R v Cunningham

Case [2017] NSWDC 106


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cunningham [2017] NSWDC 106
Hearing dates: 10 March 2016 - 9 August 2016 - 11 November 2016 - 27 January 2017
Date of orders: 27 January 2017
Decision date: 27 January 2017
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:

Taking into account matters on a Form 1 the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months. The sentence is to be served by means of an Intensive Corrections Order. Matter on s166 certificate is withdrawn – Drugs are to be destroyed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Sentence after s11 remand – Supply prohibited drug – Possess prohibited drug.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Liam Cunningham
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms M Moody – The offender

  Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
File Number(s): 2015/178800

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Liam Cunningham first appeared before me some time ago after pleading guilty to supplying a drug with two matters of possession on a form 1. On that first occasion I adjourned the matter under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. It appeared to me at that stage that Mr Cunningham had good prospects of rehabilitating himself. Fortunately, my expectations were met.

  2. When Mr Cunningham next appeared before me on 11 November last year he had demonstrated, rather than just promised, that he could become a very different person to the one he was when he was caught being in possession of drugs for the purposes of supplying them. Accordingly, I adjourned the matter to today. I determined that a custodial sentence was required, but suggested that if suitable Mr Cunningham would serve that sentence by means of an intensive corrections order. Consistent with the rehabilitation that Mr Cunningham has achieved, he has been assessed as suitable to serve the sentence by means of an ICO.

  3. Ms Moody has made some further submissions today in which she pressed upon me the option of a suspended sentence rather than an ICO. I explained on the last occasion why I did not consider that a suspended sentence was appropriate. I said this, "Although a s 12 bond is in a real sense a punishment, in my view it is insufficient to reflect the objective gravity of what the offender did."

  4. In assessing that objective gravity, of course, I need to determine to whom Mr Cunningham was going to supply the drugs. Ms Moody said in her submissions that he was merely going to supply it to a friend. That is what Mr Cunningham said in evidence, but he gave so many different versions various times that, as I said on the earlier occasion, I was unable to determine whether I was being told the truth, and I would sentence the offender on the basis that he had the drugs in his possession for the purposes of supplying them. Beyond that, I can say no more.

  5. A further submission made by Ms Moody relates to statistics collected by the Judicial Commission. Those statistics indicate that suspended sentences have, on many occasions, been imposed for offences of this type. Ms Moody even went so far as to suggest, accurately from the statistics, that the suspended sentence seems to be a more popular option than the ICO. The statistics have to be looked at with some caution, not only because they do not address the particular circumstances of the case before me, but also because in this case, for the period over which the statistics were collected, ICOs were not available for the entirety of that period. It is no surprise, therefore, that ICOs might be under-represented in the statistics.

  6. In any case, I remain of the view that I expressed on the earlier occasion. Mr Cunningham needs to be punished, significantly so, for what he did, and in my view a suspended sentence is insufficient. I therefore impose the following sentence, taking into account the matters on the form 1. The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months. I order that that sentence be served by means of an intensive corrections order.

  7. I will note that the matter on the s166 certificate and is withdrawn.

  8. I will order that the drugs are to be destroyed. Thank you both for your assistance.

**********

Details
AGLC
R v Cunningham [2017] NSWDC 106
Case
[2017] NSWDC 106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the defendant, Cunningham, who was charged with supplying and possessing a prohibited drug. The case was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The defendant was already on a s11 remand, which meant the court had jurisdiction to impose a sentence after taking into account various matters specified on a Form 1. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for Cunningham, considering both the supply and possession charges and the circumstances surrounding the offences.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in this case, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the suitability of an Intensive Corrections Order. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offences against Cunningham's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the defendant's previous criminal history and the impact of the drugs on the community.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the seriousness of the offences, noting that both supplying and possessing prohibited drugs are significant criminal activities that can cause harm to individuals and the community. The court acknowledged Cunningham's previous criminal history, which included prior drug-related offences. However, the court also took into account mitigating factors, such as Cunningham's expressed remorse and efforts to address his drug addiction. The court concluded that an Intensive Corrections Order was the most appropriate sentence, given the potential for rehabilitation and the need to address the underlying issues contributing to Cunningham's criminal behaviour. The court also ordered that the drugs be destroyed and withdrew the matter on the s166 certificate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Taking into account matters on a Form 1 the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months. The sentence is to be served by means of an Intensive Corrections Order. Matter on s166 certificate is withdrawn – Drugs are to be destroyed

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.