NSW Police v Hardman

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

Local Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Police v Hardman [2014] NSWLC 11
Hearing dates:22/04/2014
Decision date: 14 May 2014
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Magistrate Dare SC
Decision:

See [50]-[55]

Catchwords: SENTENCING - sale of drugs - role played more important than quantity involved - relevance of sale to undercover officer - exceptional circumstances needed to avoid full-time custody - hardship to third parties not established - partial cumulation - special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Road Transport Act 2013
Cases Cited: Blundell v R [2008] NSWCCA 92
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Hillier v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] NSWCCA 312
Ma v R [2007] NSWCCA 240
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156
Mitchell v R [2008] NSWCCA 192
Nguyen v R [2007] NSWCCA 14
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Byrne (1998) 104 A Crim R 456
R v Cacciola (1998) 104 A Crim R 178
R v Carrion (2000) 49 NSWLR 149
R v Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103
R v Clark (Unrep, NSWCCA, 15 March 1990)
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Gao [2007] NSWCCA 343
R v Gip (2006) 161 A Crim R 173
R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
R v Harmouche [2005] NSWCCA 398
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hopley [2008] NSWCCA 105R v Kairouz [2005] NSWCCA 247
R v King (2004) 150 A Crim R 409
R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
R v MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272
R v Ramos (2000) 112 A Crim R 339
R v Saba [2006] NSWCCA 214
R v Smith [2002] NSWCCA 378
R v Thompson (Unrep, NSWCCA, 4 April 1991)
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193
R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Roberts v R [2007] NSWCCA 112
Veen v the Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629
Young v R [2007] NSWCCA 114
Category:Sentence
Parties: NSW Police
Cecelia Ruth Hardman aka Cruden (the Offender)
Representation: Sgt D Middleton (for the Police)
Mrs R Power (for the Offender)
File Number(s):2014/47798, 2014/25746

Judgment

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The Offender, Cecelia Ruth Hardman (also known as Cecelia Ruth Cruden) stands for sentence having entered pleas of guilty at the first available opportunity to the following charges:

Charge No

Offence

H54202866

Seq 1

On 23 September 2013 at Young did supply a prohibited drug, namely, amphetamine. (3.5 grams)

s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Seq 2

On 24 September 2013 at Young did (agree to) supply a prohibited drug, namely, amphetamine. (1.75 grams)

s 25(1) Drug Misuse…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NSW Police v Hardman 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
[2014] NSWLC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of NSW Police v Hardman involved the sentencing of the defendant, Hardman, for the sale of drugs. The matter was heard in the court of appeal, with the prosecution arguing for a sentence that included full-time custody. Hardman, on the other hand, contended that the sentence should not include imprisonment, citing the minimal quantity of drugs involved and the impact of incarceration on his family.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Hardman's role in the sale of drugs to an undercover police officer. The court had to balance the gravity of the offence against the potential impact of incarceration on Hardman and his family. A secondary issue was whether the exceptional circumstances required to avoid full-time custody were present in this case, and if the hardship to third parties was sufficiently established.

The court found that while the quantity of drugs involved was relatively small, Hardman's role in the sale was significant. It was emphasised that the relevance of the sale to an undercover officer necessitated a severe response. The court considered the exceptional circumstances needed to avoid full-time custody but found that Hardman had not established sufficient hardship to third parties. The court also noted that partial cumulation was appropriate due to special circumstances, including Hardman's background and the impact on his family.

The court ultimately ordered a sentence that included partial imprisonment, taking into account the special circumstances presented. The specific details of the sentence can be found in paragraphs 50 to 55 of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [50]-[55]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.