STATE OF TASMANIA v JOHN ROBERT CLAUDE SCOTNEY 28 MAY 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BLOW CJ
Mr Scotney has pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in methylamphetamine, and to six summary offences which I am dealing with under s 385A of the Criminal Code.
On 26 April 2018 police officers intercepted Mr Scotney when he was driving along the Brooker Highway. They found 58.5 grams of methylamphetamine under the sunshade visor on his side of the vehicle. He subsequently handed over some more methylamphetamine that he had in his underwear. That amounted to another 4.4 grams, and was in six snaplock bags. The police subsequently searched his home and found another 10.6 grams of the drug in a motorbike engine in three snaplock bags. In total they found 73.5 grams of the drug in his possession that day. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, a “trafficable quantity” of the drug is 25 grams. A person in possession of that quantity or more is presumed to have an intention that some or all of it is to be sold unless he or she seeks to prove otherwise. Mr Scotney has not sought to prove otherwise, but has pleaded guilty.
Mr Scotney became a heavy user of methylamphetamine following the suicide of a teenage relative whom he was very close to. I obtained a pre-sentence report from a probation officer. Mr Scotney told him that he had quantities of methylamphetamine for personal consumption, and was holding other quantities for criminal associates to whom he owed money. If a person has possession of an illicit drug belonging to someone else, and believes that the drug is intended for sale, then that person is guilty of the crime of trafficking. It is clear that Mr Scotney was guilty on that basis, even though there is no suggestion that he ever sold any methylamphetamine as a dealer.
The prices at which methylamphetamine is ordinarily sold vary according to the quantity sold. A point, which is 0.1 grams, sells for $100. Half a gram sells for $250. An 8-ball, which is an eighth of an ounce, sells for $1,000 or more. An ounce, which is 28 grams, sells for $8,000 or more. If the methylamphetamine in Mr Scotney’s possession had been sold by the point, it could have yielded $73,500. If it had been sold in the quantities in which it was found, it would probably have yielded at least $22,000.
The details of the six summary offences that Mr Scotney committed are as follows:
- When the police were getting him to show them the contents of his clothing, before producing the methylamphetamine in his underwear, he obstructed an officer in the execution of his duty by running away. An officer caught up with him and arrested him.
- A blood test revealed that he had been driving with THC in his blood. He has pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed illicit drug was present in his blood. There is no suggestion that his ability to drive was impaired at the time he was apprehended.
- He had possession of cannabis at his house. The police found two snaplock bags containing a total of 27 grams of mixed cannabis and tobacco.
- He had two smoking devices at his house. He has pleaded guilty to possessing a thing used for the administration of a controlled drug.
- At his house the police found a firearm that has been described as a black “Academy” BB gun with a magazine. He has pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to take all precautions to ensure safekeeping of a firearm, and to a charge of possessing a firearm when not the holder of a firearm licence of the appropriate category. The firearm in question was an air gun that fired plastic pellets. There is no suggestion that Mr Scotney had it for drug-related purposes.
It is not possible to assess the scale or duration of Mr Scotney’s trafficking activities. At his home, the police found items that one would associate with trafficking, including two sets of digital scales, four mobile phones, quantities of snaplock bags, and $350 in cash. Those items, and the quantities of methylamphetamine found in his possession, give some indication of the scale of the trafficking that he was associated with.
Mr Scotney was 32 years old on the day in question and is now 33. He has never been to prison, but he has a number of drug-related prior convictions. In December 2013 a magistrate imposed on him a wholly suspend sentence of one month’s imprisonment for various drug and firearms offences, including a charge of selling a controlled plant. In July 2014 a magistrate fined him $300 for possessing cannabis and obstructing a police officer. He has three convictions for driving with a prescribed illicit drug in his blood. The acts of driving occurred in May 2014, April 2016, and July 2018. The third of those convictions relates to an offence committed after the day that I am concerned with.
Mr Scotney had an unstable and difficult childhood. He used cannabis regularly from the age of 14 until his mid to late twenties. He used amphetamine sporadically in his early to mid-twenties. As I have said, he became a heavy user of methylamphetamine following the suicide of his teenage relative. However he has remained in employment ever since he completed year 12 and matriculated in 2003. He has had the same partner for five years. She has a 9-year-old daughter and is expecting to give birth to his child in August. They have been living in separate households, but are planning to live together soon. He took steps to keep the methylamphetamine away from the 9-year-old.
After Mr Scotney was arrested and charged last April, he began to make changes in his life. His drug use had been interfering with family relationships. He ceased using methylamphetamine soon after being charged. He ceased using cannabis three months ago. He has distanced himself from his criminal associates. He has obtained counselling through the Aboriginal Health Service. A social worker from that service has provided a very positive report about his progress. I have also been provided with a reference from a family friend that indicates that Mr Scotney is generous in his dealings with others, respected by his community, and supportive of his family.
When I sentence people for trafficking in methylamphetamine, I ordinarily send them to prison. In Mr Scotney’s case, I am going to take a more lenient course because he was essentially a user of the drug, and because he has since shown every sign of having rehabilitated himself. It is true that he held commercial quantities of the drug on behalf of dealers. The quantities of the drug that he was holding could have caused a lot of misery to a lot of people if the police had not seized them. However, because of Mr Scotney’s personal circumstances, I think the most appropriate course for me is to impose a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment, require him to perform a substantial amount of community service, and place him on probation. I am also required to disqualify him from driving on the charge relating to driving with THC in his blood.
John Robert Claude Scotney, I convict you on all charges. On all the charges except count 3 on complaint 4843/18, I sentence you to nine months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended on conditions that (a) you must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years; and (b) you must perform 140 hours’ community service within the next 18 months. I make a community correction order for a period of 18 months with conditions that (a) you must, during the operational period of the order submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer; (b) you must, during the operational period of the order, submit to testing for drug use as directed by a probation officer; and (c) you must, during the operational period of the order, submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer. On complaint 6455/18, I order that you be disqualified from driving for six months. I order that, of the items listed in the property seizure records at pages 11 to 17 of the Crown papers, those items listed in the email dated 21 March 2019 on the Court file be forfeited to the State of Tasmania. I make an order under s 36B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 in respect of the costs of analysis in the sum of $2,520.