R v Daniel Lico - [2017] NSWDC 133

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Daniel Lico [2017] NSWDC 133
Hearing dates: 15 May 2017
Decision date: 01 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [75]

Catchwords: Substantial drug trafficking offences; exceptional circumstances not made out
Legislation Cited: Confiscation of Proceeds of Crimes Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited: JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Cacciola (1998) 104 ACrimR 178
R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41
R v Ejefekaire [2016] NSWCCA 308
R v Harmouche (2005) 158 A Crim R 357
R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50
R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Daniel Lico (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Hanshaw (Crown)
M Dennis (Offender)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 16/24293816/248915
Publication restriction: Nil

remarks on sentence

The offender entered a plea of guilty and was committed for sentence from the Griffith Local Court on 18 January 2017 in respect of the following three charges on an Indictment:

Between 31 May 2016 and 16 June 2016 at Griffith, in the State of New South Wales, supplied a prohibited drug, namely, 35.73 grams of 3, 4-methyldioxymethylamphetamine (“MDMA”). The charge was an offence pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (“DMTA”), and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units. There is no Standard Non-Parole Period.

Between 18 May 2016 and 16 June 2016 at Griffith, in the State of New South Wales, did on three or more separate occasions during a period of 30 consecutive days, supply a prohibited drug other than cannabis, namely, methylamphetamine, with a financial or material reward. The offence is pursuant to s 25A(1) of the DMTA, and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units. There is no Standard Non-Parole Period.

Between 16 June 2016 and 22 June 2016 at Griffith, in the State of New South Wales, did offer to supply an amount of a prohibited drug, namely, 1,000 tablets of MDMA, being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug. The offence was pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units, and a Standard Non-Parole Period of 10 years.

The offender has also asked that two matters be dealt with on a Form 1. They are as follows:

Sequence 1 – Between 11 May 2016 and 31 May 2016 the offender supplied a total amount of 598.2 grams of cannabis.

Sequence 2 – On 12 May 2016 the offender supplied 0.92 grams of methylamphetamine.

The offender has admitted his guilt in respect of both of those matters.
There are also related offences set…

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 Daniel Lico

Details

AGLC: R v Daniel Lico [2017] NSWDC 133
Case: [2017] NSWDC 133
Decision Date: 01 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Daniel Lico involved the defendant, Daniel Lico, who faced charges related to substantial drug trafficking offences. The dispute centred around the severity of the penalties and the appropriateness of a custodial sentence given the circumstances of the case. Lico's legal team argued that the exceptional circumstances should warrant a non-custodial sentence, while the prosecution contended that a custodial sentence was necessary due to the gravity of the offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the exceptional circumstances presented by the defence were sufficient to mitigate the need for a custodial sentence. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Lico's involvement in drug trafficking, as well as the arguments put forward by both the defence and prosecution regarding the appropriate sentence. The court also needed to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

After carefully considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court found that the exceptional circumstances did not sufficiently outweigh the severity of the drug trafficking offences. The court emphasised the importance of deterring such activities and the need for appropriate punishment. Consequently, the court decided that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary. The specific orders, including the duration of the sentence, were detailed in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [75]

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 Daniel Lico [2017] NSWDC 133
Hearing dates:	15 May 2017
Decision date:	01 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [75]
Catchwords:	Substantial drug trafficking offences; exceptional circumstances not made out
Legislation Cited:	Confiscation of Proceeds of Crimes Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited:	JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Cacciola (1998) 104 ACrimR 178 R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41 R v Ejefekaire [2016] NSWCCA 308 R v Harmouche (2005) 158 A Crim R 357 R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50 R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Daniel Lico (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: L Hanshaw (Crown) M Dennis (Offender) Solicitors:
File Number(s):	16/24293816/248915
Publication restriction:	Nil