R v Baxter - [2022] NSWDC 708

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Baxter [2022] NSWDC 708
Hearing dates: 11 July 2022, 14 July 2022
Date of orders: 14 July 2022
Decision date: 14 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years: at [106].

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity
CRIME — Money laundering — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Non-parole period — Ratio of the non-parole period and balance of term
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — Parity — Form 1 offence — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Findings of fact
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Hardship — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Doyle v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 81
DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156
Ebrahimi v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 273
Nguyen v The Queen (2011) 208 A Crim R 432
R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 252
Toller v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 204

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Nathan Baxter (Offender)
Representation:
Mr R Kimbell (Crown Prosecutor)
Mr I Lloyd QC (Senior counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/144076

Judgment

When Nathan Baxter was born 31 years ago both his parents were heroin addicts. They both have criminal histories. He grew up in a housing commission environment and he reported a history of childhood neglect. He was physically abused by his father. His father physically abused his mother.
As Dr Furst, the psychiatrist who also has expertise in forensic psychiatry and criminology, stated in his psychiatric report:

"Mr Baxter's adverse developmental history, especially a genetic vulnerability towards addiction, coupled with his ADHD and the poor role models provided by both parents, helps to explain the origin of his drug addiction and does mitigate against the seriousness of his actions and reduces his moral culpability to some extent in accordance with the principles elucidated by the High Court of Australia in Bugmy and Fernando".

The Crown does not dispute the proposition put by Mr Lloyd QC on behalf of Mr Baxter, that those factors should be taken into account in the sentencing exercise upon which I now embark.
Mr Baxter has pleaded guilty to a number of charges. First, sequence 12, an offence contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, that between 10 July 2017…

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 Baxter

Details

AGLC: R v Baxter [2022] NSWDC 708
Case: [2022] NSWDC 708
Decision Date: 14 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baxter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, involving the defendant, Baxter, who was charged with drug supply offences and money laundering. The prosecution alleged that Baxter was involved in the supply of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and the handling of money suspected to be the proceeds of crime. The matter came before the court for sentencing, where the primary issues were to determine the appropriate non-parole period, the ratio of the non-parole period to the balance of the term, and the overall penalties, including imprisonment.

The court had to weigh various legal and factual considerations in sentencing. These included Baxter's criminal history, the objective seriousness of the offences, the deterrence value of the sentence, and the need for parity with sentences given to co-offenders. Additionally, the court examined Baxter's drug addiction and the hardship that imprisonment would cause him and his family. The court also had to determine the appropriate weight to give to the totality principle, ensuring that the sentence reflected the accumulation, concurrency, and objective seriousness of the offences.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged Baxter's previous convictions, which were considered an aggravating factor. The court found that Baxter's role in the drug supply and money laundering activities was significant, warranting a substantial penalty. The court set an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years. This decision balanced the need for deterrence and general deterrence with the special circumstances of the offender and the principle of parity with co-offenders. The court also ensured that the sentence reflected the objective seriousness of the offences and adhered to the principles of totality in sentencing.

The court's final orders mandated that Baxter serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years, reflecting the balance between the various sentencing considerations outlined above.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years: at [106].

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 Baxter [2022] NSWDC 708
Hearing dates:	11 July 2022, 14 July 2022
Date of orders:	14 July 2022
Decision date:	14 July 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years: at [106].
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity CRIME — Money laundering — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Non-parole period — Ratio of the non-parole period and balance of term SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — Parity — Form 1 offence — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Findings of fact SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Hardship — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Doyle v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 81 DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156 Ebrahimi v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 273 Nguyen v The Queen (2011) 208 A Crim R 432 R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 252 Toller v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 204
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Nathan Baxter (Offender)
Representation:	Mr R Kimbell (Crown Prosecutor) Mr I Lloyd QC (Senior counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/144076