Legal Research
Cases
R v Dyson

R v Dyson

Case [2023] NSWDC 72 22 March 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dyson [2023] NSWDC 72
Hearing dates: 14 March 2023
Date of orders: 22 March 2023
Decision date: 22 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:
See [85-86]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Knowingly direct activities of a criminal group

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Chamon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112
Greaves v R [2020] NSWCCA 140
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49
Jimmy v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 60
Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297.
Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116

Texts Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Nathan Beau Dyson (Offender)
Representation:
Council: Franklin for the Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Solicitor: Ashkan Tai Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/00181765

Reasons on Sentence

Introduction

Nathan Beau Dyson, (“the offender”) appears for sentence in respect of two offences, namely:

Directing the activities of a criminal group whose activities were organised and ongoing in breach of section 93T(4A) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.

Supplying a prohibited drug, namely cocaine, in not less than a commercial quantity in breach of sections 25(2) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment and it has a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

In respect of the supply offence there is a further charge under section 25(2) to be taken into account by way of the Form 1 procedure.
In relation to the maximum sentences and, in respect of the section 25(2) offence, the standard non-parole period, those matters are taken into account as legislative guideposts, indicating the legislature's view of the seriousness of the offending to provide assistance in arriving at the appropriate sentence. In relation to the standard non-parole period I note that in Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [29] the High Court made clear that it has application even when the offending is not considered to be in the middle of the range of seriousness as that term is used in section 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (“CSPA”).
In regards to the Form 1 procedure it is important that the focus remains on the principal offences for which the offender is being sentenced. The procedure allows that in doing this greater weight may be given to the elements of personal deterrents and the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences. Those two elements are entitled to greater weight than they may otherwise be given when sentencing…

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 Dyson

Details

AGLC: R v Dyson [2023] NSWDC 72
Case: [2023] NSWDC 72
Decision Date: 22 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Dyson, who was charged with various drug-related offences, specifically the supply of a prohibited drug in commercial quantities and knowingly directing the activities of a criminal group. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Dyson was involved in the supply of the prohibited drug in a commercial quantity and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Dyson knowingly directed the activities of a criminal group. These issues required careful consideration of the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully analysed the evidence, including witness testimonies, electronic communications, and other relevant materials. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that Dyson was involved in the supply of the prohibited drug in a commercial quantity and had knowingly directed the activities of a criminal group. The court found the evidence compelling and sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

As a result of the court's findings, Dyson was found guilty on all counts. The court subsequently imposed appropriate sentences reflecting the seriousness of the offences. The final orders and sentencing details were outlined in paragraphs [85-86] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [85-86]

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 Dyson [2023] NSWDC 72

Most Recent Citation

Cases Citing This Decision

Director of Public Prosecutions v Rossiter (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 212
Citation 1

…e trial judge, Alderson B, referred with approval to the approach taken by Parke J in R v Dyson (1836) 7 C & P 305; 173 ER 135. 90․The jury was then sworn to determine whether the accused was “now sane or not”: at [303]. Alderson B, in his charge to the jury, said that the question to be determined is “whether the…
R v Dyson [2023] NSWCCA 132
Citation 2

…lication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Criminal Citation: [2023] NSWDC 72 Date of Decision: 22 March 2023 Before: Priestley SC DCJ File Number(s): 2021/00181765…
R (on the application of Purdy) (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) [2009] UKHL 45
Citation 3

…uicide, was guilty of murder as a principal in the second degree, and this applied equally where that person was the survivor of a suicide pact - Rex v Dyson (1823) Russ. & Ry 523; R v Croft [1944] KB 295.…
Undershaft (No 1) Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 41
Citation 4 (Para 31)

…In R v Dyson (1997) 68 SASR 156 ( Dyson ) the Supreme Court of South Australia Court of Criminal Appeal was specially constituted as a bench of five members to consider the conflict between Franklin and Fernando . Bollen J distinguished Fernando . All other four judges, and Bollen J in the alternative, considered t…
R v Abdulla [2005] SASC 399
Citation 5 (Para 10)

…In R v Dyson (1831) 7 C & P 305(n) a deaf mute was indicted for the murder of her child. Parke J told the jury that: If they were satisfied that the prisoner had not then, from the defect of her faculties, intelligence enough to understand the nature of the proceedings against her, they ought to find her not sane.…
R v Mailes [2001] NSWCCA 155
Citation 6

…121 In R v Dyson (1831) 7 C & P, 305 the defendant was a deaf mute. She was indicted in 1831 for the murder of her child. After hearing evidence that the defendant had always been deaf and dumb, the jury found her mute by the visitation of God. By making signs to a witness who was acquainted with her, she was, howe…
Purdy, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45
Citation 7

…ty of murder as a principal in the second degree, and this applied equally where that person was the survivor of a suicide pact - Rex v Dyson (1823) Russ. & Ry 523; R v Croft [1944] KB 295. A person who encouraged or assisted another to commit suicide but who was not present when the suicide was committed was, in the…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Greaves v R [2020] NSWCCA 140
Citation 1 (Para 65)

…Both parties relied upon the decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in Greaves v R [2020] NSWCCA 140, which post dates Green and therefore also Jimmy . In that case, as here one co-offender was sentenced in the Local Court and the other in the District Court. The Court held that the parity principl…
Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116
Citation 2 (Para 29)

…The offender relies on his sentence having been served to date in Covid conditions. Reliance was placed on Valentine [2020] NSWCCA 116 to support the argument that custody in these times is more onerous and I accept that submission. Not only is there less contact with family and supporters due to diminished access f…
Chamon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112
Citation 3 (Para 65)

…A final case that was referred to by the Crown was the matter of Chamon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112. That decision provides several very helpful statements of principle. Like the other cases cited above however it is factually distinguishable from the present situation because there was a consistency as to the facts and t…
R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297
Citation 4 (Para 30)

…cognised that child sex offenses have a profound effect upon victims for a significant period if not all of the balance of their lives; see Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297.…
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49
Citation 5 (Para 63)

…In Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49 at [30] the High Court stated that Lowe is not authority for the proposition that the parity principle applies only to persons charged with the same offenses arising out of the same criminal conduct. The court said:…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 6

…v R [2020] NSWCCA 140 Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49 Jimmy v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 60 Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297. Valentine v R [ 2020] NSWCCA 116 Texts Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 19…
Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
Citation 7 (Para 64)

…The court then went on to expressly refer to Jimmy v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 60 to refer to practical difficulties in comparing sentences of participants in the same criminal enterprise when they are charged with different crimes, including where one is charged with the less serious offence as is the case here. It…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) [2002] NSWCCA 518
Citation 8 (Para 4)

…when sentencing for the primary offence; see Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ.…
Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46
Citation 9 (Para 51)

…In Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606 the High Court considered a case where the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal had reduced the non-parole period of a co-offender on parity grounds. At [3] Gibbs CJ explained the reason for a court interfering in such circumstances to be because “it considers that the disparity is such…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 4)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Dyson [2023] NSWDC 72
Hearing dates:	14 March 2023
Date of orders:	22 March 2023
Decision date:	22 March 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	See [85-86]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Knowingly direct activities of a criminal group
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Chamon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112 Greaves v R [2020] NSWCCA 140 Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49 Jimmy v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 60 Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297. Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116
Texts Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Nathan Beau Dyson (Offender)
Representation:	Council: Franklin for the Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Solicitor: Ashkan Tai Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/00181765