(1) In respect of the offence to which the offender has pleaded guilty, the offender is convicted.
(2) I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years, 4 months to commence on 9 February 2022 and expire on 8 June 2025.
(3) I impose a non-parole period of 1 year, 10 months to expire on 8 December 2023.
(4) The earliest date the offender is eligible for release to parole is 8 December 2023.
Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug – Bugmy principles – De La Rosa considerations - parity principles - backdating sentence
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Hunter Braddon Lawyers (offender)
File Number(s):
2021/362185
Publication restriction:
None
JUDGMENT
Remarks on sentence
The offender appeared at the Downing Centre Local Court on 2 February 2023 and pleaded guilty to one charge of supply prohibited drug, namely 2 kg of Gamma-Butyrolactone (“GBL”), an amount not less than the commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The plea of guilty was adhered to at the sentence hearing on 4 April 2023. Accordingly, the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty.
The maximum penalty for the offence of supply prohibited drug not less than the commercial quantity is 20 years. In accordance with Pt 4 Div 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999, the offence has a standard non-parole period of 10 years. The maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and the standard non-parole period of 10 years is an indication of its seriousness and acts as a sentencing guidepost or reference point.
In addition to the…
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 George
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v George [2023] NSWDC 141
Case
[2023] NSWDC 141
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v George involved the sentencing of the appellant, George, for the supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was required to consider the principles outlined in Bugmy and De La Rosa, as well as parity principles, in determining an appropriate sentence. Furthermore, the court needed to decide whether to backdate the sentence to the date of arrest, as requested by the prosecution.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles set out in Bugmy, which emphasise the importance of understanding the Indigenous background of the offender in the sentencing process. The court also took into account the considerations outlined in De La Rosa, which address the sentencing of Indigenous offenders and the need for courts to consider the broader social and cultural context of the offender's life. In addition, the court weighed the principle of parity, which requires that similar offenders be treated similarly, against the specific circumstances of this case. Ultimately, the court decided that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the offender's background, and the need for general deterrence.
The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years and 4 months, to commence on 9 February 2022 and expire on 8 June 2025. The non-parole period was set at 1 year and 10 months, expiring on 8 December 2023. The court determined that the earliest date the offender would be eligible for release to parole would be 8 December 2023. The sentence was not backdated to the date of arrest, as requested by the prosecution.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) In respect of the offence to which the offender has pleaded guilty, the offender is convicted.
(2) I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years, 4 months to commence on 9 February 2022 and expire on 8 June 2025.
(3) I impose a non-parole period of 1 year, 10 months to expire on 8 December 2023.
(4) The earliest date the offender is eligible for release to parole is 8 December 2023.