R v Heffernan - [2014] NSWDC 302

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Heffernan [2014] NSWDC 302
Decision date: 07 November 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:
For the offences of cultivating a prohibited plant and supplying a prohibited drug, an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - particular offences - drug offences - cultivating a prohibited plant - supplying a prohibited drug - cultivated cannabis to assist family financially - greater than commercial quantity - sentence -relevant factors - no prior criminality - man of exemplary character - financial hardship of family - clear expression of remorse and contrition - gravity of offences - objectively serious offences - sophisticated commercial enterprise – whether “trafficking” - plea of guilty at earliest opportunity - 25% discount - special circumstances for adjusting ratio between head sentence and non-parole period - 50% - very good prospects of rehabilitation - obvious contrition - age - first time in custody
EVIDENCE - offender’s research on cannabis use tendered
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 5, 21A(2), 50
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 23(1)(a), s25(2), 39P
Cases Cited: Livas v R [2006] NSWCCA 54
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Steven Wayne Heffernan (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Harper (offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/00109850

Judgment

Most people face financial difficulty of some sort or another in their lives. People deal with their financial setbacks, including losses. But the man I am sentencing today was not prepared to see his parents’ property fail to sell, so he embarked on a stunningly bold and illicit project to raise quick cash within a year. The project was also dangerous. Not only was he at risk of being caught but it was very dangerous for the community, particularly young people.
The man’s name is Steven Wayne Heffernan. I am sentencing him for two serious crimes, both of them under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The first crime is cultivating a prohibited plant, namely cannabis. That is an offence against section 23(1)(a) of the Act and Parliament has fixed a maximum of 10 years imprisonment to that crime. The second crime that I am sentencing him for is supplying a prohibited drug. Again the prohibited drug was cannabis but the amount was a commercial quantity. That is an offence against section 25(2) of the same Act. Parliament regards that as so serious that it has fixed a maximum of15 years imprisonment to that offence.
When I am sentencing Mr Heffernan for the drug supply offence, he has asked me to take into account an offence of having goods in custody, namely $1,400. I will take that into account when I am sentencing him and I sign a Form under section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to that effect.
It is important for a judge to set out, as…

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 Heffernan

Details

AGLC: R v Heffernan [2014] NSWDC 302
Case: [2014] NSWDC 302
Decision Date: 07 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Heffernan was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the defendant, Heffernan, faced charges related to cultivating a prohibited plant and supplying a prohibited drug. The dispute arose from Heffernan's cultivation of a substantial quantity of cannabis, purportedly to assist his family financially, which was more than what would be considered a commercial quantity. The court had to address several critical legal issues, including the nature and gravity of the offences, the relevance of Heffernan's lack of prior criminal history, his exemplary character, and the financial hardship faced by his family. Additionally, the court considered the timing of Heffernan's guilty plea, which resulted in a 25% discount, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court meticulously evaluated the gravity of the offences, recognising them as objectively serious due to the scale and sophistication of the operation. However, it also acknowledged the special circumstances, including Heffernan's clear expression of remorse and contrition, his first-time offender status, and the absence of any prior criminal record. The court applied a 50% reduction to the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period, reflecting these mitigating factors. Furthermore, the court took into account Heffernan's age and the likelihood of rehabilitation, given his obvious contrition and lack of previous incarceration.

In conclusion, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months. This sentence balanced the seriousness of the offences against the substantial mitigating factors presented by the defendant. The court recognised Heffernan's genuine efforts to assist his family in financial distress and his otherwise exemplary character, while also ensuring that the sentence adequately reflected the gravity of his actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

For the offences of cultivating a prohibited plant and supplying a prohibited drug, an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months.

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 Heffernan [2014] NSWDC 302
Decision date:	07 November 2014
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	For the offences of cultivating a prohibited plant and supplying a prohibited drug, an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - particular offences - drug offences - cultivating a prohibited plant - supplying a prohibited drug - cultivated cannabis to assist family financially - greater than commercial quantity - sentence -relevant factors - no prior criminality - man of exemplary character - financial hardship of family - clear expression of remorse and contrition - gravity of offences - objectively serious offences - sophisticated commercial enterprise – whether “trafficking” - plea of guilty at earliest opportunity - 25% discount - special circumstances for adjusting ratio between head sentence and non-parole period - 50% - very good prospects of rehabilitation - obvious contrition - age - first time in custody EVIDENCE - offender’s research on cannabis use tendered
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 5, 21A(2), 50 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 23(1)(a), s25(2), 39P
Cases Cited:	Livas v R [2006] NSWCCA 54
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Steven Wayne Heffernan (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: P Harper (offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):	2014/00109850