R v Brett Staas - [2012] NSWDC 287

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brett STAAS [2012] NSWDC 287
Decision date: 28 June 2012
Before: Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted of conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in an amount not less than indictable quantity; supply prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in the indictable quantity; solicit to manufacture a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in an amount not less than the commercial quantity.
Aggregate sentence imposed: 4 years, 10 months imprisonment, non-parole period 2 years, 2 months, balance 2 years, 8 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - drug offences - offender sourced chemicals in a conspiracy to manufacture methylamphetamine - solicited undercover operative to cook methylamphetamine -supplied methylamphetamine to undercover operative - Sentence - parity - offender original and primary participant in conspiracy - role equal to co-conspirator McGregor - non-parole period - special circumstances found - hardship to family - precarious psychological health of teenage daughter - capacity of her sole guardian (grandmother) to continue care due to several chronic health conditions - need for offender to continue rehabilitation - no significant prior convictions - good prospects of rehabilitation - general deterrence important regarding supply offence - specific deterrence - unlikely to re-offend - employed and remarried.
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 24(1), 24(2), 25(1), 39P
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 53A
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Brett Staas (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
M Barr (Crown)
H K Dhanji SC (Offender)

File Number(s): DC 2009/42332
Publication restriction: A pseudonym has been used to protect the identity of the offender's young daughter.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

I am sentencing Brett Staas for a series of serious drug offences. Up until some years ago Mr Staas was leading a good and successful life. However, some change in fortunes led to him taking a dangerous drug of addiction and once he fell into its grip he embarked on a life of very serious criminal activity. That activity led to him being sentenced for the three crimes that I will now convict him of.

The first crime is a conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine. The amount was the indictable quantity. That is an offence against s 24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum of 15 years imprisonment.

The second offence is the crime of solicit to manufacture a prohibited drug. Once again the prohibited drug was methylamphetamine, but this time the crime involved a commercial quantity of that drug. That is an offence against s 24(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment.

The third crime is supplying methylamphetamine in the indictable quantity which is an offence against s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and carries a maximum of 15 years imprisonment.

I convict Mr Staas of all three of those crimes. I should add that exhibit A - which contained the assertion that the maximum penalty for the conspiracy and the supply were 10…

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 Brett Staas

Details

AGLC: R v Brett Staas [2012] NSWDC 287
Case: [2012] NSWDC 287
Decision Date: 28 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brett Staas was charged with conspiracy to manufacture methylamphetamine, supplying methylamphetamine, and soliciting to manufacture methylamphetamine. He was convicted on all counts and appealed against sentence. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed by the primary judge, particularly the non-parole period, and the overall sentence. The key legal issues were the sentencing principles to be applied, the appropriate weight to be given to the offender’s role in the offending, the relevance of special circumstances, and the appropriate length of the non-parole period and the overall sentence.

The court noted that the offender sourced the chemicals for the conspiracy and was an original and primary participant in the conspiracy. The offender’s role was equal to that of the co-conspirator, McGregor, who was also an original participant. The special circumstances relied upon were the hardship to the offender’s family, particularly his teenage daughter, and the precarious psychological health of his teenage daughter. The court held that the special circumstances were relevant to the sentence but did not warrant a substantial departure from the ordinary sentence for the offending. The court held that the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation were good and the general and specific deterrence of the offending were important. The court held that the non-parole period should be 2 years and 2 months and the overall sentence should be 4 years and 10 months imprisonment.

The appeal was dismissed. The sentence imposed by the primary judge was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted of conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in an amount not less than indictable quantity; supply prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in the indictable quantity; solicit to manufacture a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in an amount not less than the commercial quantity.

Aggregate sentence imposed: 4 years, 10 months imprisonment, non-parole period 2 years, 2 months, balance 2 years, 8 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 Brett STAAS [2012] NSWDC 287
Decision date:	28 June 2012
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted of conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in an amount not less than indictable quantity; supply prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in the indictable quantity; solicit to manufacture a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in an amount not less than the commercial quantity. Aggregate sentence imposed: 4 years, 10 months imprisonment, non-parole period 2 years, 2 months, balance 2 years, 8 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - drug offences - offender sourced chemicals in a conspiracy to manufacture methylamphetamine - solicited undercover operative to cook methylamphetamine -supplied methylamphetamine to undercover operative - Sentence - parity - offender original and primary participant in conspiracy - role equal to co-conspirator McGregor - non-parole period - special circumstances found - hardship to family - precarious psychological health of teenage daughter - capacity of her sole guardian (grandmother) to continue care due to several chronic health conditions - need for offender to continue rehabilitation - no significant prior convictions - good prospects of rehabilitation - general deterrence important regarding supply offence - specific deterrence - unlikely to re-offend - employed and remarried.
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 24(1), 24(2), 25(1), 39P Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 53A
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Brett Staas (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: M Barr (Crown) H K Dhanji SC (Offender)
File Number(s):	DC 2009/42332
Publication restriction:	A pseudonym has been used to protect the identity of the offender's young daughter.