R v Dries

Case [2020] NSWDC 872


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dries [2020] NSWDC 872
Hearing dates: 12 November 2020
Date of orders: 26 November 2020
Decision date: 26 November 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:

Overall sentence imposed one of 10 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months

Catchwords:

CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Pre-traffic precursors

CRIME — Conveying offences —Tobacco —Intent to defraud Revenue

CRIME — Firearms offences — State offences — Use/Possess prohibited pistol/firearm

Legislation Cited:

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 7(1)

Commonwealth Crimes Act 1999 (NSW) Part 1B s 16A

Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 307.11

Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233BABAB(2)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1996 (NSW) s 3A

Cases Cited:

Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473; [1985] HCA 29

GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22

PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bredan Paul Dries (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C Triscari (Crown)
D: Mr S Bucehn S.C. (Offender)

Solicitors:
File Number(s): 2017/193263
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. The offender Mr Dries is to be sentenced in relation to offences contained on two indictments. One indictment contains two offences under Commonwealth law and the other three offences under State law.

Commonwealth indictment

  1. The Commonwealth indictment contains the following offences. That between 1 September 2016 and 28 June 2017 at Sydney he aided, abetted, counselled and procured the commission of the offence by Quoc Tran and Geoffrey Acosta against s 307.11 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, namely that Quoc Tran and Geoffrey Acosta imported a substance, the substance being a border‑controlled precursor, namely 1,310 kilograms of ephedrine and the quantity imported being a commercial quantity applicable to that precursor. That is an offence under s 11.2(1) and s 307.11(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. It has a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

  2. The second offence on the Commonwealth indictment is an offence that between 1 September 2016 and 28 June 2017 at Sydney the offender conveyed tobacco properties, namely 1.5 million cigarettes knowing that the goods were imported with intent to defraud the Revenue. That is an offence under s 233BABAB(2) of the Customs Act and has a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. The offender acknowledges his guilt in relation to an offence which is on a schedule under s 16BA of the Commonwealth Crimes Act and asks that I take that offence into account when sentencing him on the count on the indictment brought under the Criminal Code. The offence on the schedule is an offence that between 1 September 2016 and 28 June 2017 at Sydney he dealt with money, namely $405,000 intending it to become an instrument of crime.

State indictment

  1. The State indictment contains three counts of possess an unauthorised pistol under s 7(1) of the Firearms Act all of which occurred on…

Continue reading R v Dries

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dries [2020] NSWDC 872
Case
[2020] NSWDC 872
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Dries, was charged with various offences relating to drug trafficking, intent to defraud the Australian Taxation Office, and possession of a prohibited firearm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The charges stemmed from an investigation into the defendant's involvement in the importation of prohibited substances, possession of untaxed tobacco, and illegal possession of a firearm. Dries contested the charges, claiming innocence and asserting that the evidence against him was circumstantial and unreliable. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had proven each element of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies, forensic analysis, and the defendant's own statements. It considered the credibility of the witnesses, the chain of custody of the seized items, and the circumstances under which the evidence was obtained. The legal issues involved assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to prove each offence, and whether the prosecution had established the defendant's intent in relation to the drug trafficking and tax fraud charges. Additionally, the court had to consider the relevance and admissibility of the firearm evidence in the context of the drug trafficking charges.

After reviewing the evidence, the court found the defendant guilty on all charges. It determined that the prosecution had established the necessary elements for each offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court took into account the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The sentence imposed was a total of 10 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months. This sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes committed and the need to protect the community from further criminal activity by the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Overall sentence imposed one of 10 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 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.