Legal Research
Cases
R v Frederickson-Angell

R v Frederickson-Angell

Case [2021] NSWDC 22 12 February 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Frederickson-Angell [2021] NSWDC 22
Hearing dates: 22 January 2021
Decision date: 12 February 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Period of three years imprisonment to be served by Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [89]

Catchwords:
Multiple possession and deemed supply of prohibited drugs offences; weapons offences; youthful offender; aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Explosives Act 2003
Firearms Act 1996
Government (Information) Public Act 2009
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

Cases Cited:
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Bugmy v R
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Chong v R [2017] NSWCCA 185
Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246
IS v R [2017] NSWCCA 116
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57
R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516
R v McMaster [2020] NSWDC 673
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Robertson [2017] NSWCCA 205
Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCCA 318

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Tory-John Frederickson-Angell (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Smith (Offender)
Solicitors:
D Sercombe (Crown)

File Number(s): 19/392180
20/62776
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following five offences to which he has pleaded guilty:

Sequence 1 – possess prohibited weapon pursuant to s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment and there is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 5 years imprisonment.

Sequence 2 – supply prohibited drug greater than indictable and less than commercial quantity pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”).

The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or a $220,000.00 fine. There is no Standard Non-Parole Period.

Sequence 3 – possess unauthorised pistol pursuant to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996

The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment and there is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 4 years imprisonment.

Sequence 7 – supply prohibited drug greater than indictable quantity and less than commercial quantity pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA

The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or $220,000 fine. There is no Standard Non-Parole Period.

Sequence 11 – knowingly deal with proceeds of crime pursuant to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900

The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment and there is no Standard Non-Parole Period.

The following matters are to be dealt with as related matters on a certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986:

Sequence 5 – possess prohibited drug pursuant to s 10(1) of the DMTA

The maximum penalty for this offence is 2 years imprisonment and/or $2,200 fine.

Sequence 9 – handle explosive pursuant to s 6(1) of the Explosives Act 2003

The maximum penalty for this…

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 Frederickson-Angell

Details

AGLC: R v Frederickson-Angell [2021] NSWDC 22
Case: [2021] NSWDC 22
Decision Date: 12 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Frederickson-Angell, the respondent, Frederickson-Angell, was charged with various offences relating to the possession and supply of prohibited drugs, as well as weapons offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Frederickson-Angell pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possession and deemed supply of dangerous drugs, possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply, and possession of a dangerous weapon in a public place. The respondent, who was a youthful offender, faced the prospect of a significant sentence. The court was required to consider the totality of the offending, the principles of sentencing for young offenders, and the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the appropriate sentence for the respondent's offending, taking into account the principles of sentencing for young offenders, and the impact of the aggregate sentence on the respondent's future prospects. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offences with the respondent's age and potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider whether an Intensive Correction Order was an appropriate alternative to a custodial sentence. The decision involved a careful assessment of the evidence and the applicable legal principles to ensure that the sentence was just and proportionate.

The court considered the totality of the offending and the respondent's age, acknowledging that he was a youthful offender with potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the offences were serious, but the respondent's age and potential for rehabilitation were significant mitigating factors. The court determined that an Intensive Correction Order was an appropriate alternative to a custodial sentence, as it would provide the respondent with an opportunity for rehabilitation while also ensuring public safety. The court sentenced the respondent to a period of three years imprisonment to be served by an Intensive Correction Order, reflecting the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The court also made several other orders, including a 12-month good behaviour bond and a 12-month firearms prohibition order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Period of three years imprisonment to be served by Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [89]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Frederickson-Angell [2021] NSWDC 22

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

Carbone v R
[2020] NSWCCA 318 Para 70

…way of an Intensive Correction Order. Counsel also referred to protection of the community being better served in the community relying on Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCCA 318 per McCallum J. The offender had been relatively youthful at the time of the offending, which was also relevant to the sentencing process, relying on…
R v McMaster
[2020] NSWDC 673 Para 42

…pistol was “capable of inflicting a serious injury if it was used to strike the eyes of the victim with a projectile”, relying on R v McMaster [2020] NSWDC 673 at [63].…
R v Pullen
[2018] NSWCCA 264 Para 86

…In R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264, Harrison J said at [84]:…
Robertson v R
[2017] NSWCCA 205 Para 64

…tence of imprisonment imposed should be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order pursuant to s 7 of the CSPA. Counsel referred to R v Robertson [2017] NSWCCA 205, where the Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the rigidity of the previous approach by the courts whereby offences of substantial drug supply meant th…
Chong v R
[2017] NSWCCA 185 Para 39

…e offender’s role was to be assessed, having regard to his involvement and the steps undertaken by him to commit the offences, relying on Chong v R [2017] NSWCCA 185 at [71]. The Crown submitted that the evidence reflects the considerable degree of involvement with the supply of prohibited drugs.…
IS v R
[2017] NSWCCA 116 Para 60

…and disturbed early childhood was sufficiently deprived to reduce the offender’s suitability as a vehicle for general deterrence, relying on IS v R [2017] NSWCCA 116.…
Dang v R
[2013] NSWCCA 246 Para 40

…tive of an involvement in drug supply that exceeded merely supplying his own drug use, which in turn bears upon his moral culpability: see Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246.…
BP v R
[2010] NSWCCA 159 Para 70

…allum J. The offender had been relatively youthful at the time of the offending, which was also relevant to the sentencing process, relying on BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159.…
TM v R
[2008] NSWCCA 158 Para 33

…to the offending, this may be seen as mitigating culpability and thus as reducing what is suggested by considerations of retribution: see TM v R [2008] NSWCCA 158 at [33] – [36]. 5 Second, while I agree with the statements in KT at [26] that the weight to be given to considerations relevant to a person’s youth dimi…
KT v R
[2008] NSWCCA 51 Para 74

…ing juveniles, emphasis must be given to rehabilitation rather than general deterrence and retribution when sentencing young offenders – see KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 per McLellan CJ at CL. This emphasis may be moderated when a young person has conducted him or herself in the way an adult might and has committed a cr…
Cahyadi v R
[2007] NSWCCA 1 Para 82

…In arriving at an aggregate sentence, I must have regard to the principle of totality in sentencing, as described by Howie J in Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 at [27]:…
R v E
[2006] NSWCCA 305

…and may not be fully developed until the early to mid twenties: see R v Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [43], quoted by Kirby J in R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006 68 NSWLR 1 at 27 [127]. As shown by R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451, youth may be a material factor in sentencing even a 19 year old…
R v Gorman
[2002] NSWCCA 516 Para 63

…pursuant to s 53A of the CSPA, any degree of accumulation between the sentences should be modest, relying on Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57 and R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516.…
R v Hearne
[2001] NSWCCA 37

…Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [43], quoted by Kirby J in R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006 68 NSWLR 1 at 27 [127]. As shown by R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451, youth may be a material factor in sentencing even a 19 year old for a most serious crime. 6 Third, I do not think courts should be over…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 63

…lity to an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the CSPA, any degree of accumulation between the sentences should be modest, relying on Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57 and R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516.…
[2005] 2 NZLR 526
[2005] 2 NZLR 526 Para 43

…velop progressively during adolescence and early adulthood, and may not be fully developed until the early to mid twenties: see R v Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [43], quoted by Kirby J in R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006 68 NSWLR 1 at 27 [127]. As shown by R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451, yout…

Legislation cited in this decision · 8

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 47)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 58)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Explosives Act 2003 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS)
1 mention (from Para 6)
Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Frederickson-Angell [2021] NSWDC 22
Hearing dates:	22 January 2021
Decision date:	12 February 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Period of three years imprisonment to be served by Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [89]
Catchwords:	Multiple possession and deemed supply of prohibited drugs offences; weapons offences; youthful offender; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited:	Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 Explosives Act 2003 Firearms Act 1996 Government (Information) Public Act 2009 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
Cases Cited:	BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159 Bugmy v R Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Chong v R [2017] NSWCCA 185 Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246 IS v R [2017] NSWCCA 116 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57 R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516 R v McMaster [2020] NSWDC 673 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Robertson [2017] NSWCCA 205 Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCCA 318
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Tory-John Frederickson-Angell (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: M Smith (Offender) Solicitors: D Sercombe (Crown)
File Number(s):	19/392180 20/62776
Publication restriction:	Nil