District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Glen Michael Rootsey [2015] NSWDC 98 Hearing dates: 10 June 2015 Date of orders: 19 June 2015 Decision date: 19 June 2015 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: For Orders see [52]
Catchwords: Ongoing supply prohibited drugs; supply prohibited drugs; sentencing Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989Cases Cited: Braithwaite v R [2005] NSWCCA 451
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Burns [2007] NSWCCA 228
R v Carrion (2000) 49 NSWLR 149
R v Farah [2005] NSWCCA 67
R v Giang [2005] NSWCCA 387
R v MRN [2006] NSWCCA 1555
R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Veen v R (No. 2) (1998) 164 CLR 465Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown Solicitor)
Glen Michael Rootsey (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
K Stanley (Crown Prosecutor)
M North (Offender)
File Number(s): 14/267097 Publication restriction: Nil
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
Introduction
-
The offender is charged with two offences as follows:
Supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis, being heroin, pursuant to s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. For that offence the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of 20 years, a fine of $385,000 or both. There is no standard non-parole period proscribed for that offence.
Supply prohibited drugs, namely, 2.78 grams of heroin pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty proscribed is 15 years imprisonment and a fine of $220,000 or both. Again there is no standard non-parole period proscribed in respect of that offence.
-
In respect of the first offence, there are three further charges to be taken into account by way of a Form 1 and they are as follows:
17 June 2014 supply prohibited drug greater than indictable quantity (not cannabis).
27 May 2014 supply prohibited drug greater than small and less than indictable quantity.
20 May 2014 supply prohibited drug greater than small and less than indictable quantity.
-
A s 166 Certificate pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 has been certified in relation to three back-up offences being three offences of supply prohibited drug heroin, however, the Crown consents to an order dismissing each of those charges following sentence on the two charges above.
-
The Crown also seeks an order pursuant to the Confiscation ofProceeds of Crime Act 1989 in respect of the sum of $11,050.00. That order is not opposed by the offender.
-
The offender was arrested on 10 September 2014 and remained in custody until he was granted bail by the Supreme Court on 4 February 2015. He has therefore served 148 (or 4 months and 25 days) days in custody.
Facts
-
A summary of the facts is that in May 2014 the offender, who was born on 1 November 1973, and is aged 41 years, came to the attention of Strike Force Babyl, an investigation conducted by the Monaro…
Continue reading R v Glen Michael Rootsey
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Glen Michael Rootsey [2015] NSWDC 98
- Case
- [2015] NSWDC 98
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, considering both the nature and circumstances of the offence and the need to protect the community from the respondent's unlawful activities. The court had to balance the principles of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation in its sentencing decision. Additionally, the court needed to consider the respondent's criminal history and any mitigating factors that may have influenced his involvement in drug supply activities.
In sentencing the respondent, the court considered his extensive criminal history, including multiple previous convictions for drug-related offences. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the respondent's conduct, which involved the supply of prohibited drugs, including methylamphetamine, and the potential harm caused to the community. The court also considered the aggravating factors, such as the respondent's role in the supply chain and the quantity of drugs involved. However, the court took into account the mitigating factors, such as the respondent's cooperation with law enforcement and his expressed remorse for his actions. Ultimately, the court determined that the respondent's criminal conduct warranted a custodial sentence, and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment.
The court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of 18 months, with a non-parole period of 12 months, for the offence of supplying prohibited drugs. For the offence of ongoing supply of prohibited drugs, the court ordered a concurrent term of imprisonment of 12 months, with a non-parole period of 8 months. The court also ordered that the sentences be served consecutively to any other sentences the respondent may be serving.
Orders
Orders of the court
For Orders see [52]
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.