Case Note – Couriering Drugs 6 years imprisonment

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 Peirano [QCA] 100

Facts: An appeal against the sentence for possessing methylamphetamine.

The appellant knowingly acted as a “drug runner” between Brisbane and Mackay knowing it was for commercial purposes. The appellant had no criminal history and had been treated for depression and anxiety for some time.

A sentence of six years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving 20 months was imposed. The appellant appealed on the basis of the sentence being manifestly excessive. The appellant was 32 years old when the offending occurred and 33 at the sentence.

A total of 186.189 g of pure methylamphetamine and a total weight of 276 g was located in a search. The appellant was connected with other offenders who were charged with trafficking, he was sentenced on the basis that he was moving the drugs from different locations at the request of the co-accused.

The Crown was unable to state the extent to which the appellant had benefited but had previously been paid $2500 by a co-accused.

Finding: The court affirmed the sentence of six years with parole eligibility roughly 4 months under the one third mark as being an appropriate sentence in all the circumstances.  

Notes for practice:

  • QCA sentencing for courier possession connected to trafficking absent the trafficking charge.

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 – Similar Fact Evidence & Jury Directions

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 Newman [2020] QCA 92

Appeal after a conviction of sexual assault, four grounds were advanced only two were considered

  • Similar fact evidence
  • Directions about the use of evidence from a witness

Facts: The appellant offered the complainant a lift home from the valley late at night. The parties were not known to each other, the complainant had been drinking heavily and thought he was flagging down an Uber.

The assault was particularised as touching of the complainant in the area of his penis without consent.

The appellant gave evidence of a sexualised discussion but did not accept there was any touching.

The appellant gave evidence at trial that he would drive around late at night roughly four or six times a month and would occasionally give drunk people lifts home.

The prosecution led evidence from two other witnesses where the appellant had picked up other men, driven to a destination and engaged in sexualised conversation during the travel. Neither of those witnesses were inappropriately touched on those occasions.

The Crown relied on these witnesses for similar fact evidence. The court found the evidence could be led. However, the routine directions given regarding similar fact evidence were insufficient to overcome impermissible use of the evidence by the other witnesses.

Finding: The court ordered a retrial of the matters, noting if the crown is to rely on what amounts to bad character of the appellant, the bad character is irrelevant to the determination of the jury of the appellant guilty for the offence charged. Further warnings ought to be given against general propensity on the basis of bad character.

Notes for practice:

  • Court outlines use of similar fact evidence.
  • Consider how far the propensity evidence takes the crown.
  • Where propensity evidence is led, consider additional jury directions above standard directions.

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 – 100 grams of Meth and COVID considerations

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

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).