R v Fagan

Case [2019] NSWDC 777


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fagan [2019] NSWDC 777
Hearing dates: 30 July 2019
Date of orders: 30 July 2019
Decision date: 30 July 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:

A term of imprisonment of 13 years with a non-parole period 7 years, 3 months: at [46].

Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import/Export border-controlled prohibited plant or drug
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character Plea of guilty — Remorse
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence Objective seriousness — Deterrence — Establishing relevant matters — General principles — Co-offenders — Parity
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non Publication Order Act 2010
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Klomfar v R [2019] NSWCCA 61
Lau v The Queen [2011] VSCA 324
R v Zalapa (unreported, NSWDC M L Williams SC DCJ, 31 May 2018)
R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238
R v Nicketic [2002] NSWCCA 425
R v Phelps (unreported, NSWDC, M L Williams SC DCJ, 6 April 2018)
R v Phelps; R v Zalapa [2018] NSWCCA 191
R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
R v Schwartz [2018] NSWDC 118
Van Zwam v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 127
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Sentence
Parties:

Regina (Crown)

  Jonathan Fagan (Offender)
Representation:

Mr K Perrignon (Crown)

 

Mr M Johnstone SC (Counsel for the Offender)

  Mr M Smith (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s): 2015/270614; 2015/285417
Publication restriction: NON-PUBLICATION ORDER re the provision of any confidential material, evidence or submissions tendered in closed court or referred to during proceedings

Judgment

  1. A 34 year old man faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for his substantial involvement in the importation of border controlled drugs. For much of his education, he had the benefit of attending the Scots College in Sydney, and as was said by Berman DCJ in sentencing a co-offender, there is very little, if any, that could be said by way of a disadvantaged background for this young man. He had every opportunity available to him, on the evidence that I have in front of me. He has pleaded guilty to one count of importing a commercial quantity of border controlled drug between 15 January 2014 and 3 August 2015 under s 307 of the Criminal Code1995 (Cth).

  2. I will allow a 20% discount on a term of imprisonment due to the plea of guilty in the circumstances set out in the evidence and the submissions to which I will refer. A further 15% discount on a term of imprisonment will be allowed in relation to the matters addressed in Exhibit C and during closed court. A total discount of 35% on a term of imprisonment will be imposed.

  3. In short, between 15 January…

Continue reading R v Fagan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Fagan [2019] NSWDC 777
Case
[2019] NSWDC 777
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Fagan, was charged with drug-related offences under Commonwealth law. The specific charge was the importation of a border-controlled prohibited plant or drug. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which is not explicitly stated in the text but is likely a higher court given the severity of the offence. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges, which had a significant impact on the sentencing considerations.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the objective seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence by considering the defendant's good character, the presence of remorse, and the circumstances of the offence. Additionally, the court needed to establish the relevant matters, including the role of co-offenders and the principle of parity in sentencing. The defendant's drug addiction was also considered as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process.

The court, after considering all the relevant factors, concluded that the defendant should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 13 years, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 3 months. The decision took into account the defendant's guilty plea, his good character, and the presence of remorse. The court also considered the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court's decision was influenced by the defendant's drug addiction, which was seen as a mitigating factor. The court balanced all these factors to arrive at the final sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

A term of imprisonment of 13 years with a non-parole period 7 years, 3 months: at [46].

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.