R v Conroy - [2020] NSWDC 604

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Conroy [2020] NSWDC 604
Hearing dates: 11 September 2020
Date of orders: 11 September 2020
Decision date: 11 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Sentence 4 years – NPP 2 years 4 months

Catchwords:
FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE
Attempt to import a marketable quantity of methamphetamine (194.376 grams pure) – Offender 22 years old at the time of the offence, 23 years at sentence – No prior relevant conviction – Some disadvantage growing up – Suffering a generalised anxiety disorder at time of offence which affected his judgment – Offender knew what the drug was and how much drug there was prior to attempting the importation – Expected to make between $4,000 & $5,000.

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code 1995

Cases Cited:
R v Faver [2020] SAFC 49
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina – Crown
Luke William Conroy – Offender
Representation: J. Rolan – Crown
W. Brewer – Offender

File Number(s): 2019/00315445
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Luke William Conroy stands for sentence as a result of pleading guilty to a charge that on or about 9 October 2019 at Sydney in this State he did attempt to import a substance, the substance being a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine and the quantity attempted to be imported was a marketable quantity. By the combined operation of s 307.2(1) and s 11.1(1) of the Criminal Code, that is an offence punishable by imprisonment for 25 years and or a fine of 5,000 penalty units. The offender attempted to take delivery of an importation of 194.376 grams of pure methamphetamine at the Kensington Post Office on 9 October 2019.

Facts

Prior to that event, the offender was a drug user. To communicate with those who supplied him with drugs, the offender used the Wickr application on his mobile phone. That allowed him to send encrypted messages which automatically deleted after a fixed time, no greater than six days. On 29 August 2019, he had a conversation with another Wickr user who used the name “Jackson 10”. In that conversation this occurred. Offender:

“I seen something on news not too long ago about baby formula getting bought in bulk and it gets used out hard, I think. So I’m surprised it’s all working again with baby formula. Ha ha.”

Jackson 10:

“No, it works. Cause it’s organic like milk. Looks the same. On the x-ray.”

Offender:

“Oh shit, really.”

Jackson 10:

“The cameras don’t work.”

Offender:

“Ha, ha, ha, that’s dope.”

A little later in the conversation, Jackson 10 said this:

“And he said if you start doing runs, he want you to give(?) money out of each run so you don’t have to tick he coke, I said, yeah, he will. Know what I mean bro”.

To that the offender replied in the affirmative. That clearly indicates that the offender knew that methyl amphetamine was being imported in shipments of baby…

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 Conroy

Details

AGLC: R v Conroy [2020] NSWDC 604
Case: [2020] NSWDC 604
Decision Date: 11 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Conroy was charged with the attempted importation of a marketable quantity of methamphetamine, 194.376 grams pure. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to impose on Conroy, who was 22 years old at the time of the offence and 23 at the time of sentencing. Conroy had no prior relevant convictions, but had experienced some disadvantage during his upbringing and was suffering from a generalised anxiety disorder at the time of the offence, which affected his judgment. Conroy was aware of both the nature and quantity of the drug he was attempting to import and expected to profit between $4,000 and $5,000 from the attempt.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the offender's age and lack of prior convictions, the disadvantage experienced during upbringing, and the mental health condition that impaired his judgment at the time of the offence. The court found that these mitigating factors warranted a sentence that balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the need to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court sentenced Conroy to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and four months. The court considered this sentence to be appropriate in all the circumstances.

The court made no further orders in the case. The final order was that Conroy be imprisoned for four years, with a non-parole period of two years and four months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence 4 years – NPP 2 years 4 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 Conroy [2020] NSWDC 604
Hearing dates:	11 September 2020
Date of orders:	11 September 2020
Decision date:	11 September 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Sentence 4 years – NPP 2 years 4 months
Catchwords:	FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE Attempt to import a marketable quantity of methamphetamine (194.376 grams pure) – Offender 22 years old at the time of the offence, 23 years at sentence – No prior relevant conviction – Some disadvantage growing up – Suffering a generalised anxiety disorder at time of offence which affected his judgment – Offender knew what the drug was and how much drug there was prior to attempting the importation – Expected to make between $4,000 & $5,000.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 1995
Cases Cited:	R v Faver [2020] SAFC 49 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina – Crown Luke William Conroy – Offender
Representation:	J. Rolan – Crown W. Brewer – Offender
File Number(s):	2019/00315445
Publication restriction:	Nil.