R v Eyles - [2021] NSWDC 300

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Eyles [2021] NSWDC 300
Hearing dates: 12 March 2021
Date of orders: 12 March 2021
Decision date: 12 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
A term of imprisonment of two years, ten months with a non-parole period of 16 months: at [24].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — General principles — Maximum penalty — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Special circumstances

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

Cases Cited:
Pham v R [2009] NSWCCA 266
R v Ma; R v Zheng [2020] NSWDC 862
Truong v R [2009] NSWCCA 41

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Fredrick Eyles (Offender)
Representation:
Mr M Harper (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr G Goold (Solicitor for the offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00397045

Judgment

Frederick Eyles is 55 years of age and is described by his partner as a typical old‑school, working class, Balmain boy, who values independence and has aneed to be useful. Lacking the skills to succeed intellectually, he has always relied on his manual ability. As Mr Goold put today, getting into his fifties his manual skills are not as valuable as that of a younger man and he turned to involvement in cannabis cultivation in Artarmon. This leads him to being sentenced today for one count under s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of ten years.
He pleaded guilty at an early opportunity justifying a 25% discount on the term of imprisonment. He has been in custody since his arrest on 17 December 2019 in maximum security at the MRRC and it is agreed that the term of imprisonment which should be imposed will commence on that date.
I have already sentenced two co-offenders in relation to this cannabis cultivation operation being conducted at Artarmon. They were sentenced on 16 December 2020, Mr Ma and Mr Zheng, who were both sentenced to three years imprisonment with non-parole periods of 18 months. Their role and their subjective case are set out in my remarks on sentence, which have been published (R v Ma; R v Zheng [2020] NSWDC 862). Today a further five co-offenders have had their matters listed for sentence before me on 9 July 2021.
The sentencing process of course must take account of the maximum penalty and the standard non‑parole period as important yardsticks in the sentencing process as well as the the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

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 Eyles

Details

AGLC: R v Eyles [2021] NSWDC 300
Case: [2021] NSWDC 300
Decision Date: 12 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Eyles, the defendant was brought before the court to address charges related to his involvement in a criminal activity. The specifics of the crime and the details surrounding Eyles' involvement were not extensively detailed in the text, but the case revolved around sentencing considerations post a plea of guilty. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors presented by both parties.

The central legal issues before the court involved the application of sentencing principles to Eyles' case. The court had to consider the principles of general and specific deterrence, the objectives of sentencing, and the relevance of Eyles' age, drug addiction, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the severity of the offence against Eyles' plea of guilty, expressed remorse, and the possibility of him not re-offending. The court also needed to balance these subjective factors against the co-offenders' roles and the maximum penalties stipulated by law.

The court's reasoning was rooted in the comprehensive evaluation of Eyles' personal circumstances and the nature of the offence. It was noted that Eyles had pleaded guilty, which traditionally carries a mitigating effect on sentencing. The court also took into account Eyles' age and his struggle with drug addiction, which were deemed significant special circumstances. Furthermore, Eyles' expressed remorse and the low likelihood of re-offending were considered favourably. However, the court also emphasised the need for general deterrence and the objective seriousness of the crime in arriving at a balanced sentence. Ultimately, the court decided on a term of imprisonment of two years and ten months, with a non-parole period of sixteen months, reflecting a careful consideration of all mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court's final orders, as detailed in the judgment, mandated a custodial sentence for Eyles. The defendant was to serve a total of two years and ten months in prison, with a non-parole period of sixteen months. This decision reflects the court's attempt to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the personal circumstances of the offender and the broader objectives of the sentencing framework.

Orders

Orders of the court

A term of imprisonment of two years, ten months with a non-parole period of 16 months: at [24].

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 Eyles [2021] NSWDC 300
Hearing dates:	12 March 2021
Date of orders:	12 March 2021
Decision date:	12 March 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	A term of imprisonment of two years, ten months with a non-parole period of 16 months: at [24].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — General principles — Maximum penalty — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Pham v R [2009] NSWCCA 266 R v Ma; R v Zheng [2020] NSWDC 862 Truong v R [2009] NSWCCA 41
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Fredrick Eyles (Offender)
Representation:	Mr M Harper (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr G Goold (Solicitor for the offender)
File Number(s):	2019/00397045