R v Brittain - [2018] NSWDC 390

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brittain [2018] NSWDC 390
Hearing dates: 03 August 2018
Date of orders: 06 August 2018
Decision date: 06 August 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
At [29].

Catchwords: SENTENCING — Multiple drug offences – Ongoing drug supply – supply prohibited drug – Posses firearm without licence – Multiple Form 1 matters – objective seriousness – mid range
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited: DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Krivosic v R [2017] NSWCCA 167
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Texts Cited: None
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Matthew Brittain (Offender)
Representation:
Crown: Ms Lumsden
Offender: Mr Gelbert

File Number(s): 2016/64993

Judgment

Matthew Brittain, who was born in 1983, appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to a number of charges at a relatively late stage. Count 1, an ongoing supply of a prohibited drug being heroin, namely 14.9 grams, contrary to s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. To be taken into account on a Form 1 in relation to count 1 are four other charges and they will be dealt with in the way suggested by the Chief Justice in the guideline judgment on Form 1 matters. They are first, supply prohibited drug being gamma butyrolactone contrary to s 25(1), namely 149 grams of that substance which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years. Secondly possess a prohibited drug being 51.7 grams of cannabis leaf which carries a maximum penalty of two years under s 10(1) of the Act. Thirdly, dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, or money laundering under s 193C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. The amount involved was $46,395. The final matter to be dealt with on a Form 1 is possess ammunition without a permit, contrary to s 65(3) of the Firearms Act1996 which carries a maximum penalty of 50 units.
Count 2 is a charge of supply 23.37 grams of heroin contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.
Count 3 is a count of supply not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine namely 349 grams, contrary to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years with a standard non-parole period of ten years.
Count 4 is possess firearm without a licence contrary to s 7A of the Firearms Act 1996 which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
The maximum penalties and where applicable the standard non-parole periods are yardsticks to be used in the sentencing process and the sentencing process of course must…

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 Brittain

Details

AGLC: R v Brittain [2018] NSWDC 390
Case: [2018] NSWDC 390
Decision Date: 06 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court dealt with the case of R v Brittain, where the defendant was charged with multiple drug-related offences and possession of a firearm without a licence. The defendant had a history of drug supply and had been involved in several incidents of supplying prohibited substances. Additionally, the defendant was found in possession of a firearm without the requisite licence. The case was heard in a higher court where the defendant's sentence was being reviewed.

The court needed to decide the appropriate sentence for the defendant considering the multiple charges and the objective seriousness of the offences. Key issues included the nature and extent of the defendant's involvement in drug supply, the specific details of the firearm possession offence, and the cumulative impact of these charges. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate or if adjustments were necessary.

In determining the sentence, the court emphasised the significant impact of the defendant’s activities on the community, highlighting the ongoing nature of the drug supply and the dangerous implications of firearm possession. The court acknowledged the defendant's previous attempts at rehabilitation but also noted the repeated breaches of the law. After a thorough analysis of the circumstances and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, the court concluded that a mid-range sentence was warranted, taking into account the severity and frequency of the offences. The court decided to uphold the lower court's sentence, finding it to be appropriate given the evidence and circumstances of the case.

At [29], the court confirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court, reflecting a balanced approach between punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [29].

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 Brittain [2018] NSWDC 390
Hearing dates:	03 August 2018
Date of orders:	06 August 2018
Decision date:	06 August 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	At [29].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Multiple drug offences – Ongoing drug supply – supply prohibited drug – Posses firearm without licence – Multiple Form 1 matters – objective seriousness – mid range
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited:	DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Krivosic v R [2017] NSWCCA 167 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Matthew Brittain (Offender)
Representation:	Crown: Ms Lumsden Offender: Mr Gelbert
File Number(s):	2016/64993