R v Esho

Case [2023] NSWDC 195


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Esho [2023] NSWDC 195
Hearing dates: 2 June 2023
Date of orders: 9 June 2023
Decision date: 09 June 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. Orders at [51]

Catchwords:

CRIME – Sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:

R v Anscombe [2021] NSWDC 540

R v Mandranis (2021) NSWCCA 97

R v Mason [2022] NSWDC 351

Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3

Zheng v R [2023] NSWCCA 64

Texts Cited:

Sentence (Sixth Edition) by Stephen Odgers

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Simon Esho (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms Sawagid (Crown)
Mr P Strickland SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Karnib Saddik Law Firm (Offender)
File Number(s): 2022/00137604
Publication restriction: No.

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. The offender, aged 27, has pleaded guilty to one offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine (828 grams) contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”).

  2. The matter was heard on 2 June 2023 at which hearing I received into evidence a body of material together with written and oral submissions which, where relevant, I will refer to in these reasons.

The Facts

  1. The agreed facts are in short compass and may be summarised as follows:

  1. In May 2022 an investigation was commenced into the activities of the offender. These investigations identified the offender as the only resident of Unit 315 of 659-669 Gardeners Road, Mascot.

  2. On 12 May 2022 Police attended 315/659-669 Gardeners Road, Mascot to execute a search warrant.

  3. At approximately 5.13 pm the Police officers saw the offender exit the residence. He was approached by Police and searched. Police located four mobile phones, a case of air pods, a set of keys to the offender’s unit and a car key and an Apple watch.

  4. The offender was told the Police had a warrant to search his unit and was asked if Police would find any drugs or money in the unit. The offender replied “nope”. The offender told Police that he lived at the unit alone and that nobody else was inside.

  5. During the search of the offender’s bedroom, Police located two clear freezer bags containing a white powdery substance inside a pair of white Lacoste shoes. The substance inside those bags was subsequently analysed and found to be a total of 55.6 grams of cocaine.

  6. In the spare bedroom Police located a yellow plastic bag containing a block of compressed white powder in a vacuum sealed bag. The powder was subsequently analysed and found to be 772.6 grams of cocaine.

  7. The Police cautioned the offender before asking him some further questions in relation to the block of white powder. The offender (by way of shaking his head) implied that he had not seen the yellow bag before and did not know what was in it. The offender said the bag…

Continue reading R v Esho

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Esho [2023] NSWDC 195
Case
[2023] NSWDC 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Esho, the defendant was convicted of a criminal offence and faced sentencing. The matter was heard in a court with jurisdiction over serious criminal matters. The defendant, Esho, was found guilty of an offence under the Crimes Act and was subject to sentencing considerations by the court.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the defendant's personal circumstances. The court had to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in accordance with statutory guidelines and judicial precedent.

The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact on the victim and community. The sentencing judge found that an Intensive Correction Order was the most suitable form of punishment, considering the defendant's age, potential for rehabilitation, and the need to prevent re-offending. The court also noted the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system and the role of sentencing in achieving that end.

The court ordered that the defendant's sentence of imprisonment be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order, with specific terms and conditions as outlined in the judgment. The defendant was to comply with these conditions and attend the program as directed by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. Orders at [51]

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.