[GUILTY] United States of Argonath vs. Silent

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v Silent" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0009/2017

Medium Neutral Citation:	United States of Argonath v Silent [No. 3] [2017] AFCR 14
Date of Decision:	31 December 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Treblin J
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Judge alone trial - trial verdict. CRIMINAL LAW - Defendant charged with possession of illegal weaponry.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017
Cases Cited:	United States of Argonath v Mustang [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 3 United States of Argonath v Silent [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 11
Texts Cited:	None.
Parties:	United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Simon Silford (Defendant)
Representation:	Kim Purp Lee (P) Alarba (D)

JUDGEMENT

[1].        By criminal summons and information filed on the 7th of December 2017,¹ Mr Simon Silford (the 'Defendant') stands charged with four counts of possession of illegal weaponry under the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017.

[2].        Matters of whether seizure of the legal firearms was dealt with in earlier matters and I will not address their relevance, save for the reduction on the defendant's sentence, in this judgement. The prosecution has adduced four exhibits to their case. In the first exhibit ('Exhibit 1') which details the original warrant request as well as supporting evidence, the supporting evidence showed the presence of various weapons, of which importantly included illegal items too which are prohibited by the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017.² The illegal items were a Kurz MP5 and 714 rounds of the relevant caliber ammunition, a Bulldog shotgun and 500 rounds of the relevant caliber ammunition and 80 explosives.

[3].        The Court quickly granted a warrant to search the property and seize illegal items from its premises ('Exhibit 2'). In the third exhibit which details the execution of the raid, (‘Exhibit 3’) more illegal items are uncovered with large variations between the original evidence that showed original amount of weapons in Exhibit 1. There was reported to be around 500 more rounds of Kurz MP5, 40 more explosives and the addition of a new illegal item that being 32 Molotov Cocktails. It is not necessary to address Exhibit 4 as it merely repeats what I have just stated.

The Criminal Law

[4].        It is enough to say that the defendant has breached the law in being in possession of these items. The defendant entered into a plea of guilty and stated a counter charge negotiation to which the prosecution has agreed to.

[5].        I find it necessary to record a conviction against the defendant for the the sheer quantity of illegal items he possessed.

Sentencing

[6].        In taking into consideration the charge negotiation that the defendant has submitted himself to, I find the conditions of the charge negotiation too lenient. I find it absolutely necessary to apply specific deterrence and denunciation for the sheer quantity of the weapons.³

[7].        The monetary fine proposed: $95,000 ARD is increased by 40%, taking into consideration the sentencing principles I just mentioned. The term of imprisonment proposed of 5 years is acceptable to the Court and I will not adjust it. However, I will apply time off for the delays in this judgement, I reduce the term of imprisonment by one year.

[8].        The submissions regarding the defendant’s property to not be seized are correct in law and as such I will not order its confiscation. However as a principle of law, the principles of sentencing when necessary, can and should allow for seizure of offender’s properties when it can be successfully demonstrated that the defendant is committing repeated violations of the criminal law to the extent that specific deterrence and accountability of the offender should require the Court to order the confiscation of the defendant’s properties or assets as a punitive measure.

[9].        As such the final sentence that I hand down for the defendant is for him to be fined $98,000 ARD, taking into consideration paragraph 7 as well as the reduction stated in Silent [No. 2],⁴ and for him to serve a term of imprisonment of 4 years (4 minutes). I find no need to take into considerations good behaviour or parole as these are systems not developed in this jurisdiction. Finally the defendant’s property is to remain in the defendant’s possession.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Treblin.

Register

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That the defendant is to be convicted of the crimes for which he plead guilty to.

[2].        That the defendant is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years, (4 minutes) to commence at the earliest date possible when the defendant is taken into custody.

[3].        That the defendant be issued a monetary penalty of $98,000 ARD, to be stripped from the defendant's bank accounts and/or if the defendant cannot pay the sum, for the liquidation of any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets to cover such fine with the rest of the liquidation funds to go to the State.

ORDERED, on this 31st day of December, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

_______________________
Footnotes
¹ Prosecution, ‘Information’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Silent, VC-CR0009/2017, 7 December 2017.
² Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017 s 5.
³ See United States of Argonath v Mustang [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 3 [11]-[14] (Treblin J).
⁴ United States of Argonath v Silent [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 11 [7] (Treblin J).

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Argonath Federal Court accepted a plea of guilty of the defendant and gave him a monetary fine of $98,000 ARD due to an unlawful weapons seizure by the State thus causing a reduction in the fine. The Court also stated that it would not order the defendant’s property to be seized due to principles stated in United States of Argonath v Amal [No. 2] but stated punitive punishments which included removal of a defendant’s property could still be handed down for repeat offenders. And finally the Court accepted the proposed term of imprisonment of 5 years for the defendant but reduced it to due time off considerations, bringing the total length of imprisonment to 4 years.
 

• This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.

~Distributed by authority of the Courts of Argonath~