taken place of a young female who was described in the evidence as a client of the drug dealing enterprise that was being conducted from the hotel room. 

1. The matter came before me on Monday 5 April when an indictment was presented.  The accused was arraigned and pleaded guilty.  I then proceeded to receive evidence as to sentence. 

1. In the course of submissions it became apparent that I had not received the benefit of adequate material concerning the position of the other persons who were connected with the drug dealing on that evening. 

1. This was unsatisfactory.  First, it would make parity in sentencing difficult, and secondly, it meant that I would be sentencing in isolation from the facts upon which other defendants might have been sentenced.  In the case of a joint enterprise such as this, the evils of fragmented sentencing are well understood.  Following my indication to that effect the Crown endeavoured to ascertain and put before me the circumstances material to those other matters.  It was not assisted by the circumstance that the informant is currently serving overseas.

1. The short position is that there were six…