R v Doan, R v Wensor - [2019] NSWDC 399

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Doan, R v Wensor [2019] NSWDC 399
Hearing dates: 21 June 2019
Date of orders: 21 June 2019
Decision date: 21 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:
See paragraphs [39] and [40]

Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Manufacture prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity
CRIME — Drug offences — Manufacture prohibited drug — Knowingly take part in manufacture
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity
CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Keith Peter Douglas Wensor (Mr Wensor)
Tony Thanh Trung Doan (Mr Doan)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Keay (Crown)
M Valentin (Mr Wensor)
D Roff (Mr Doan)
Solicitors:
S Knox (Crown)
M Cruz (M Cruz and Associates) (Mr Wensor)
L Dao (Oxford Lawyers) (Mr Doan)

File Number(s): 2017/001334292017/00134535

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Mr Doan pleaded guilty shortly prior to trial to one count that between 1 May and 3 May 2017 at Quialigo he manufactured a prohibited drug namely methylamphetamine in an amount not less than the large commercial quantity for that drug. That is an offence under s 24(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. It has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and an applicable standard non-parole period of 15 years. He also pleaded guilty to an offence that on 3 May 2017 at Gundary he supplied a prohibited drug namely methylamphetamine in an amount of 365.1 grams being an amount not less than the commercial quantity for that drug. That is an offence under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and has a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is an applicable standard non-parole period of 10 years. When sentencing the offender on the supply charge he asks that I take into account on a Form 1 a further offence of supply prohibited drug being methylamphetamine.
In relation to the offender Mr Wensor he entered a plea of guilty at the conclusion of the evidence in a trial in relation to a charge that between 1 May 2017 and 3 May 2017 at Quialigo he knowingly took part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine in an amount not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that drug. That is an offence under s 24(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, and has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and an applicable standard non-parole period of 15 years. There is also on a Section 166 Certificate concerning him an offence of possess prohibited drug.

Facts

The facts in relation to Mr Doan were agreed and the following is taken from those facts. The facts for the supply on the form 1 are as follows. Detectives…

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 Doan, R v Wensor

Details

AGLC: R v Doan, R v Wensor [2019] NSWDC 399
Case: [2019] NSWDC 399
Decision Date: 21 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Doan and Wensor, were convicted of various drug-related offences including the manufacture and supply of a prohibited drug in commercial quantities, and possession of a prohibited drug. The case came before the court for sentencing. The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved determining the appropriate sentences for the respondents, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the roles each played in the commission of the crimes.

The court considered several factors in arriving at its decision. It examined the extent of each respondent’s involvement in the drug manufacturing and supply operation, the quantity of drugs involved, and the roles they played within the operation. The court also weighed in the respondents' prior criminal history, their degree of culpability, and any mitigating factors presented. The respondents' respective roles were differentiated, with one respondent being considered a more active participant than the other. This distinction influenced the sentencing outcomes.

After thorough consideration of the evidence and submissions, the court determined that both respondents would be sentenced to imprisonment terms reflective of their respective roles and the seriousness of the offences. The sentences were tailored to ensure they appropriately reflected the culpability of each respondent. The court also noted the need for deterrence and to uphold the integrity of the law. The final orders of the court, including specific details of the sentences, are set out in paragraphs [39] and [40] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [39] and [40]

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 Doan, R v Wensor [2019] NSWDC 399
Hearing dates:	21 June 2019
Date of orders:	21 June 2019
Decision date:	21 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe DCJ
Decision:	See paragraphs [39] and [40]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Manufacture prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity CRIME — Drug offences — Manufacture prohibited drug — Knowingly take part in manufacture CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Keith Peter Douglas Wensor (Mr Wensor) Tony Thanh Trung Doan (Mr Doan)
Representation:	Counsel: N Keay (Crown) M Valentin (Mr Wensor) D Roff (Mr Doan) Solicitors: S Knox (Crown) M Cruz (M Cruz and Associates) (Mr Wensor) L Dao (Oxford Lawyers) (Mr Doan)
File Number(s):	2017/001334292017/00134535