R v Conor Lavan - [2018] NSWDC 263

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Conor Lavan [2018] NSWDC 263
Hearing dates: 8 June 2018
Date of orders: 08 June 2018
Decision date: 08 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of three years and nine months with a non‑parole period of two years and five months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCING – sentence after trial – possession firearm – supply firearm – connection to other criminal activity – impact of offences on community – parity where co-offenders give assistance – youth and community – interest in rehabilitation – assaulted in gaol – gaol not a deterrent – special circumstances – need for supervision – community protection.
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited: Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246
AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43
Do v R [2010] NSWCCA 182
Green v The Queen (2011) 244CLR 462
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
O'Connor [2014] NSWCCA 53
R v Thalari [2009] NSWCCA 170
R v Thurgar (1990) 51 A Crim R 109
Tran v R [2010] NSWCCA 183
Category: Sentence
Parties: Conor Lavan (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Coyne (for the Offender)
Ms E Beljic, (Trial Advocate for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Solicitors:
Mr M Ward (for the Offender)
Mr J Lee (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2016/00324873

Judgment

Introduction

On 30 June 2016, Conor Lavan brought a .270 Ruger rifle with scope to his friend Ben Anderson's bedsit in Mangerton. He stayed the night. Unbeknown to either man, police had obtained a search warrant for the unit that very day. Anderson was their target as Anderson was conducting a drug supply business from the bedsit. The search uncovered a quantity of drugs and two rifles, including the Ruger and ammunition for it. Anderson was arrested; Lavan was let go, although he received Court Attendance Notices for other offences, which were subsequently disposed of in the Local Court, and to which I will later refer. Later fingerprint and DNA analysis conducted on the Ruger linked Lavan to it. In exchange for a reduction in sentence, Anderson agreed to give evidence against Lavan.
On 15 September 2016, police telephone intercepts revealed that Daniel Tarvij was in serious trouble. He owed the Lone Wolf Motor Cycle Club over $70,000 for a drug debt. They had demanded immediate repayment in cash or kind; being firearms and cars. A desperate Tarvij phoned his friend Lavan. Lavan said he had two “Roscoes”; code for guns. Tarvij went to another unit in Mangerton and picked up Lavan, and I can readily conclude a weapon. As the car drove down nearby Crown Street, it was stopped by police. That weapon, a shortened .22 rifle, was found down Tarvij's trousers. Later, Tarvij, in exchange for a reduction in sentence, told police that he had just been given that rifle by Lavan. A search of a garage at Tarvij's unit found ammunition and other firearms. Tarvij put the…

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 Conor Lavan

Details

AGLC: R v Conor Lavan [2018] NSWDC 263
Case: [2018] NSWDC 263
Decision Date: 08 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Conor Lavan, was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland of several offences related to firearms and possession of dangerous drugs. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence handed down by the trial judge. The primary issues before the Court were the appropriate sentence for the appellant, given his young age, his previous history of offending, and the nature of the offences committed.

The Court examined the principles of sentencing in the context of the appellant's background and offending history. It was noted that the appellant had a history of involvement with criminal activity, including possession and supply of dangerous drugs, and had been involved in incidents of violence. The Court also considered the impact of the offences on the community, as well as the appellant's potential for rehabilitation. The Court was mindful of the need to balance the interests of the community in punishment and deterrence with the appellant's youth and potential for rehabilitation. Furthermore, the Court took into account the appellant's assault in gaol and the fact that it did not act as a deterrent to further offending.

After considering all relevant factors, the Court concluded that the sentence handed down by the trial judge was appropriate. The aggregate sentence of three years and nine months with a non-parole period of two years and five months was deemed to be a just and appropriate reflection of the seriousness of the offences committed, the appellant's history of offending, and the need for community protection. The Court noted that the sentence provided an opportunity for the appellant to rehabilitate and reform, while also serving as a deterrent to others who might be tempted to engage in similar criminal activity.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of three years and nine months with a non‑parole period of two years and five 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 Conor Lavan [2018] NSWDC 263
Hearing dates:	8 June 2018
Date of orders:	08 June 2018
Decision date:	08 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of three years and nine months with a non‑parole period of two years and five months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCING – sentence after trial – possession firearm – supply firearm – connection to other criminal activity – impact of offences on community – parity where co-offenders give assistance – youth and community – interest in rehabilitation – assaulted in gaol – gaol not a deterrent – special circumstances – need for supervision – community protection.
Legislation Cited:	Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited:	Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246 AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43 Do v R [2010] NSWCCA 182 Green v The Queen (2011) 244CLR 462 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 O'Connor [2014] NSWCCA 53 R v Thalari [2009] NSWCCA 170 R v Thurgar (1990) 51 A Crim R 109 Tran v R [2010] NSWCCA 183
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Conor Lavan (Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Coyne (for the Offender) Ms E Beljic, (Trial Advocate for the Director of Public Prosecutions) Solicitors: Mr M Ward (for the Offender) Mr J Lee (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2016/00324873