Parole Board to decide fate

[grace]

CONVICTED drug user Aaron Haig Philp sits in a jail cell waiting to hear if the Parole Board will set him free.

 

Philp, 28, pleaded guilty before Toowoomba Magistrates Court yesterday to having 207 cannabis seeds and a soft drink can converted “bong†for smoking the drug after a police search of the car he and three friends were sitting in near Inala at 3am, September 16, last year.

 

Those offences by themselves would not normally attract a jail sentence, but for the fact Philp had a history of drug use and was on parole and probation at the time.

 

Philp told police the seeds had been obtained through cannabis he had smoked in the past and he had intended throwing them away, prosecutor Sergeant Tony Costa said.

 

Defence solicitor David Burns, for Philp, said the nine months parole term his client was subject to arose from his uttering a single counterfeit $50 note at a Hungry Jacks store when obtaining food.

 

His client had been attending counselling sessions for his drug use and was on the road to recovery and asked that his client not be jailed so he could continue with his rehabilitation.

 

However, Acting Magistrate Roger Stark said a wide range of sentencing options had been tried with Philp in the past to no avail.

 

He sentenced Philp to six months jail but ordered he be eligible to apply for parole immediately, leaving him in custody at least until the Parole Board considers his fate.

 

Author: Peter Hardwick

Date: 11th December 2010

Source The Chronicle

http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/12/11/convicted-drug-user-aaron-haig-philp-jail-parole/

 

 

Director's Guidelines - Queensland Office of Director of Public Prosecutions http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/16701/Directors-guidelines.pdf

 

THE DECISION TO PROSECUTE - Page 2

The prosecution process should be initiated or continued wherever it appears

to be in the public interest. That is the prosecution policy of the prosecuting

authorities in this country and in England and Wales. If it is not in the interests

of the public that a prosecution should be initiated or continued then it should not

be pursued. The scarce resources available for prosecution should be used to

pursue, with appropriate vigour, cases worthy of prosecution and not wasted

pursuing inappropriate cases.

 

(ii) Public Interest Criteria - pp 3-4

 

If there is sufficient reliable evidence of an offence, the issue is whether

discretionary factors nevertheless dictate that the matter should not

proceed in the public interest.

 

Discretionary factors may include:-

 

(a) the level of seriousness or triviality of the alleged offence, or whether

or not it is of a ‘technical’ nature only;

( the existence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances;

© the youth, age, physical or mental health or special infirmity of the

alleged offender or a necessary witness;

(d) the alleged offender’s antecedents and background, including culture

and ability to understand the English language;

(e) the staleness of the alleged offence;

(f) the degree of culpability of the alleged offender in connection with the

offence;

(g) whether or not the prosecution would be perceived as counterproductive

to the interests of justice;

(h) the availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution;

(i) the prevalence of the alleged offence and the need for deterrence,

either personal or general;

(j) whether or not the alleged offence is of minimal public concern;

(k) any entitlement or liability of a victim or other person to criminal

compensation, reparation or forfeiture if prosecution action is taken;

(l) the attitude of the victim of the alleged offence to a prosecution;

(m) the likely length and expense of a trial;

(n) whether or not the alleged offender is willing to co-operate in the

investigation or prosecution of others, or the extent to which the

alleged offender has done so;

(o) the likely outcome in the event of a conviction considering the

sentencing options available to the Court;

(p) whether the alleged offender elected to be tried on indictment rather

than be dealt with summarily;

(q) whether or not a sentence has already been imposed on the offender

which adequately reflects the criminality of the episode;

® whether or not the alleged offender has already been sentenced for a

series of other offences and what likelihood there is of an additional

penalty, having regard to the totality principle;

(s) the necessity to maintain public confidence in the Parliament and the

Courts; and

(t) the effect on public order and morale.

 

The relevance of discretionary factors will depend upon the individual

circumstances of each case. The more serious the offence, the more likely that the public interest will

require a prosecution. Indeed, the proper decision in most cases will be to proceed with the

prosecution if there is sufficient evidence. Mitigating factors can then be put

to the Court at sentence.

 

What a waste of public resources.

How is this in the public interest Mr Prosecutor?