Sentences imposed upon the first, second and third counts are quashed.
On the first count, the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of MDMA (ecstasy), taking into account the matters on the Form 1, the Applicant is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 13 years commencing on 10 May 2012 and expiring on 9 May 2025, with a balance of term of six years commencing on 10 May 2025 and expiring on 9 May 2031.
On the second count, the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine, the Applicant is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of six years and six months years commencing on 10 May 2009 and expiring on 9 November 2015, with a balance of term of two years and two months commencing on 10 November 2015 and expiring on 9 January 2018.
On the third count, the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, the Applicant is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 12 years commencing on 10 May 2010 and expiring on 9 May 2022 with a balance of term of four years commencing on 10 May 2022 and expiring on 9 May 2026.
The sentence on the fourth count, receiving stolen goods, is confirmed, namely a fixed term of imprisonment for three years commencing on 10 May 2008 and expiring on 9 May 2011.
The earliest date upon which the Applicant will be eligible for release on parole is 10 May 2025.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - pleas of guilty - supply large commercial quantity of MDMA (ecstasy) (8.497 kg) - supply commercial quantity of cocaine (335.3 grams) - supply large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (2.314 kg) - receiving stolen property (jewellery worth $104,000.00) - Form 1 offences of supply commercial quantity of heroin, supply cannabis and dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime - finding that Applicant operating a "one stop shop" supplying different drugs from premises - total effective non-parole period of 21 years with seven years' balance of term - claim of error in assessment of objective seriousness and in failing to set non-parole periods for standard non-parole period offences - claim that sentences manifestly excessive and that total sentence was crushing - some errors demonstrated - Applicant resentenced to total effective non-parole period of 17 years with a balance of term of six years
[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.
Continue reading Paxton v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Paxton v R [2011] NSWCCA 242
Case
[2011] NSWCCA 242
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Paxton v R involved an appeal by the applicant against his sentence. The applicant had pleaded guilty to supplying large commercial quantities of MDMA and methylamphetamine, supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine, receiving stolen property, and various other drug-related offences. The sentence handed down was a total effective non-parole period of 21 years with a balance of term of seven years. The applicant challenged the sentence on several grounds, including that it was objectively too serious, that the non-parole periods were not set for standard non-parole period offences, and that the sentence was crushing.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was too severe, whether there were errors in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences, and whether the non-parole periods were correctly set. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court had failed to properly consider the non-parole periods for the standard offences. The applicant also contended that the total sentence was crushing and that the court had not adequately considered the totality principle.
The court found that some errors had been made in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences and in setting the non-parole periods. The court noted that the total sentence was severe, but found that it was not crushing. The court resentenced the applicant to a total effective non-parole period of 17 years with a balance of term of six years. The court held that the original sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the totality principle had been properly considered. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.