THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

SCC 20405161

THE QUEEN

and

MARGO RUTH LAUGHTON

(Sentence)

BAILEY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT DARWIN ON MONDAY 26 JULY 2004

Transcribed by:
Court Recording Services (NT) Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR: These are my reasons in the matter of Margo Laughton.

Margo Laughton has today pleaded guilty to two counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Firstly, the unlawful supply of cannabis to another person and secondly, the receiving of $1050 cash obtained from the known supply of cannabis to that other person. The circumstances of the two offences have been summarised by the Crown in the following form, and I will quote the Crown summary of facts, which reads as follows:

The offender, Margo Ruth Laughton, was born on 6 September 1948 and was 55 years old at the time of the offences. She lives at unit 1/165 Dick Ward Drive, Nightcliff. At a time prior to 2:30 pm on Thursday 26 February this year, the offender came into possession of three clipseal bags containing a total of 79.1 grams of cannabis. The source of the cannabis is unknown. The offender stored these bags of cannabis at unit 73, Litchfield Court, Progress Drive, Nightcliff.

At about 2:30 pm on Thursday 26 February, the offender was met by a member of the Northern Territory Police who was performing undercover operative duties at the offender’s home address of flat 1/165 Dick Ward Drive, Nightcliff. The offender and the undercover police officer then went to unit 73, Litchfield Court, where the offender retrieved the three bags of cannabis. At unit 73 the offender sold the undercover police officer the 79.1 grams of cannabis for $1050. Shortly thereafter, Drug Enforcement Unit members apprehended the offender in the carpark of 165 Dick Ward Drive for the offences of possession and supply of a dangerous drug.

A subsequent search of the offender located the $1050 cash in her handbag. This money was marked and was the money used by the undercover police officer to buy the cannabis from the offender. Police then executed a search warrant at the offender’s residence. However, no further drugs were found.

The offender was then taken to the Darwin Police Station where she participated in a record of interview. In the interview she denied taking part in any cannabis dealings and stated she had no knowledge of the 79.1 grams of cannabis and that the $1050 in cash was from the sale of Aboriginal artwork.

The offender was charged for the offences. At street prices of $25 per gram, the 79.1 grams of cannabis purchased from the offender by the undercover police operative has a value of $1975. The current wholesale price of 79.1 grams is around $1050.

That completes my quote from the Crown summary of facts.

Mr Read admitted the truth and the accuracy of the facts to which I refer to on Ms Laughton’s behalf.

I find those facts proved, and I convict Margo Laughton of the two offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act as particularised in the indictment.

Ms Laughton is a 55-year old, Darwin born, woman. Her mother was a full Aboriginal and her father around one-third of Aboriginal blood. The offender had a difficult childhood. Initially she was raised in a children’s home and later in Alice Springs by an aunt and uncle, who she believed to be her real parents. She did go to live with her real father in Queensland, after which he remarried. She met her real mother only once when she was 12 years old.

The offender married young and had three children but the union did not last and the offender has spent much of her life living alone and working hard. She eventually returned to Darwin where she has encountered some difficulties in being accepted as Aboriginal.

This is not the first occasion Ms Laughton has been before the courts for Misuse of Drugs offences. She has a number of drug convictions in Queensland between 1977 and 1990. For convictions before 1981 she was fined. In October 1981 she was placed on probation for two years. In April 1982 she was imprisoned for four months for drug offences and, again, in March 1990, she received a two-year prison sentence for possession of dangerous drugs. There followed some 12 years without any significant further criminal convictions.

In late 2002, however, the offender committed three offences of possession of cannabis and one of unlawful supply. She was initially sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with a 12-month non-parole period backdated to 11 August 2003. After around four and a half months in prison, she was bailed on 2 January 2004. Following a successful appeal, she was resentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment suspended after 20 weeks and four days, effectively allowing or confirming the offender’s release on 2 January this year. However, the present offences were committed on 26 February 2004 and the offender has been remanded in custody since that time. That is a period of almost exactly five months.

Ms Nobbs, for the Crown, concedes that the present offence of supply and the associated receiving of property in connection with that supply, does not fall within the most serious category for such offences. Nevertheless, I agree with her submission that any supply of a dangerous drug is a serious matter, and that Ms Laughton’s case is aggravated by reason that she was on bail pending appeal at the time of her offending. She must have well understood the serious consequences which might flow from further involvement with cannabis.

I am told that Ms Laughton did not sell drugs on other occasions and that she has given up her long-standing habit of using cannabis following her earlier convictions. I hope that that is so. She has paid a high price for involvement with cannabis during the past year.

She pleaded guilty to the present offences and, despite the undoubted strength of the Crown case, deserves consideration for advancing the administration of justice.

In all the circumstances of the two offences and the offender, I consider Ms Laughton has spent sufficient time in custody for the present matters. I sentence her to an aggregate term of imprisonment of five months for the two offences, and I backdate this to 26 February 2004.

The practical effect is that Ms Laughton has completed her five month sentence and, subject to the usual formalities, may be released today.

_____________________