R v Honeysett, Mitchell Leonard - [2016] NSWDC 387

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v HONEYSETT, Mitchell Leonard [2016] NSWDC 387
Date of orders: 12 February 2016
Decision date: 12 February 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [71]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – knowingly take part in supply of MDMA – ongoing supply of prohibited drugs – supply cannabis – SENTENCE – opportunistic role – early plea of guilty – totality of sentence – concurrency of sentence based on the similarity of offending – undercover police operation – background and upbringing of the offender – general deterrence in light of the prisoner’s intellectual functioning
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWCCA 309
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] HCA 194
Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
Letteri
R v Engert (1995) 84 Crim R 67
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Bloomfield [1998] 44 NSWSC 342
R v Clark (NSWCCA, unreported, 5.3.1990)
R v Mirza [2007] NSWCCA 257
Fayd’Herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20
Regina v Hoon; Regina v Pouoa [2000] NSWCCA 137
R v Giang [2001] NSWCCA 276
Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mitchell Leonard Honeysett (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr. Meredith (Crown)
Mr. Michael King (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/00177868
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Mitchell Honeysett appears today for sentence in relation to three offences for which he was committed for sentence and which are indictable matters and two other offences on a s 166 certificate which are “summary” matters but pursuant to s 167 Criminal Procedure Act can be dealt with in this jurisdiction.
The indictable offences are, firstly, knowingly taking part in the supply of 6.22 grams of MDMA as it is shortly described under s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. That carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units and it has no standard non-parole period. That offence was committed on 1 May 2015.
There is a second offence of supplying 6.27 grams of the prohibited drug MDMA, as was the drug supplied on 1 May, contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act that has the same maximum penalty. That offence being committed on 2 May 2015.
There is a third offence for which the prisoner was committed for sentence of what is described as “ongoing” supply of prohibited drugs between 3 June and 16 June 2015 in that the prisoner on three or more separate occasions supplied a prohibited drug for financial or material reward. Those three supplies as they are particularised in the facts, occurred as I understand on 4 June and on 15 June. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units. There is no standard non-parole period for that…

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 Honeysett, Mitchell Leonard

Details

AGLC: R v Honeysett, Mitchell Leonard [2016] NSWDC 387
Case: [2016] NSWDC 387
Decision Date: 12 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Honeysett and Mitchell Leonard, were charged with multiple drug-related offences, including knowingly participating in the supply of MDMA and the supply of cannabis. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellants argued for a lesser sentence, taking into account their background, intellectual functioning, and the opportunity for rehabilitation. The prosecution, however, argued for a custodial sentence to emphasise the seriousness of the crimes and to deter others.

The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the role of each appellant in the offending, their background, and the principles of sentencing. The court needed to determine whether the offences warranted a custodial sentence and, if so, the appropriate length and whether the sentences should run concurrently. The court also had to weigh the general deterrence of the community against the need for rehabilitation.

The court found that the appellants' role in the drug supply chain, although not central, was significant. The court acknowledged the appellants' early plea of guilty and the similarity of their offending, which led to a concurrent sentence. The court also considered the appellants' background, upbringing, and intellectual functioning, which suggested a need for rehabilitation over punishment. However, the court ultimately decided that a custodial sentence was necessary to uphold the law and deter others from engaging in similar activities. The court imposed a full-time custodial sentence, with the exact terms of the sentence detailed in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [71]

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 HONEYSETT, Mitchell Leonard [2016] NSWDC 387
Date of orders:	12 February 2016
Decision date:	12 February 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [71]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – knowingly take part in supply of MDMA – ongoing supply of prohibited drugs – supply cannabis – SENTENCE – opportunistic role – early plea of guilty – totality of sentence – concurrency of sentence based on the similarity of offending – undercover police operation – background and upbringing of the offender – general deterrence in light of the prisoner’s intellectual functioning
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWCCA 309 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] HCA 194 Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81 Letteri R v Engert (1995) 84 Crim R 67 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v Bloomfield [1998] 44 NSWSC 342 R v Clark (NSWCCA, unreported, 5.3.1990) R v Mirza [2007] NSWCCA 257 Fayd’Herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20 Regina v Hoon; Regina v Pouoa [2000] NSWCCA 137 R v Giang [2001] NSWCCA 276 Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Mitchell Leonard Honeysett (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr. Meredith (Crown) Mr. Michael King (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2015/00177868
Publication restriction:	Nil