Legal Research
Cases
R v Amoroso

R v Amoroso

Case [2021] NSWDC 393 12 August 2021

Supply of Prohibited Drugs

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Amoroso [2021] NSWDC 393
Hearing dates: 12 August 2021
Date of orders: 12 August 2021
Decision date: 12 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 3 years 3 months with a non- parole period of 2 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME - Ongoing supply of a prohibited drugs methylamphetamine and gammabutyrolacton– Supply commercial quantity of a prohibited drug gammabutyrolacton
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – committal for sentence - fresh indictment to correct errors in committal for sentence process
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence - drug user - COVID related drug price increase - regular drug user - sale of drugs - number of supplies - small quantity supplied on each occasion - limited profit - early guilty pleas

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50.
Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Markarian (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55
R v CBK [2002] NSWCCA 457
R v Durant [2002] NSWCCA 295
R v Nai Poon [2003] NSWCCA 42
R v O'Connor [2014] NSWCCA 53: (2014) 239 A Crim R 487
Silvano v R [2008] NSWCCA 118
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629

Texts Cited:
NSW Bar Association Discussion Paper - Drug Law Reform 24 11.2014
UN Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009
Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497

Category: Sentence
Parties: Jason Amoroso (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms L Jardim (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Mr L McGonigal (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2020/00229190

sentence

Introduction

An Indictment was presented today against Jason Amoroso. He said he was guilty of three offences. Two involved the ongoing supply of the prohibited drugs – methylamphetamine and gammabutyrolacton (GBL) for financial or material reward: s25A Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. These ongoing supply offences occurred between 23 April 2020 and 21 June 2020. The third offence - knowingly take part in the supply of a commercial quantity of the prohibited drug – GBL, occurred between 15 and 18 July 2020: s25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
There is a further s 25A matter to be taken into account on Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Form 1. This ongoing supply offence occurred between 22 June 2020 and 19 July 2020.
Amoroso had been committed for sentence from the Local Court. The Indictment…

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.

Continue reading R v Amoroso

Details

AGLC: R v Amoroso [2021] NSWDC 393
Case: [2021] NSWDC 393
Decision Date: 12 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Amoroso involved the defendant charged with the supply of a commercial quantity of the prohibited drug gammabutyrolacton. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court where the defendant had previously pleaded guilty to the charges. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering various factors including the defendant's role as a regular drug user, the impact of COVID-19 on drug prices, and the commercial scale of the drug supply despite the small quantities supplied on each occasion. The court also had to consider the defendant's early guilty plea and limited profit from the drug sales.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the relevance of the defendant's drug use and the COVID-19 impact on drug prices as mitigating factors in sentencing. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the commercial quantity of the drugs supplied against the small quantities supplied on each occasion and the defendant's early guilty plea. The court was tasked with determining a sentence that appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence while considering these mitigating factors.

The court found that, despite the mitigating factors, the defendant's actions constituted a significant supply of a prohibited drug. The court acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea and limited profit but ultimately determined that a substantial sentence was necessary to reflect the gravity of the offence. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of three years and three months, with a non-parole period of two years, balancing the seriousness of the crime with the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court included an aggregate sentence of three years and three months, with a non-parole period of two years. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the mitigating factors while maintaining a strong deterrent effect for the supply of prohibited drugs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 3 years 3 months with a non- parole period of 2 years.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Amoroso [2021] NSWDC 393

Most Recent Citation

R v Newman [2022] NSWCCA 218

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

R v Newman
[2022] NSWCCA 218 Para 2

…WCCA 448; The Queen v Woodley [2020] NSWDC 664; O’Neile v R [2018] NSWCCA 201; R v Wong [2018] NSWCCA 20; R v Youman [2018] NSWCCA 180; R v Amoroso [2021] NSWDC 393, considered.…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

Petkos v R
[2020] NSWCCA 55 Para 19

…reward that leads to harm to the community; as the illicit trade in drugs is one of the principal sources for crime in the community: Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55; DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50.…
Robertson v R
[2017] NSWCCA 205 Para 46

…cation of principle mean a sentence of imprisonment for those who engage in trafficking in illicit drugs, no matter what their level: Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205…
R v O'Connor
[2014] NSWCCA 53 Para 39

…between assaults that can be shown to involve extra curial punishment and those that cannot be so linked: Silvano v R [2008] NSWCCA 118: R v O'Connor [2014] NSWCCA 53: (2014) 239 A Crim R 487. This was not a matter where extra curial punishment principles can be relied on.…
DPP (Cth) v Maxwell
[2013] VSCA 50 Para 19

…unity; as the illicit trade in drugs is one of the principal sources for crime in the community: Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55; DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50.…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 24

…ective seriousness without reference to matters personal to the offender and wholly by reference to the nature of the offending: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [27]. However, as the court in Muldrock made clear neither can I engage in a staged approach to sentencing: at [28].…
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45 Para 25

…as to what is the appropriate sentence given all the factors relevant to offending behaviour and the offender: Muldrock; Markarian; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520.…
Silvano v R
[2008] NSWCCA 118 Para 39

…tinction has however been drawn between assaults that can be shown to involve extra curial punishment and those that cannot be so linked: Silvano v R [2008] NSWCCA 118: R v O'Connor [2014] NSWCCA 53: (2014) 239 A Crim R 487. This was not a matter where extra curial punishment principles can be relied on.…
Cahyadi v R
[2007] NSWCCA 1 Para 26

…ntence for one offence could not comprehend and reflect the criminality of the others. There must be some accumulation of penalty: Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1.…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25

…stration of Sentences) Act 1999 DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50. Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 Markarian (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55 R v CBK [2002] NSWCCA 457 R v Durant [2002] NSWCCA 2…
Weininger v The Queen
[2003] HCA 14 Para 45

…y of the human condition and human behaviour to the mathematics of units of punishment usually expressed in time or money:” Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629.…
R v Poon
[2003] NSWCCA 42 Para 43

…Mr McGonigal, by reference to R v Nai Poon [2003] NSWCCA 42 and R v Durant [2002] NSWCCA 295 reminded me that the seriousness of an offence must be judged by reference to the maximum penalty, and that it is impossible, consistently with ordinary principles of construction, for the Courts to say simply that some dru…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 22

…nalty for the offence to which it relates but I do not “in any sense” impose a sentence for that offence: Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 at [68]. It operates to increase the sentence that would otherwise be appropriate as part of the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing. The increase…
R v CBK
[2002] NSWCCA 457

…520 Markarian (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55 R v CBK [2002] NSWCCA 457 R v Durant [2002] NSWCCA 295 R v Nai Poon [2003] NSWCCA 42 R v O'Connor [2014] NSWCCA 53: (2014) 239 A Crim R 487 Silvano v R [2008] NSWCCA 118 Veen v The…
R v Durant
[2002] NSWCCA 295 Para 43

…Mr McGonigal, by reference to R v Nai Poon [2003] NSWCCA 42 and R v Durant [2002] NSWCCA 295 reminded me that the seriousness of an offence must be judged by reference to the maximum penalty, and that it is impossible, consistently with ordinary principles of construction, for the Courts to say simply that some drug…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 41

…e, as the origin or extent of the addiction, and any attempts to overcome it, impact upon his prospects for recidivism or rehabilitation: Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 .…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70 Para 26

…st and appropriate to the totality of the offender’s crimes, including the sentences upon which it must be partially accumulated : Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 at 62-63. Each offence was part of a single extended episode of criminality with many common factors but the s25A matters occurred sequentially and the…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 28

…nces, here a more severe penalty is warranted with additional focus on retribution, deterrence and the protection of society: Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 477.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 32)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 3)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Amoroso [2021] NSWDC 393
Hearing dates:	12 August 2021
Date of orders:	12 August 2021
Decision date:	12 August 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 3 years 3 months with a non- parole period of 2 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Ongoing supply of a prohibited drugs methylamphetamine and gammabutyrolacton– Supply commercial quantity of a prohibited drug gammabutyrolacton CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – committal for sentence - fresh indictment to correct errors in committal for sentence process SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence - drug user - COVID related drug price increase - regular drug user - sale of drugs - number of supplies - small quantity supplied on each occasion - limited profit - early guilty pleas
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50. Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 Markarian (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55 R v CBK [2002] NSWCCA 457 R v Durant [2002] NSWCCA 295 R v Nai Poon [2003] NSWCCA 42 R v O'Connor [2014] NSWCCA 53: (2014) 239 A Crim R 487 Silvano v R [2008] NSWCCA 118 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629
Texts Cited:	NSW Bar Association Discussion Paper - Drug Law Reform 24 11.2014 UN Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009 Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Jason Amoroso (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Ms L Jardim (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Mr L McGonigal (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2020/00229190