District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Burkitt [2020] NSWDC 50 Hearing dates: 19 December 2019, 13 March 2020 Date of orders: 13 March 2020 Decision date: 13 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Weinstein SC DCJ Decision: Full-time custodial order to be served by way of intensive correctional order. For orders see [87]
Catchwords: SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Indictable quantityLegislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985Cases Cited: Abbas & Ors v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General’s Application (No 1) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Casella v R [2019] NSWCCA 201
DPP v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Karout v R [2019] NSWCCA 253
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173
R v Jarrold [2010] NSWCCA 69
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
Veen v The Queen (No 2) at [476–477]
Watts v R [2007] NSWCCA 153Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Alexander Leonard Burkitt (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms S. Stuart (Crown)
Mr M. Crawford-Smith (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/0039281
Judgment
-
The offender Alexander Leonard Burkitt, born in 1983, is before the court for sentence for supply of a commercial quantity of prohibited drug, being 1124 grams of gamma butyrolactone, on 19 December 2018, contrary to section 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (DMTA) (sequence 1), for which the maximum penalty is 20 years, 3500 penalty units, or both, and the standard non-parole period is 10 years. There is a second charge of supply an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, being 984.62 grams of gamma butyrolactone, between 8 November 2018 and 20 December 2018, contrary to section 25(1) of the DMTA (sequence 7), for which the maximum penalty is 15 years, 2000 penalty units, or both, and for which there is no standard non-parole period.
-
There is also a Form 1 which the offender asks me to take into account when sentencing him for sequence 7. This is a charge of supply an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, being 16.15 grams of methylamphetamine, between 13 and 20 December 2018.
Evidence
-
Before me are five exhibits. Exhibit 1 is a bundle of documents prepared by the Crown which includes:
A Charge Certificate;
The Form 1;
The Agreed Facts;
The offender’s New South Wales and Commonwealth criminal history; and
The offender’s custodial history;
-
Exhibit 2 is a Sentencing Assessment Report (SAR) dated 13 December 2019 under the hand of Nofar Boskila.
-
Exhibit 3 is a bundle of documents tendered by the offender, which includes:-
A report of Thea Gumbert, psychologist dated 17 December 2019;
A letter from Simon Martin, counsellor, Stimulant Treatment Program at St…
- AGLC
- R v Burkitt [2020] NSWDC 50
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 50
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court noted Burkitt's prior convictions for drug-related offences and other serious crimes, which indicated a pattern of criminal behaviour. However, it also considered his efforts to abstain from drugs and his potential for rehabilitation through an intensive correction order. The court concluded that while the offences were serious, the unique personal circumstances and Burkitt's demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation justified imposing an intensive correction order instead of a custodial sentence. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the need for punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered that Burkitt's sentence be served through an intensive correction order, which includes strict supervision, regular reporting, and participation in rehabilitation programs. The court outlined specific conditions for the order, including mandatory drug testing and restrictions on Burkitt's activities to prevent reoffending. The decision reflects the court's approach to sentencing in drug-related cases, balancing the need for deterrence and punishment with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full-time custodial order to be served by way of intensive correctional order. For orders see [87]
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.