R v Ayrton - [2020] NSWDC 45

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ayrton [2020] NSWDC 45
Hearing dates: 20 February 2020
Decision date: 06 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted: Sentenced to 9 years 7 months imprisonment; non-parole period of 5 years 9 months

Catchwords: SENTENCE – Commonwealth sentencing – conspiracy to import commercial quantity of border controlled drug – totality – parity of sentencing – discount for plea of guilty.
Legislation Cited: Commonwealth Crimes Act, 1914 Part 1B s.16A(1)(2); s.17A; s.19AB
Cases Cited: Jimmy v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 60
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Gow [2015] NSW CCA 208
R v Hili [2010] HCA 10
R v Nguyen and Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238
R vThomson and Houlton, [2000] NSW CCA 309
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Stuart Ayrton (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Howell (Cth DPP)
Mr M Ainsworth (Offender)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 2016/00387457
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Stuart Ayrton, the prisoner, appears today for sentence in relation to an offence alleging that he between 1 September 2015 and 25 December 2016 did conspire to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine.
The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or 7500 penalty units. In this matter it is not practical to impose a pecuniary penalty.
The prisoner appears for sentence in relation to two acts of criminality that are connected. A Federal Police investigation in conjunction with the New South Wales Police Force commenced investigation in relation to a person who was subsequently found to be involved in the importation of border controlled drugs into Australia. That person who I will not name was subsequently found to be involved in five significant importations or attempted importations each representing a distinct conspiracy. That person, who has been dealt with in circumstances I will refer to later, was the person who recruited this prisoner.
Those five conspiracies occurred respectively between 14 August 2014 and 13 January 2015 (in the first instance) relating to 28 kg of heroin, 13 January 2015 and 13 May 2015 (in the second instance) relating to 400 kg of cocaine, 1 September 2015 and 13 March 2016 (in the third instance) relating to 610 kg of cocaine, 1 May 2016 and 5 November 2016 (in the fourth instance) in respect of 500 kg of cocaine and, finally, the fifth conspiracy occurred between 1 April 2016 and Christmas Day 2016, again in respect of approximately 500 kg of cocaine. I will refer to these separate conspiracies (which overlap in some respects particularly in relation to the dramatis personae) as the 1st to 5th conspiracies, rather than by reference to the names given to each conspiracy in the Statement of Facts by reference to a particular sea going vessel, or location, concerned with the each particular conspiracy. The reason for that and for my reluctance to identify particular individuals by name is because I was…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ayrton 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: [2020] NSWDC 45
Decision Date: 06 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ayrton involved the appellant, who was convicted of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances, particularly in relation to the principles of totality, parity of sentencing, and the discount for a plea of guilty. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and should be reduced.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in relation to drug offences and the need for appropriate deterrence and punishment. The court noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty, which warranted a discount in the sentence. However, the court also considered the need for a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court held that while the sentence was on the higher end of the spectrum, it was not manifestly excessive and took into account the totality of the appellant's criminal conduct, as well as the need for parity in sentencing for similar offences. The court ultimately found that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, with the appellant sentenced to nine years and seven months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years and nine months. The court's decision reflects the importance of balancing the principles of sentencing with the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence in cases involving drug offences. The court's reasoning highlights the need for consistency in sentencing for similar offences and the importance of considering the totality of the offender's criminal conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted: Sentenced to 9 years 7 months imprisonment; non-parole period of 5 years 9 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ayrton [2020] NSWDC 45
Hearing dates:	20 February 2020
Decision date:	06 March 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted: Sentenced to 9 years 7 months imprisonment; non-parole period of 5 years 9 months
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – Commonwealth sentencing – conspiracy to import commercial quantity of border controlled drug – totality – parity of sentencing – discount for plea of guilty.
Legislation Cited:	Commonwealth Crimes Act, 1914 Part 1B s.16A(1)(2); s.17A; s.19AB
Cases Cited:	Jimmy v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 60 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Gow [2015] NSW CCA 208 R v Hili [2010] HCA 10 R v Nguyen and Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238 R vThomson and Houlton, [2000] NSW CCA 309
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Stuart Ayrton (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Howell (Cth DPP) Mr M Ainsworth (Offender) Solicitors:
File Number(s):	2016/00387457
Publication restriction:	No