R v Aquilina

Case [2022] NSWDC 515

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Aquilina [2022] NSWDC 515
Hearing dates: 21 October 2022
Decision date: 04 November 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months 

Catchwords:

CRIME - SENTENCE - supply prohibited drug, possess unauthorised pistol.

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s25(2); Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s7(1).

Category:Sentence
Parties:

Rex (Crown)

Mitchell John Wayne Aquilina (Offender)
Representation:

Mr Buckingham (Solicitor ODPP Parramatta)

Mr Lloyd KC (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s): 2021/00062590
Publication restriction: Nil

  1. Mitchell John Aquilina, you appear for sentence today in relation to three principal offences.

  2. The first principal offence is supplying a prohibited drug greater than the commercial quantity for that drug. This is sequence 4. It involves a contravention of s25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 20 years. There is a standard non-parole period of imprisonment for 10 years.

  3. The second and third principal offences each involve possessing an unauthorised (but different) pistol. These are sequences 13 and 14. Each involves a contravention of s7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). The maximum penalty for each offence is imprisonment for 14 years. There is a standard non-parole period of imprisonment for 4 years.

  4. In relation to each of the principal offences, there is one matter on a relevant Form 1.

  5. In relation to sequence 4, the matter on the relevant Form 1 is dealing with the proceeds of crime in an amount less than $100,000.00. This is sequence 8.

  6. In relation to sequence 13, the matter on the relevant Form 1 is possessing ammunition without holding a licence / permit / authority. This is sequence 12.

  7. In relation to sequence 14, the matter on the relevant Form 1 is possessing ammunition without holding a licence / permit / authority. This is sequence 1.

  8. The facts surrounding your offending conduct are, with one exception, agreed (and I shall return to that exception later in these remarks).

  9. The agreed facts may be summarised as follows.

  10. As at December 2020, you were 28 years of age.

  11. Between mid-December 2020 and early March 2021, you engaged in 158 discrete transactions by which you supplied a total of 322.25 grams of cocaine to various purchasers. The purity of the cocaine supplied is not in evidence.

  12. You personally and directly participated in the transactions by means of taking orders and delivering, or arranging for the delivery of, the drugs. You also were assisted in the conduct of this criminal activity by others (including your wife). But it was you who was at the apex of the enterprise which the Crown has correctly described as "a medium scale street level drug supply business.” Apart from “employing” others to assist you, you used multiple phone services; you encouraged the use of coded communications; and it was you who directly used to deal…

Continue reading R v Aquilina

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Aquilina [2022] NSWDC 515
Case
[2022] NSWDC 515
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Aquilina involved the appellant who was found guilty of multiple offences related to drug supply and firearm possession. The appellant was convicted of trafficking in a prohibited drug, specifically cocaine, and possessing an unauthorised pistol. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed. The court was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the totality of the circumstances surrounding the appellant's offending and background.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial judge had erred in imposing an aggregate term of imprisonment and whether the non-parole period set was disproportionate. The court examined the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and assessed whether the sentence reflected a fair and balanced approach. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including his background, prior criminal history, and any mitigating factors, to determine if the sentence was just.

The court held that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in sentencing. The judge had considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the impact of his offending on the community. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the non-parole period was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court upheld the sentence, concluding that it reflected a fair and balanced approach to the appellant's offending and personal circumstances.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the original sentence, maintaining the aggregate term of imprisonment of seven years with a non-parole period of three years and six months. The court found that the sentence was just and appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors and the principles of sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months

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.