R v Domingues - [2024] NSWDC 40

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DOMINGUES [2024] NSWDC 40
Hearing dates: 22 February 2024
Date of orders: 1 March 2024
Decision date: 01 March 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced – see [64]-[68]

Catchwords:
CRIMES – sentence – deal with proceeds of crime
CRIMES – sentence – knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug – methylamphetamine - non-exculpatory duress – substantial drug debt – post traumatic stress and depression – aggregate sentence - Form 1 matters

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985
Road Transport Act, 2013

Cases Cited:
The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Jibran v R (2020) NSWCCA 86
Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270
Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633
Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Daniel DOMINGUES
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Bailey for the Crown
Mr J Michie for the Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bunton Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/285795
Publication restriction: No

Remarks on Sentence

On 22 February 2024 the offender pleaded guilty to two counts on an indictment, namely that he:

On 25 September 2022 in East Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales, did deal with the proceeds of crime, namely $58,245.00 knowing that it was the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900 and further,

On 25 September 2022 in Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales did knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 25.14 grams of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985.

Although an indictment was presented it was uncontroversial at the sentence hearing that the offender had entered pleas of guilty to those charges in the Local Court, had been committed for sentence and accordingly the offender was entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty.
When passing sentence in respect of the Knowingly Take Part in Supply of Prohibited Drug matter the offender asks that I take into account six matters on a Form 1 document. When passing sentence I will need to properly apply the principles enunciated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 otherwise known as the Guideline Judgment on Form 1 matter reported (2002) 56 NSWLR 146. As I observed at the sentence hearing, given the number of Form 1 matters there must be some impact on the ultimate sentence to be imposed but given the nature of the matters that impact will be quite modest.
In addition there are four matters attaching to a Certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1986.…

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 Domingues

Details

AGLC: R v Domingues [2024] NSWDC 40
Case: [2024] NSWDC 40
Decision Date: 01 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v. Domingues, the defendant faced sentencing in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case revolved around the defendant's involvement in the supply of a prohibited drug, specifically methylamphetamine. The court had to consider several aggravating and mitigating factors, including the defendant's participation in dealing with the proceeds of crime, his non-exculpatory duress, a substantial drug debt, and the presence of post-traumatic stress and depression.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentence for the defendant's criminal activities, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's personal background, and the potential impact of Form 1 matters. The court needed to balance the gravity of the offence against the mitigating factors presented by the defence.

The court, after evaluating the totality of the circumstances, determined that an aggregate sentence was appropriate. It took into account the defendant's involvement in the drug supply chain, the proceeds of crime, and the non-exculpatory duress, but also considered the personal hardships faced by the defendant, including the substantial drug debt and his mental health conditions. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the offences and the mitigating factors.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced according to the guidelines set out in the judgment, with specific reference to paragraphs 64 to 68. The precise terms of the sentence were detailed in these paragraphs, ensuring that all relevant factors had been considered in arriving at the final decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced – see [64]-[68]

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 DOMINGUES [2024] NSWDC 40
Hearing dates:	22 February 2024
Date of orders:	1 March 2024
Decision date:	01 March 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced – see [64]-[68]
Catchwords:	CRIMES – sentence – deal with proceeds of crime CRIMES – sentence – knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug – methylamphetamine - non-exculpatory duress – substantial drug debt – post traumatic stress and depression – aggregate sentence - Form 1 matters
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 Criminal Procedure Act, 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985 Road Transport Act, 2013
Cases Cited:	The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Jibran v R (2020) NSWCCA 86 Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270 Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633 Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex Daniel DOMINGUES
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Bailey for the Crown Mr J Michie for the Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bunton Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2022/285795
Publication restriction:	No