R v Dunn

Case [2025] NSWDC 104 20 February 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dunn [2025] NSWDC 104
Hearing dates: 20 February 2025
Date of orders: 20 February 2025
Decision date: 20 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity — Large commercial quantity — Indictable quantity — Recklessly dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime —Cannabis, cocaine, LSD and methylamphetamine
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Treatment as no record of previous convictions — Significant steps towards Rehabilitation
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness — Delay — General deterrence — Form 1 offences — Multiple offences — What is a crushing sentence — Accumulation, concurrency and totality— Quasi custody — Co-offenders — Parity and proportionality — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Mental disorders — Gambling addiction — remarkable progress toward rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW)
DeSimoniv The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383
Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584
DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VCA 50
Engert v The Queen (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
MAK v R; MSK v R [2006] NSWCCA 381
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Olbrichv The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) CLR 27
Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Arcella [2020] NSWDC 833
R v Cidan [2014] NSWCCA 66
R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301
R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110
R vGeddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Tang [2020] NSWDC 96
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Yardley and Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108

Texts Cited:
NSW Bar Association, “Drug Law Reform” (November 2014) 24 Criminal Law Committee Discussion Paper 1
W Wan, D Weatherburn, G Wardlaw, V Sarafidis and G…

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 Dunn

Details

AGLC: R v Dunn [2025] NSWDC 104
Case: [2025] NSWDC 104
Decision Date: 20 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dunn involved the defendant, Dunn, who was charged with multiple drug-related offences, including supplying a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, LSD, and methylamphetamine. Dunn was also charged with recklessly dealing with money suspected to be proceeds of crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Dunn, considering both mitigating and aggravating factors.

The legal issues before the court included the objective seriousness of the offences, the delay in bringing the matter to court, the need for general deterrence, the nature of the offences as Form 1 offences, the cumulative effect of multiple offences, and the principles of accumulation, concurrency, and totality in sentencing. The court also had to consider subjective factors such as Dunn's drug addiction, mental health conditions, and gambling addiction, as well as his significant progress towards rehabilitation. Furthermore, the court needed to ensure parity and proportionality in sentencing, taking into account the defendant's plea of guilty and his status as a no-record offender.

The court, in delivering its judgment, recognised the severity of the offences, noting the large quantities of prohibited drugs involved and the commercial nature of the supply. However, it also acknowledged Dunn's plea of guilty, his lack of a criminal record, and his substantial steps towards rehabilitation, including treatment for his addictions and mental health conditions. The court determined that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for four years, with a non-parole period of two years, was appropriate. This sentence balanced the need for general deterrence and the objective seriousness of the offences with the mitigating factors present in Dunn's case. The court also considered the principles of parity and proportionality, ensuring that the sentence was fair in relation to co-offenders and the purposes of sentencing.

The final orders of the court mandated that Dunn serve an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for four years, with a non-parole period of two years. This sentence reflected a comprehensive consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, ensuring that justice was served while also taking into account the defendant's efforts towards rehabilitation and personal improvement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Dunn [2025] NSWDC 104

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

R v Arcella [2020] NSWDC 833
Citation 1 (Para 68)

…For the 2018 matters I have dealt with a number of other co‑offenders; Arcella, Despotovski and Tang: R v Arcella [2020] NSWDC 833; R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110; R v Tang [2020] NSWDC 96. I have to have regard to their sentences and their personal histories. “Like must be compared with like”. But different pers…
R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110
Citation 2 (Para 68)

…For the 2018 matters I have dealt with a number of other co‑offenders; Arcella, Despotovski and Tang: R v Arcella [2020] NSWDC 833; R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110; R v Tang [2020] NSWDC 96. I have to have regard to their sentences and their personal histories. “Like must be compared with like”. But different pers…
Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55
Citation 3 (Para 41)

…the actual, or the potential reward, being one of the principal sources of crime in the community, that requires deterrent sentences: Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55; DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VCA 50.…
R v Tang [2020] NSWDC 96
Citation 4 (Para 68)

…dealt with a number of other co‑offenders; Arcella, Despotovski and Tang: R v Arcella [2020] NSWDC 833; R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110; R v Tang [2020] NSWDC 96. I have to have regard to their sentences and their personal histories. “Like must be compared with like”. But different personal and criminal historie…
R v Holder [2019] SASCFC 73
Citation 5 (Para 72)

…s in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the criminality and the totality of sentence: R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 at [260] (Street CJ).…
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301
Citation 6 (Para 79)

…ing really depends on the perspective of the observer, the community, the appeal court or the offender: Director of Public Prosecutions Cth v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301 at [26]-[45] (Basten JA).…
R v Cidan [2014] NSWCCA 66
Citation 7 (Para 47)

…I have no real information other than it was being stored and for what purpose. In the matter of R v Cidan [2014] NSWCCA 66 I was faced with a similar dilemma. The Court of Criminal Appeal said I underestimated the objective seriousness of the offence. With great respect to the Court, and of course I accept their g…
Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Citation 8 (Para 13)

…on under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115 at [22] (Bathurst CJ).…
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Citation 9 (Para 89)

…pon them if they commit similar crimes: R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 at [205]; Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222.…
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381
Citation 10 (Para 73)

…Mr Booker urged me not to impose a “crushing” sentence citing MAK v R ; MSK v R [2006] NSWCCA 381 and R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 at [306]. That is not to impose a sentence that would crush Dunn’s motivation, demonstrated progress by his rehabilitation and his very positive plans currently underway, because a…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 11 (Para 14)

…at would otherwise be appropriate. I do so as part of the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing explained by McHugh J in Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51]-[54]. The increase recognises the need for personal deterrence and retribution for the crime for sentence, as the guideli…
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
Citation 12 (Para 28)

…drug supply networks. Absent the involvement of street sellers or people warehousing drugs, drug distribution networks would simply collapse: R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135 at [34] (Wood CJ at CL).…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) [2002] NSWCCA 518
Citation 13 (Para 13)

…e penalty for the offence to which each relates: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115 at [22] (Bathurst CJ).…
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
Citation 14 (Para 75)

…must be imprisoned, and he must be imprisoned, should properly reflect the gravity of his offending and the other purposes of sentencing: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59].…
R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Citation 15 (Para 81)

…tation of offenders and this aspect of sentencing should never be lost sight of: Yardley and Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108 applied in Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121.…
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21
Citation 16 (Para 89)

…ngdoers know the retribution which will fall upon them if they commit similar crimes: R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 at [205]; Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222.…
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54
Citation 17 (Para 21)

…I can only act to the extent of what is known, admitted or revealed in the evidence or Agreed Facts: Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) CLR 27. In making assessments about objective seriousness, here the quantity of the drug being possessed for the purpose of supply is significant, as are where there are…
Regina v Simpson [1999] NSWCCA 367
Citation 18 (Para 75)

…and he must be imprisoned, should properly reflect the gravity of his offending and the other purposes of sentencing: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59].…
Postiglione v the Queen [1997] HCA 26
Citation 19 (Para 68)

…ime” fixed for any sentence. The principle is known as parity. It can also encompass the structure of the sentence: Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295.…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 20 (Para 80)

…. Giving weight to the conflicting purposes of punishment is what makes the exercise of a sentencing discretion so difficult: Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at [476]. On one hand, deterrence of others may be of lesser importance than some sentences: Engert v The Queen (1995) 84 A Crim…
R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31
Citation 21 (Para 27)

…other than those for sentence. I do not sentence for those matters, but subject to the principle spelt out by the High Court in De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383, I can conclude that his arrest, and the point of time at which the drugs were discovered in 2023, meant that he had been involved in the supply of m…
[1973] AC 584 [1973] AC 584
Citation 22 (Para 32)

…nces, 2018 and then 2023, can fairly be regarded as part of the same transaction or criminal enterprise: Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584 at [607].…
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Citation 23 (Para 81)

…munity is contributed to by the successful rehabilitation of offenders and this aspect of sentencing should never be lost sight of: Yardley and Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108 applied in Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121.…

Legislation Cited

Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 94)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 13)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 11)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Dunn [2025] NSWDC 104
Hearing dates:	20 February 2025
Date of orders:	20 February 2025
Decision date:	20 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity — Large commercial quantity — Indictable quantity — Recklessly dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime —Cannabis, cocaine, LSD and methylamphetamine SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Treatment as no record of previous convictions — Significant steps towards Rehabilitation SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness — Delay — General deterrence — Form 1 offences — Multiple offences — What is a crushing sentence — Accumulation, concurrency and totality— Quasi custody — Co-offenders — Parity and proportionality — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Mental disorders — Gambling addiction — remarkable progress toward rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115 Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW) DeSimoniv The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383 Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584 DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VCA 50 Engert v The Queen (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 MAK v R; MSK v R [2006] NSWCCA 381 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Olbrichv The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) CLR 27 Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55 Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Arcella [2020] NSWDC 833 R v Cidan [2014] NSWCCA 66 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 R vGeddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135 R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 R v Tang [2020] NSWDC 96 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 Yardley and Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Texts Cited:	NSW Bar Association, “Drug Law Reform” (November 2014) 24 Criminal Law Committee Discussion Paper 1 W Wan, D Weatherburn, G Wardlaw, V Sarafidis and G…