R v Flores

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v FLORES [2024] NSWDC 457
Hearing dates: 15 August 2024
Decision date: 27 September 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: NOMAN SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence imposed. Indicative sentences nominated: Sequence 10, possession offence: 16 months; Sequence 11, trafficking offence: 3 years and 8 months; Sequence 12, import offence: 5 years and 4 months. Sentence imposed is 6 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 4 years to commence 30 May 2023. Eligible for release to parole 29 May 2027.

Catchwords:

SENTENCING — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences – possess marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border-controlled drug – traffic marketable quantity of controlled drug – import marketable quantity of border-controlled drug – imprisonment

Legislation Cited:

S16A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

ss302.3, 307.2, 307.6, 311.2 and 311.4 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex;
Bryan Flores
Representation: Counsel:
Crown: D New
Defence: D Berents
File Number(s): 2023/173033

JUDGMENT

  1. The offender, Bryan Flores, entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court to the following three offences:    

  1. Possess marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border-controlled drug (namely cocaine) contrary to section 307.6(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code;

  2. Traffic in marketable quantity of a controlled drug (namely cocaine) contrary to section 302.3(1) and section 311.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; and

  3. Import marketable quantity of border-controlled drug (namely cocaine) contrary to section 307.2(1) and section 311.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

  1. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is imprisonment for 25 years and/or 5000 penalty units.

  2. The general sentencing principles that I must apply are contained in Part 1B of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth) (‘the Act’). In determining the sentence to be passed, I must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence: s16A(1) Crimes Act. I must also take into account the matters listed in s16A(2) of the Act.

  3. On 10 April 2024 the offender entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court.

  4. The Crown tendered the agreed facts, criminal history, custodial history and the Sentencing Assessment Report. Written submissions and a schedule of comparable cases were provided.

  5. The offender tendered 15 documents including a letter of apology [the full copy was tendered separately], a psychological report, letters of support, certificates and Corrective Services documents. Written submissions, statistics and two comparable cases were provided.

  6. The limitations of the cases and statistics were acknowledged.

  7. The nature and circumstances of the offences are set out in the agreed facts. To the extent a different account is asserted in a direct or hearsay account of the offender, I disregard it. I shall proceed on the facts as settled between the parties, supplemented where appropriate. The offender did not give evidence. The additional evidence sought to be relied upon, informing the facts and the subjective case, emanates from his letter and his hearsay representations.

  8. The first time the offender, an American citizen, contemplated involvement was…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Flores and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] NSWDC 457
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Flores, was charged with multiple drug-related offences under the Commonwealth. Flores was found to have possessed, trafficked, and imported a substantial quantity of a border-controlled drug. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for the respondent's multiple drug offences. This involved determining the aggregate sentence, considering the nature and seriousness of the offences, the respondent's culpability, and the principles of justice and deterrence.

The court considered the severity and impact of the offences, which involved a significant quantity of a dangerous drug. It also examined Flores's role in the drug-related activities, including the planning and execution of the importation and trafficking. The court assessed the seriousness of each offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court applied the principles of cumulative sentencing, taking into account the overlapping nature of the offences, to ensure the overall punishment reflected the total criminality involved. The court concluded that an aggregate sentence was appropriate, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court determined that the indicative sentences for the possession, trafficking, and import offences were 16 months, 3 years and 8 months, and 5 years and 4 months, respectively. However, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 6 years and 2 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years. Flores will be eligible for parole release on 29 May 2027. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the totality of Flores's criminal conduct, the need to ensure public safety, and the principles of justice in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence imposed. Indicative sentences nominated: Sequence 10, possession offence: 16 months; Sequence 11, trafficking offence: 3 years and 8 months; Sequence 12, import offence: 5 years and 4 months. Sentence imposed is 6 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 4 years to commence 30 May 2023. Eligible for release to parole 29 May 2027.

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.