Blog

Case Note – 100 grams of Meth and COVID considerations

Posted on | by murraytorcettidirectors

Murray Torcetti Lawyers are criminal lawyers in Caboolture. We write our own case notes from recent criminal decisions for internal purposes.

However, unlike your annoying sibling, we don’t mind sharing.

R v Vakatini [2020] QSC 107

Facts: Sentencing remarks for possession of methylamphetamine with a circumstances of aggravation.

The defendant was a drug courier intercepted carrying 99.432 grams of pure methylamphetamine. Upon being released on bail, the defendant complied with his bail conditions. The defendant had no criminal record being 26 at the time of the offence and 27 sentencing. As a consequence of being apprehended, the defendant had to sell his vehicle to repay drug debts from the loss of the illicit substances. A psychological report and a letter from the defendant outlining remorse and regret was tendered by the defence.

At a time where the District Courts are not sentencing people looking at actual custody when they are currently in the community, the defendant chose to push the matter and start his sentence to have it over and done with.

The sentencing judge canvassed the current stage three restrictions in correctional facilities as “making jail an even more bleak and lonely experience than normal, at least for some time, for many prisoners” noted stage 4 precautions are a possibility but are as yet only prospective.

In imposing the period of custody the Judge stated “it is just that a greater than normal moderation of the actual jail time component of the sentence ought occur” with reference to the COVID-19 implications and reduced the parole release date from 12 months to nine months and then a further reduction down to six and a half months.

Finding: Sentenced to three years, parole release after six and half months.

Notes for practice:

Because lawyers love a good disclaimer – here is ours – It boils down to: If you need legal advice see a lawyer. Dr Google isn’t going to prescribe you meds if you are sick, Google LLB isn’t going to give you advice or information specific to your situation.

If you need legal assistance. See a lawyer.

You might not read it, but we will rely on it if you try and sue us (smug face).

Case Note – Judge Alone Trial for GBH: Not Guilty

Posted on | by murraytorcettidirectors

Murray Torcetti Lawyers are criminal lawyers in Caboolture. We write our own case notes from recent criminal decisions for internal purposes.

However, unlike your annoying sibling, we don’t mind sharing.

R v Sandy [2020] QDC 63

Facts: Judge alone trial for a charge of Grievous Bodily Harm at the Wacol Correctional Centre. The trial was mostly based on the CCTV of the incident as the complainant was an adverse witness who chose not to answer questions and would not affirm the contents of the statement given to police by himself after the incident. The Judge surmised the footage as:

The complainant purposefully approached the defendant, following the defendant nearby. The defendant attempts to walk away from the complainant, the complaint continues to follow the defendant and blocks the defendant at each turn. Immediately before the complainant, it struck, the complainant appears to have a clenched fist. The defendant punched the complainant once knocking the complainant to the ground. The injury was sustained by the complainants head hitting the ground.

The defendant did not give evidence. The defence advanced defence of self-defence against a provoked attack.

Finding: The Judge found the Crown had not excluded the defences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Notes for practice: The court listed the matters the Crown must exclude once the defence is raised for the charge to be successful:

  • The defendant was not unlawfully assaulted by the complainant
  • The defendant provoked the attack
  • The force used by the defendant was disproportionate
  • The force used was likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death
  • Self-defence against a provoked attack

 

Because lawyers love a good disclaimer – here is ours – It boils down to: If you need legal advice see a lawyer. Dr Google isn’t going to prescribe you meds if you are sick, Google LLB isn’t going to give you advice or information specific to your situation.

If you need legal assistance. See a lawyer.

You might not read it, but we will rely on it if you try and sue us (smug face).