R v Bridge - [2018] NSWDC 96

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bridge [2018] NSWDC 96
Hearing dates: 9 March 2018
Date of orders: 22 March 2018
Decision date: 22 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: DCJ Bright
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 10 years to date from 20 June 2016 and expiring on 19 June 2026 with a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 20 June 2016 to 19 June 2022.
Pursuant to section 18(1) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, I make forfeiture orders in accordance with the Short Minute of Consent Order signed and dated by the parties on 9 March 2018.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Firearms Act 1996
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989
Cases Cited: R v Medd [2016] NSWCCA 216
Lam v R; Lam v R [2015] NSWCCA 221 87
Baquiran v R [2014] NSWCCA 221
R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Michael David Bridge (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Healey of counsel for the offender
Solicitors:
Mr Duncan for the offender
Mr Henschell for the Crown

File Number(s): 2016/213493, 2016/155191, 2016/249922
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Michael David Bridge (born 1983, 34 years) appears for sentence in relation to the following offences:

Sequence 1/H61103323 – Supply commercial quantity (1100g gamma-butryrolactone) (GBL), section 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Maximum prescribed penalty 20 years, prescribed standard non-parole period 10 years.

Sequence 28/H61103323 – Supply large commercial quantity (1115.1g methylanphetimine), section 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

Maximum prescribed penalty, life imprisonment, prescribed standard non-parole period 15 years

Form 1 – When dealing with the offender for sequence 28/H61103323 the offender has asked the court to take into account a further 4 matters on a Form 1 as follows:

1) Sequence 26/H61103323 – Supply prohibited drug (454g of cannabis). Maximum prescribed penalty 10 years imprisonment.

2) Sequence 31/H61103323 – Supply prohibited drug (17.17g methylenedioxymethamphetamine) section 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

Maximum prescribed penalty 15 years imprisonment.

3) Sequence 34/H61103323 – supply prohibited drug (625.4g – GBL Section 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

Maximum prescribed penalty is 15 years.

4) Sequence 39/H61103323 – Recklessly deal with proceeds of crime (motorbikes and various items) s 193B(3) Crimes Act.

Maximum prescribed penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

The offender is also to be sentenced for the following further offences: Sequence 35/H61103323 – Possess unauthorised pistol (small silver handgun), Section 7(1), Firearms Act.

Maximum prescribed penalty 14 years imprisonment, prescribed standard non-parole period 4 years.

Count 2 (Indictment) – supply prohibited drug (14.2g cocaine) section 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

Maximum prescribed penalty 15 years imprisonment.

Count 3 (indictment) – Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime ($20,000) Section 193B(2), Crimes Act.

Maximum prescribed penalty 15 years imprisonment.

Sequence 4/H61671850 – Supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis (methylamphetamine – 3 supplies 21g, 7g, 14g) Section 25A(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

Maximum prescribed penalty 20…

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 Bridge

Details

AGLC: R v Bridge [2018] NSWDC 96
Case: [2018] NSWDC 96
Decision Date: 22 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bridge involved the defendant, Bridge, and the prosecution. The dispute centred around criminal charges against Bridge, including fraud and money laundering offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for Bridge's convictions and the application of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989. Specifically, the court had to assess the severity of the offences, the culpability of Bridge, and the implications for forfeiture of criminal proceeds.

The court addressed these issues by considering the nature and extent of Bridge's criminal conduct, the impact on victims, and the principles of sentencing for fraud and money laundering. The court recognised the sophistication and scale of the fraud, as well as the significant financial gain obtained by Bridge. In determining the sentence, the court took into account both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the absence of a prior criminal record and Bridge's cooperation with authorities. The court also examined the principles of proportionality and deterrence in arriving at an appropriate punishment.

In its judgment, the court imposed a sentence of 10 years, with a non-parole period of 6 years. The court also made forfeiture orders under section 18(1) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, in line with the terms agreed upon by the parties in a consent order. This decision reflects the court's determination to address both the punitive and restorative aspects of criminal justice in this case. The final orders included an aggregate sentence and forfeiture of criminal proceeds, ensuring that justice was served for the victims and the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 10 years to date from 20 June 2016 and expiring on 19 June 2026 with a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 20 June 2016 to 19 June 2022.

Pursuant to section 18(1) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, I make forfeiture orders in accordance with the Short Minute of Consent Order signed and dated by the parties on 9 March 2018.

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 Bridge [2018] NSWDC 96
Hearing dates:	9 March 2018
Date of orders:	22 March 2018
Decision date:	22 March 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	DCJ Bright
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 10 years to date from 20 June 2016 and expiring on 19 June 2026 with a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 20 June 2016 to 19 June 2022. Pursuant to section 18(1) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, I make forfeiture orders in accordance with the Short Minute of Consent Order signed and dated by the parties on 9 March 2018.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Firearms Act 1996 Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989
Cases Cited:	R v Medd [2016] NSWCCA 216 Lam v R; Lam v R [2015] NSWCCA 221 87 Baquiran v R [2014] NSWCCA 221 R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Michael David Bridge (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Healey of counsel for the offender Solicitors: Mr Duncan for the offender Mr Henschell for the Crown
File Number(s):	2016/213493, 2016/155191, 2016/249922
Publication restriction:	Nil