R v Dharminder Singh - [2019] NSWDC 184

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dharminder Singh [2019] NSWDC 184
Hearing dates: 8 May 2019
Decision date: 17 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time custodial order to be served by way of intensive correctional order. For orders see [57]

Catchwords: Two drug supply offences; unique circumstances; not substantial operation of drug supply.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Poppy Industry Act 2016
Cases Cited: Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41
R v El Masri [2005] NSWCCA 167
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Tyler v R (2007) 173 ACrimR 458
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Dharminder Singh (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Burke (Offender)
Solicitors:
E Brown (Crown)
W Del Din (Offender)

File Number(s): 17/367363
Publication restriction: Nil

remarks on sentence

The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following two offences:

Sequence 1 – Supply prohibited drug (opium) pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Sequence 2 – Supply prohibited drug (Papaver Somniferum) pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Both offences carry a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or 2000 penalty units ($220,000). There is no Standard Non-Parole Period proscribed for the offences.
The offender has also asked to be taken into account the following offence:

Sequence 3 – Unlawfully transporting alkaloid poppies pursuant to s 6(1)(g) of the Poppy Industry Act 2016. The maximum penalty proscribed for that offence is 12 months imprisonment and/or a $100 fine.

The offences took place on 17 November 2017 and there was no dispute that the offender entered an early plea of guilty to the subject offences. He was committed for sentence on 14 November 2018.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 8 May 2019 at Griffith District Court. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A and included a Statement of Agreed Facts, which may be summarised as follows.
At 6.50pm on Friday 17 November 2017, the accused was a passenger in a vehicle travelling east in Balranald, which was pulled over by police for the purpose of a random breath test. The facts record that the police had a conversation with the offender and the driver, and both appeared nervous and stated they drove from Canberra to Renmark for a two hour visit. This aroused police suspicion and they informed the offender and driver that they intended to search the vehicle and them. When asked whether there were any drugs inside the vehicle, the offender said, “No, no drugs”.
Inside the centre console of the vehicle police located a margarine container which the accused acknowledged as his. Inside that container was a large brown block which police suspected to be a prohibited drug.…

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 Dharminder Singh

Details

AGLC: R v Dharminder Singh [2019] NSWDC 184
Case: [2019] NSWDC 184
Decision Date: 17 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dharminder Singh was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the accused, Dharminder Singh, was charged with two offences related to the supply of drugs. Singh was found with a significant quantity of drugs, leading to the charges. The dispute centred around the nature and scale of the drug supply operation, with the defence arguing that the circumstances were unique and did not amount to a substantial operation.

The court had to determine whether Singh's involvement in the drug supply constituted a substantial operation, as this would affect the sentencing outcome. The key issue was whether the quantity and nature of the drugs found justified a more severe penalty or if the circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant a lighter sentence. The court also needed to consider the impact of Singh's background and personal circumstances on the sentencing process.

The County Court found that while the quantity of drugs indicated a significant involvement, the unique circumstances of Singh's case meant that it did not amount to a substantial drug supply operation. The court took into account Singh's limited criminal history and personal background, which suggested that he was not deeply entrenched in organised drug supply activities. The court ruled that Singh's actions, although serious, did not warrant a full-time custodial sentence. Instead, the court opted for an intensive correctional order, reflecting the need for rehabilitation and supervision without the severe consequences of imprisonment.

The final orders mandated that Singh would serve a full-time custodial order by way of an intensive correctional order. Further details of the orders can be found at [57].

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of intensive correctional order. For orders see [57]

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 Dharminder Singh [2019] NSWDC 184
Hearing dates:	8 May 2019
Decision date:	17 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial order to be served by way of intensive correctional order. For orders see [57]
Catchwords:	Two drug supply offences; unique circumstances; not substantial operation of drug supply.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Poppy Industry Act 2016
Cases Cited:	Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41 R v El Masri [2005] NSWCCA 167 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Tyler v R (2007) 173 ACrimR 458
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Dharminder Singh (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: M Burke (Offender) Solicitors: E Brown (Crown) W Del Din (Offender)
File Number(s):	17/367363
Publication restriction:	Nil