R v Daniels - [2020] NSWDC 792

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Daniels [2020] NSWDC 792
Hearing dates: 1 October 2020
Decision date: 01 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years. Non parole period of one year two months.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity MDMA
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence – early plea – limited participation - parity - special circumstances - progress toward rehabilitation – strong prosocial support

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999,

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Lau v R [2010] NSWCCA 43
R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Turk [2020] NSWDC 400
Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146

Category: Sentence
Parties: Keiran Scott Daniels (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Williams (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Ly Lawyers (for the offender)
Mr M Rollestone (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00326017

Judgment – ex tempore revised

As Keiran Daniels has come to learn, any involvement in the supply of illicit drugs for profit, can, and usually does, result in the offender, if caught, going to gaol; and going to gaol for a substantial period of time. The sale and distribution of illicit drugs in our community causes harm on a number of levels; not just harm for the users of the drugs but also harm to the community in general. The illicit profits that can be made, because drugs are illegal and can only be obtained illicitly mean there is more crime in our community. People are prepared to take risks in order to make the profits that are available. Often the people who take the greatest risk are those most vulnerable to being caught while the people who make the greatest profit remain undetected.
I have already sentenced Mr Turk who was caught in the same police operation that netted Daniels: R v Turk [2020] NSWDC 400. Acting Judge Woods QC has already sentenced Mr Kemper and Mr Bridges. All were involved with Daniels to some degree. I have yet to be told whether anyone who was supplying down the line to them has been detected let alone arrested and brought for sentence before the Court.
This morning Daniels pleaded guilty to an indictment indicating that he had supplied 139.9 grams of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). That is not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug. The plea to the indictment came about only because of a need to cure some technical defects in the committal for sentence documents.
When he was arrested on 17 October 2019 Daniels made full and frank admissions to his role in this commercial supply operation. He has cooperated with police and has cooperated with the authorities in bringing his sentence matter to the Court. The otherwise appropriate sentence will be reduced by 25% to reflect the utilitarian…

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 Daniels

Details

AGLC: R v Daniels [2020] NSWDC 792
Case: [2020] NSWDC 792
Decision Date: 01 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Daniels involved the defendant, Daniels, who was charged with drug offences relating to the supply of a commercial quantity of MDMA. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the primary focus was on the sentencing of Daniels.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Daniels, taking into account various factors such as the early plea of guilt, Daniels' limited participation in the crime, the principle of parity, any special circumstances, progress towards rehabilitation, and the strength of prosocial support available to Daniels. The court had to balance these factors to ensure that the sentence was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the nature and extent of Daniels' involvement in the drug supply, his early guilty plea, and the support he had from his family and community. The court also recognised the need for a sentence that would provide an opportunity for Daniels to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a term of imprisonment of two years was appropriate, with a non-parole period of one year and two months.

The court ordered that Daniels be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years, with a non-parole period of one year and two months. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of the various relevant factors and aims to provide an opportunity for Daniels to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years. Non parole period of one year two 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 Daniels [2020] NSWDC 792
Hearing dates:	1 October 2020
Decision date:	01 October 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years. Non parole period of one year two months.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity MDMA SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence – early plea – limited participation - parity - special circumstances - progress toward rehabilitation – strong prosocial support
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999,
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Lau v R [2010] NSWCCA 43 R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 R v Turk [2020] NSWDC 400 Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Keiran Scott Daniels (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Williams (for the offender) Solicitors: Ly Lawyers (for the offender) Mr M Rollestone (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00326017