Jason George Deron v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 73

CITATION: Jason George DERON v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 73

HEARING DATE(S): 10 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1, 27; Simpson J at 25; Johnson J at 26

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 03/10/2006

DECISION: 1 Leave to appeal granted; 2 Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE APPEAL - Whether a sentencing judge must take into account the period of pre-sentence custody via backdating or deduction. - CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE APPEAL - Whether protective custody justifies difference in magnitude of co-offenders’ sentences.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act: s 25(1)

CASES CITED: R v Howard [2001] NSWCCA 309

PARTIES: Jason George Deron (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2159 of 2005

COUNSEL: M Johnston (Applicant)
G Rowling (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Steve O’Connor (Applicant)
NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0542

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McGuire DCJ

- 5 -

2005/2159

SPIGELMAN CJ
SIMPSON J
JOHNSON J

Friday 10 March 2006

Jason George DERON v REGINA

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: The Applicant was charged with an offence under s25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 that he did between 10 October 2002 and 20 December 2002 supply a prohibited drug, namely heroin. He pleaded not guilty. He was convicted after a nine day trial. He was sentenced by McGuire DCJ to imprisonment for 4 years and 10 months commencing 21 March 2005 with a non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months.

2 Together with a co-accused, Raymond Russell, the Applicant engaged in the supply and distribution of heroin in the Lake Macquarie and Newcastle areas over a period of time. Those activities included the supply of amounts to lower level dealers and also the supply of small amounts directly to users. The conduct of the operation over a significant period of time involved planning and co-ordination. Supply occurred on numerous occasions, which were the subject of direct evidence through police undercover operations. Nothing turns on the detail. However, his Honour’s conclusion, which was fully justified, was that this case involved:

“… a prolonged planned, pre-meditated and persistent course of drug dealing and in total they on sold a substantial quantity of drugs. They could be described as extremely active and successful midrange dealers, participating in a commercial enterprise.”

3 On the basic facts there was nothing to distinguish the Applicant’s involvement in the actual operation from that of his co-offender, Russell. However, Russell pleaded guilty and was sentenced by Puckeridge DCJ to a term of imprisonment of 3 years, less a period of 91 days pre-sentence custody. His Honour set a non-parole period of 2 years less the 91 days pre-sentence custody.

4 McGuire DCJ had the remarks on sentence of Puckeridge DCJ before him. His Honour took them into account on the issue of parity.

5 There are two grounds of appeal. First, his Honour failed to make proper allowance for parity and that, in the result, the Applicant has a legitimate sense of grievance. Secondly,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jason George Deron v Regina and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWCCA 73
Decision Date: 03/10/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jason George Deron v Regina, the appellant contested the severity of his sentence in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Deron was found guilty of multiple charges, including aggravated assault, and was sentenced to a custodial term. He appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was excessive and disproportionate. The primary contention was whether the trial judge should have taken into account the period Deron spent in pre-sentence custody by either backdating or deducting it from his sentence. Additionally, Deron argued that his sentence was disproportionately higher than that of his co-offenders, particularly considering that he was placed in protective custody.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of sentencing principles and the consideration of pre-sentence custody. The court needed to determine if the trial judge erred in not adjusting the sentence to account for the time Deron spent in custody before his sentencing. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the disparity in sentencing, exacerbated by Deron’s placement in protective custody, was justified. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge appropriately balanced these factors in imposing the sentence.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in not backdating or deducting the pre-sentence custody period. It was held that the judge was entitled to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence, when imposing the sentence. Regarding the disparity in sentencing, the court held that the judge was justified in imposing a harsher sentence on Deron due to his more significant role in the crimes and the necessity of placing him in protective custody for his safety and the safety of other inmates. The appeal was thus dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders