R v Andrew Lee Black; R v Rowan Alistair Connell
Case
•
[2019] NSWDC 756
•20 January 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Andrew Lee Black; R v Rowan Alistair Connell [2019] NSWDC 756
[2019] NSWDC 756
20 January 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendants, Andrew Lee Black and Rowan Alistair Connell, were charged and convicted for their roles in the supply of large commercial quantities of MDMA. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the defendants' actions constituted a breach of section 7(1) and section 62(1)(B) of the Firearms Act.
The court had to decide if the defendants' involvement in the supply of large commercial quantities of MDMA constituted an offence under section 7(1) of the Firearms Act, which prohibits the supply of firearms, and if their actions also breached section 62(1)(B), which pertains to dealing with firearms. The court examined the definitions and scope of the terms 'firearms' and 'dealing' within the Act to ascertain whether the supply of MDMA could be considered a breach of these sections.
In its reasoning, the court found that while MDMA is not a firearm, the defendants' activities involved the supply of large commercial quantities of a controlled substance, which could be considered analogous to dealing with firearms. The court held that the defendants' actions constituted a breach of section 7(1) and section 62(1)(B) of the Firearms Act. Consequently, the court imposed aggregate sentences on the defendants, with Andrew Black receiving a sentence of 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years, and Rowan Connell receiving a sentence of 8 ½ years with a non-parole period of 5 ½ years.
The court had to decide if the defendants' involvement in the supply of large commercial quantities of MDMA constituted an offence under section 7(1) of the Firearms Act, which prohibits the supply of firearms, and if their actions also breached section 62(1)(B), which pertains to dealing with firearms. The court examined the definitions and scope of the terms 'firearms' and 'dealing' within the Act to ascertain whether the supply of MDMA could be considered a breach of these sections.
In its reasoning, the court found that while MDMA is not a firearm, the defendants' activities involved the supply of large commercial quantities of a controlled substance, which could be considered analogous to dealing with firearms. The court held that the defendants' actions constituted a breach of section 7(1) and section 62(1)(B) of the Firearms Act. Consequently, the court imposed aggregate sentences on the defendants, with Andrew Black receiving a sentence of 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years, and Rowan Connell receiving a sentence of 8 ½ years with a non-parole period of 5 ½ years.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Supply of Prohibited Substances
-
Aggravated Sentence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Kochai v R [2023] NSWCCA 116
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Kochai v R
[2023] NSWCCA 116
Content removed.
[2020] NSWCCA 352
Kochai v R
[2023] NSWCCA 116
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
1
Lee v R
[2019] NSWCCA 106
Fox v St Barbara Mines Ltd
[1998] FCA 621
Fox v St Barbara Mines Ltd
[1998] FCA 621