R v Flowers - [2019] NSWDC 830

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Flowers [2019] NSWDC 830
Hearing dates: 1 March 2019; 22 March 2019
Decision date: 29 March 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence 7 years 6 months imprisonment; non-parole period 4 years; forfeiture order of $112,220; drug destruction order.

Catchwords: CRIME – Sentence – supply indictable quantity of prohibited drug (cocaine) – just below mid-range of objective seriousness – multiple transactions over some months – large quantities of high purity -undercover operative ordered drugs by phone - from which he suffers – trusted employee – industrious worker – prior relationships were co-dependent on drug use – previous treatment for depression – high levels of anxiety and depression reported by psychologist – prior criminal history of drug possession – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application No. 1 [2002] 56 NSWLR 147
Bugmy v R [1990] 169 CLR 525.
Henry v R [1999] 46 NSWLR 346
Hilli and Jones v R [2010] HCA 45
Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28
Mill v R [1988] 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v R [2011] 224 CLR 120
Pearce v R [1998] 194 CLR 610
R v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Sponberg v R [2017] NSWCCA 120
Thomson and Houlton v R [2000] NSWCCA 278
Williams v R [2014] NSWCCA 57
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Matthew Flowers (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Boulten (offender)
Solicitors:
Mr N Leach (DPP)

File Number(s): 2017/00280099
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Mr Flowers I am sorry to keep you waiting. I will tell you, my practice is to tell people in advance what sentence is to be imposed. I do not leave anyone in suspense. There are a lot of matters that I have got to cover in my remarks and I am sure you are more interested in the ultimate outcome. Whether you are pleased with it or not, really is of no matter. It is a fact of just what I would regard as common decency to let someone know in advance what the sentence is to be imposed.
In your case I propose to fix an aggregate sentence of seven years, six months imprisonment to commence on 14 September 2017. I am going to fix a non-parole period of four years, expiring on 13 September 2021. I have to impose indicative sentences for sequence 5. I will have to fix a non‑parole period and I will indicate what those are. The total sentence in the circumstances is seven years, six months imprisonment with a non‑parole period of four years backdated until the time you came into custody which I understand to be 14 September 2017. Now I will give my reasons which will take some little time.
Matthew Flowers appears today for sentence in relation to three offences which were matters for which the prisoner was committed for sentence from the Local Court. In respect of each sentence to be imposed, the prisoner…

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 Flowers

Details

AGLC: R v Flowers [2019] NSWDC 830
Case: [2019] NSWDC 830
Decision Date: 29 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Flowers, the defendant was convicted of supplying an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, specifically cocaine. The dispute involved the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, taking into account the various factors related to the offence and the defendant's background. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court centred on determining the appropriate level of punishment for the defendant, considering the severity of the crime and the defendant's personal circumstances.

The court was required to balance the objective seriousness of the offence, which involved multiple transactions over several months and the supply of large quantities of high-purity cocaine, with the defendant's personal background. This included the defendant's role as a trusted employee and industrious worker, prior relationships that were co-dependent on drug use, previous treatment for depression, and high levels of anxiety and depression reported by a psychologist. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant's prior criminal history, which involved drug possession, and any special circumstances that may have been relevant to the case.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the various factors presented, ultimately determining that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was an aggregate term of seven years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years. The court also issued a forfeiture order of $112,220 and a drug destruction order. The court's reasoning was based on a comprehensive assessment of the defendant's personal circumstances, the objective seriousness of the offence, and the need to balance the interests of justice with the rehabilitation of the defendant. The final orders of the court were as follows: the defendant was to serve seven years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years, and the court also ordered the forfeiture of $112,220 and the destruction of the drugs involved in the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence 7 years 6 months imprisonment; non-parole period 4 years; forfeiture order of $112,220; drug destruction 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 Flowers [2019] NSWDC 830
Hearing dates:	1 March 2019; 22 March 2019
Decision date:	29 March 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence 7 years 6 months imprisonment; non-parole period 4 years; forfeiture order of $112,220; drug destruction order.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentence – supply indictable quantity of prohibited drug (cocaine) – just below mid-range of objective seriousness – multiple transactions over some months – large quantities of high purity -undercover operative ordered drugs by phone - from which he suffers – trusted employee – industrious worker – prior relationships were co-dependent on drug use – previous treatment for depression – high levels of anxiety and depression reported by psychologist – prior criminal history of drug possession – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application No. 1 [2002] 56 NSWLR 147 Bugmy v R [1990] 169 CLR 525. Henry v R [1999] 46 NSWLR 346 Hilli and Jones v R [2010] HCA 45 Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28 Mill v R [1988] 166 CLR 59 Muldrock v R [2011] 224 CLR 120 Pearce v R [1998] 194 CLR 610 R v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Sponberg v R [2017] NSWCCA 120 Thomson and Houlton v R [2000] NSWCCA 278 Williams v R [2014] NSWCCA 57
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Matthew Flowers (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr P Boulten (offender) Solicitors: Mr N Leach (DPP)
File Number(s):	2017/00280099
Publication restriction:	No