Legal Research
Cases
R v Barta

R v Barta

Case [2022] NSWDC 587 5 August 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Barta [2022] NSWDC 587
Hearing dates: 5 August 2022
Date of orders: 5 August 2022
Decision date: 05 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
See pars [74]-[76].

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE – DRUG OFFENCES – Numerous charges for the deemed supplies of Heroin, Cocaine, and Methylamphetamine.
CRIME – SENTENCE – MATTERS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ON THREE FORM 1’S – Firearms offence for the possession of pen-gun with ammunition.
CRIME – SENTENCE – MENTAL ILLNESS – De La Rosa considerations.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Barta v R [2006] NSWCCA 6
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v lL (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1801

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Sentence
Parties: R - Crown
Offender – Stefan Barta
Representation: R – Ms Pearson of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Offender – Mr Dalton, D. SC

File Number(s): 2021/00038571
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Agreed facts
Offender’s role
Criminal Record
Antecedents
Consideration of mental illness
Age
Character in custody
Comparative sentences
Consideration of sentence
Seriousness of the offence
Covid-19 and health-problems
Order

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Stefan Barta stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a large number of offences. He stands for sentence for five substantive charges and asks me to take into account on three Forms 1 a large number of other charges. All told, 27 charges were initially laid, however not all remain, and there is a certificate under s 66(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and a Form 1A which indicates that 13 charges are to be withdrawn at the conclusion of the sentencing.

Agreed facts

There are nine pages of agreed facts, but they have been presented in an unusual way. Learned Senior Counsel for the offender commenced at par [6] of his primary written submissions with this statement:

“While the facts are quite confusing in their presentation it is noted, for ease of reference, that the four supply counts are broken up into two counts involving collectively actual and deemed supplies involving heroin (Sequence 9) and cocaine (Sequence 10) and two involving deemed supplies of methylamphetamine (Sequence 16) and heroin (Sequence 17) found upon the offender’s arrest...”

With the first clause of that statement I heartily agree.

The introduction to the agreed facts tells me the following: The police commenced an investigation into the supply of prohibited drugs by the offender in August 2020. Investigations identified that the offender was heavily involved in a drug supply syndicate. The offender was able to supply various drugs on demand to customers when requested in various quantities. He negotiated the prices of the drugs to be supplied to his customers. He would often attend various locations to supply the drugs shortly after the orders were placed. The places where he attended…

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 Barta

Details

AGLC: R v Barta [2022] NSWDC 587
Case: [2022] NSWDC 587
Decision Date: 05 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Barta, the appellant faced numerous charges related to drug offences, specifically deemed supplies of heroin, cocaine, and methylamphetamine. Additionally, there was a firearms offence involving the possession of a pen-gun with ammunition. The case was heard in a court of criminal appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the appellant. The appellant also raised issues regarding the consideration of his mental health in the sentencing process.

The court was required to address whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the totality of the appellant's criminal history and circumstances. The appellant argued that the sentence should be reduced, considering the numerous charges and the impact of his mental health on his offending behaviour. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence adequately reflected the principles set out in the De La Rosa decision, which pertains to the consideration of mental illness in sentencing.

The court meticulously reviewed the sentence, taking into account the appellant's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the appellant's mental health. The court concluded that while the sentence was indeed severe, it was not manifestly excessive, given the totality of the appellant's criminal conduct. The court found that the sentence adequately reflected the appellant's culpability and the need to protect the community. The court further determined that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mental health, aligning with the principles of the De La Rosa decision.

The court dismissed the appeal against the sentence, affirming the original sentence imposed. The court emphasised the importance of considering the appellant's mental health in the sentencing process, but found that it did not warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court's detailed analysis and consideration of all relevant factors led to the maintenance of the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See pars [74]-[76].

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Barta [2022] NSWDC 587

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

R v IL (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1801
Citation 1 (Para 54)

…I have also taken into account the major decision relied upon by Mr Dalton SC, the decision of R v lL (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1801, a decision of Hammill J.…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 2 (Para 44)

…al illness in the criminal law is succinctly summed up by McClellan CJ at CL in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194, at [177].…
Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195
Citation 3 (Para 32)

…[35] – [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] – [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. They can be summarised in the following manner:…
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102
Citation 4 (Para 33)

…– [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] – [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] – [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. They can be summarised in the following manner:…
R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90
Citation 5 (Para 14)

…v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] – [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. They can be summarised in the following manner:…
Barta v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 6
Citation 6 (Para 29)

…fective non-parole period of six years and nine months. The offender appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal but the appeal was dismissed: Barta v R [2006] NSWCCA 6. The custodial records before me clearly show the period of incarceration commencing according to those records on 2 October 2001 and his release on…
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
Citation 7 (Para 33)

…2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] – [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] – [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] – [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. They can be summari…
R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129
Citation 8 (Para 51)

…]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. ● It may also have the consequence that an offender is an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence resulting i…
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
Citation 9 (Para 35)

…at [40] – [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] – [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] – [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] – [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA…
R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249
Citation 10 (Para 43)

…] 1 VR 398 at 400; R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267 at [40] – [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] – [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] – [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] – [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA…
Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203
Citation 11 (Para 40)

…encing: see, eg, R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67; R v Tsiarias [1996] 1 VR 398 at 400; R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267 at [40] – [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] – [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] – [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] –…
R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267
Citation 12 (Para 40)

…have developed principles to be applied when sentencing: see, eg, R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67; R v Tsiarias [1996] 1 VR 398 at 400; R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267 at [40] – [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] – [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] – [45]; R v Israil [2002] NS…
Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66
Citation 13 (Para 254)

…the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] N…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Citation 14 (Para 254)

…nder’s moral culpability may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R…
R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7
Citation 15 (Para 23)

…e reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. ● It may also have…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCA 111
Citation 16 (Para 254)

…ility may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [200…
R v Jiminez [1999] NSWCCA 7
Citation 17

…mental problems the courts have developed principles to be applied when sentencing: see, eg, R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67; R v Tsiarias [1996] 1 VR 398 at 400; R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267 at [40] – [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] – [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249…

Legislation Cited

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 31)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 53)
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS)
1 mention (from Para 18)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Barta [2022] NSWDC 587
Hearing dates:	5 August 2022
Date of orders:	5 August 2022
Decision date:	05 August 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See pars [74]-[76].
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE – DRUG OFFENCES – Numerous charges for the deemed supplies of Heroin, Cocaine, and Methylamphetamine. CRIME – SENTENCE – MATTERS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ON THREE FORM 1’S – Firearms offence for the possession of pen-gun with ammunition. CRIME – SENTENCE – MENTAL ILLNESS – De La Rosa considerations.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Barta v R [2006] NSWCCA 6 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v lL (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1801
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	R - Crown Offender – Stefan Barta
Representation:	R – Ms Pearson of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Offender – Mr Dalton, D. SC
File Number(s):	2021/00038571
Publication restriction:	Nil.