R v Evrim - [2021] NSWDC 363

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Evrim [2021] NSWDC 363
Hearing dates: 8 July 2021
Date of orders: 8 July 2021
Decision date: 08 July 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 15 months. Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the court directs the sentence to be served by way of an intensive corrections order.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous conviction — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse
SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction

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

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Khan Evrim (Offender)
Representation:
Ms I Kimber (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Ms C Soto (Counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/153712

Judgment

Khan Evrim, aged 33, appears for sentence for two offences in circumstances that justify a 25% discount on a term of imprisonment:

Sequence 1 of supply a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 1529 mls of GBL, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of ten years.

Sequence 6 of supply indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 37 grams of methamphetamine, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, with no standard non-parole period.

There are six charges to be dealt with on a Form 1 which are attached to the sequence 1, namely

Sequence 3, supply indictable quantity of a prohibited drug namely 22g of cocaine contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

Sequence 4, supply indictable quantity of a prohibited drug namely, 34g of ketamine contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

Sequence 5, supply indictable quantity of a prohibited drug namely 3g of MDMA contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

Sequence 7, supply small quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 54g of cannabis leaf contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

Sequence 17, supply a small quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 13.15g of Alprazolam contrary…

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 Evrim

Details

AGLC: R v Evrim [2021] NSWDC 363
Case: [2021] NSWDC 363
Decision Date: 08 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Evrim, the defendant was convicted of multiple offences, including dealing in dangerous drugs. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate sentence, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors. The court had to balance the defendant's lack of a criminal record, the plea of guilty, signs of rehabilitation, and the presence of drug addiction against the need for deterrence and the seriousness of the offences committed.

The court considered several legal principles and factors in reaching its decision. It examined the maximum penalty for the offences, the role of deterrence, and the fact that the defendant was a first-time offender. The court also weighed the subjective considerations, including the defendant's remorse and rehabilitation efforts, alongside the objective factors such as the impact on the community and the need to discourage similar criminal behaviour. Additionally, the court assessed the appropriate form of punishment, considering the potential benefits of an intensive corrections order.

After a thorough evaluation of all relevant factors, the court concluded that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 15 months was appropriate. However, recognising the defendant's eligibility for rehabilitation and the potential benefits of an intensive corrections order, the court decided to direct the sentence to be served under section 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 by way of an intensive corrections order. This decision aimed to provide the defendant with an opportunity for rehabilitation while ensuring public safety and maintaining the deterrent effect of the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 15 months. Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the court directs the sentence to be served by way of an intensive corrections order.

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 Evrim [2021] NSWDC 363
Hearing dates:	8 July 2021
Date of orders:	8 July 2021
Decision date:	08 July 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 15 months. Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the court directs the sentence to be served by way of an intensive corrections order.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous conviction — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Khan Evrim (Offender)
Representation:	Ms I Kimber (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Ms C Soto (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2020/153712