R v Benjamin Adam Miles - [2016] NSWDC 105

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Benjamin Adam Miles [2016] NSWDC 105
Hearing dates: 26 May 2016
Decision date: 10 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [102] to [105]

Catchwords: Ongoing drug supply; multiple drug supply offences; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited: Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Briouzguine v R [2014] NSWCCA 264
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41
R v Cacciola (1998) 104 ACrimR 178
R v Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55
R v Dang [2005] NSWCCA 430
R v Harmouche (2005) 158 ACrimR 357
R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9
R v Ramos (2000) 112 ACrimR 339
R v Thompson (unreported 4 April 1991, NSWCCA)
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Benjamin Adam Miles (Offender)
Representation:
Solicitor:
K Stanley (Crown)
Counsel:
J Glissan QC (Offender)

File Number(s): 15/251814
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 10 December 2015 the offender entered pleas of guilty to the following offences:

Count 1 - Ongoing supply of prohibited drug between 2 July 2015 and 29 July 2015 pursuant to s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”). The prohibited drug was -3, 4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (“MDMA”).

The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000.00. There is no standard non-parole period proscribed.

Count 2 - Supply prohibited drug – (large commercial quantity of MDMA) between 2 July 2015 and 20 August 2015 pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA.

The maximum penalty is life imprisonment and/or a fine of $550,000.00. There is a standard non‑parole period of 15 years imprisonment.

Count 3 - Supply prohibited drug – (large commercial quantity of MDMA) on 27 August 2015 pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA.

The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment and/or a fine of $550,000.00. There is a standard non-parole period of 15 years proscribed.

Count 4 - Supply prohibited drug – commercial quantity of cocaine pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA.

The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000.00. There is a standard non-parole period of 10 years imprisonment.

Count 5 - Supply prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) on 27 August 2015 pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA.

The maximum penalty is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $220,000.00.

The offender has asked that five matters be taken into account on a Form 1 as follows:

Sequence 7 – Supply prohibited drug (cocaine) on 20 August 2015.

Sequence 8 – Supply prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) on 20 August 2015.

Sequence 15 - Possess prohibited drug (cocaine) on 27 August 2015

Sequence 16 – Possess prohibited drug…

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 Benjamin Adam Miles

Details

AGLC: R v Benjamin Adam Miles [2016] NSWDC 105
Case: [2016] NSWDC 105
Decision Date: 10 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Benjamin Adam Miles involved the defendant, Benjamin Adam Miles, facing charges related to multiple drug supply offences. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The charges included multiple instances of drug supply, which the prosecution argued constituted ongoing and persistent criminal conduct warranting severe punitive measures. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Miles, considering the nature and extent of his criminal activities.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the calculation of an aggregate sentence for the multiple drug supply offences and the appropriateness of a custodial sentence given the seriousness of the crimes. The court had to consider the cumulative impact of the offences and whether a non-custodial sentence could effectively address the underlying issues or if incarceration was necessary to protect the community and deter future criminal behaviour. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing and proportionality in relation to the offences committed.

The court found that the offences were of significant seriousness and frequency, indicating a persistent pattern of criminal behaviour. The cumulative effect of the offences warranted a custodial sentence. The court considered various factors, including the defendant's criminal history, the impact on the community, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an aggregate sentence involving full-time imprisonment was appropriate. The court's reasoning emphasised the need to balance the punitive aspect of sentencing with the possibility of rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included a full-time custodial sentence, with detailed provisions set out from [102] to [105]. These provisions likely included specifics on the duration of the sentence, conditions of parole if applicable, and any ancillary orders related to rehabilitation or monitoring post-sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [102] to [105]

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 Benjamin Adam Miles [2016] NSWDC 105
Hearing dates:	26 May 2016
Decision date:	10 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [102] to [105]
Catchwords:	Ongoing drug supply; multiple drug supply offences; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited:	Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Briouzguine v R [2014] NSWCCA 264 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41 R v Cacciola (1998) 104 ACrimR 178 R v Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55 R v Dang [2005] NSWCCA 430 R v Harmouche (2005) 158 ACrimR 357 R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9 R v Ramos (2000) 112 ACrimR 339 R v Thompson (unreported 4 April 1991, NSWCCA) R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Benjamin Adam Miles (Offender)
Representation:	Solicitor: K Stanley (Crown) Counsel: J Glissan QC (Offender)
File Number(s):	15/251814
Publication restriction:	Nil