R v CJC - [2008] NSWDC 137

CITATION: R v CJC [2008] NSWDC 137

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 February 2008

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ

DECISION: Convicted.of both offences. Sentences of imprisonment imposed - sentences to be served in juvenile custody. (see paragraphs 70-71).

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Juvenile offender - on-going supply prohibited drug (ecstacy) - agreement to supply prohibited drug (ecstacy) - whether to sentence at law - sentences to be served in juvenile custody.

LEGISLATION CITED: s. 11, s.18, s.19 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987

CASES CITED: R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597
R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329
R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
Roper v Simmons (2005) 543 US 1
at p.15-16
R v WKR (1993) 32 NSWLR 447.

PARTIES: Regina
C J C

FILE NUMBER(S): 07/21/0222

COUNSEL: T. Gartelmann

SOLICITORS: Mr L Crepaldi

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
1. Section 11(1) of the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 provides that the name of any person must not be published or broadcast in a way that connects the person with criminal proceedings if he was a child when the offence to which the proceedings relate was committed. In light of the way in which the legislature is drafted there is no need for me to make an order in respect of that, I simply draw it to the attention of those who may be reading this judgment.

2. C---- J-- C----, hereinafter CJC, is a juvenile to whom the provisions of s 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 apply. During his 17th year CJC travelled the journey through the world of drugs, from being a relative neophyte to an accomplished drug trafficker; from experimenter to dealing to those he knew would on-supply to another. Today he is to be held accountable for his criminal conduct arising at the end of that journey.

3. CJC began the process of accountability when he pleaded guilty to a charge that between 11 January 2007 and 8 February 2007 at Castle Hill he supplied on at least three separate occasions ecstasy, a prohibited drug, for financial material reward. He is also to be dealt with for agreeing to supply, which is of course a supply of 500 ecstasy tablets that agreement being made between 11 January 2007 and 15 February 2007.

4. As sentencing judge it falls to me to resolve a number of competing tensions as I strive to determine the appropriate sentence for these two offences before this Court committed by this offender harming this community or at least attempting to harm this community in the way he did. My initial task requires an assessment of the objective criminality of the offences before the Court. I will also need to have regard to matters personal to him, subjective matters.

5. The starting point for these assessments requires the sentencing judge to make findings of fact from the evidence before the Court relating to both the offence and to offences and the offender. The offender’s rehabilitation prospects will have…

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 CJC

Details

AGLC: R v CJC [2008] NSWDC 137
Case: [2008] NSWDC 137
Decision Date: 1 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v CJC involves a young individual who was charged with two offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985: namely, the on-going supply of a prohibited drug, specifically ecstasy, and an agreement to supply the same drug. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues at hand revolved around the appropriate sentencing framework to apply, given the defendant's age and the nature of the offences committed. The court had to consider whether to sentence the offender under the criminal law or under a separate regime for juvenile offenders, as well as the appropriate custodial sentence to impose. The court was also required to consider whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.

In its judgment, the court found that the offences were serious enough to warrant sentencing under the criminal law. However, it also acknowledged the defendant's youth and the need to impose a sentence that would facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court held that the sentences should be served in juvenile custody, given the defendant's age and the potential for rehabilitation in such an environment. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for each offence, to be served concurrently in juvenile custody.

The court's final orders were that the defendant be convicted of both offences, and that sentences of imprisonment be imposed, to be served in juvenile custody. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration for young offenders, and the need to balance the interests of the community with the needs of the individual offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted.of both offences. Sentences of imprisonment imposed - sentences to be served in juvenile custody. (see paragraphs 70-71).

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.

CITATION:	R v CJC [2008] NSWDC 137
JUDGMENT DATE:	1 February 2008
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Convicted.of both offences. Sentences of imprisonment imposed - sentences to be served in juvenile custody. (see paragraphs 70-71).
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentencing - Juvenile offender - on-going supply prohibited drug (ecstacy) - agreement to supply prohibited drug (ecstacy) - whether to sentence at law - sentences to be served in juvenile custody.
LEGISLATION CITED:	s. 11, s.18, s.19 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
CASES CITED:	R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597 R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 Roper v Simmons (2005) 543 US 1 at p.15-16 R v WKR (1993) 32 NSWLR 447.
PARTIES:	Regina C J C
FILE NUMBER(S):	07/21/0222
COUNSEL:	T. Gartelmann
SOLICITORS:	Mr L Crepaldi