Legal Research
Cases
R v IL (No 4)

R v IL (No 4)

Case [2014] NSWSC 1801 11 December 2014

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v IL (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1801
Hearing dates: 11 December 2014
Decision date: 11 December 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Sentenced to an aggregate non-parole period of 7½ years commencing on 2 December 2013 and expiring on 1 June 2021. There will be a balance of term of 4 years commencing on 2 June 2021 and expiring on 1 June 2025. Eligible for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.
Order that the drugs and weapons involved in the five counts on the indictment be forfeited to the Crown to be destroyed.
As to the offences listed on the certificate under s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW):
Sequence 3 (offender found on drug premises) is dismissed by consent.
Sequence 4 (owner knowingly allow premises to be used as drug premises) is dismissed by consent.
On the joint application of the parties, all remaining sequences (that is, sequences 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14) are remitted to the Local Court.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - manufacture of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine - clandestine laboratory in suburban premises - weapons and firearms charges - aggregate sentence - whether offence involved a grave risk of death to another person - death of co-offender in course of manufacture - whether aggravating feature - whether profit motive and lack of regard for public safety aggravating features - offender a middle aged woman of good character - limited period of involvement - balancing consistency of punishment against individual justice
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Brown v R [2012] NSWCCA 199
DAB v R: NJB v R [2010] NSWCCA 275
DW v R [2012] NSWCCA 66
Eckersley v R [2013] NSWCCA 219
Greenaway v R [2013] NSWCCA 270
Lau v R [2010] NSWCCA 43
Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Kalache [2000] NSWCCA 2
R v IL (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1710
R v Little and Walsh [2006] NSWCCA 406
R v MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44
R v Nykolyn [2012] NSWCCA
R v RD [2014] NSWCCA 103
Reardon v R [2012] NSWCCA 46
SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94
Wong and Leung v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
IL (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Herps (Crown)
R Pontello (Accused)
Solicitors:
DPP (Crown)
The Defenders (Accused)

File Number(s): 2012/3683
Publication restriction: Non-publication of any matter that may lead to the identification of the accused (Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 111(1)(b))

ex tempore REMARKS ON SENTENCE (REVISED)

IL ("the offender") is to be sentenced for five offences in relation to which a jury…

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 IL (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Il (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1801
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1801
Decision Date: 11 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, IL, was convicted for her involvement in the manufacture of a substantial commercial quantity of methylamphetamine within a suburban clandestine laboratory. The prosecution also included charges related to firearms and weapons. The appeal was against the aggregate sentence imposed, focusing on whether certain factors were appropriately considered as aggravating circumstances. The High Court of Australia was the tribunal tasked with reviewing the decision.

The primary legal issue was the assessment of aggravating factors in the sentencing process, particularly whether the offence involved a grave risk of death to another person, the death of a co-offender during the manufacturing process, the profit motive, and the offender's disregard for public safety. Additionally, the court considered the appellant's character, the limited duration of her involvement, and the need to balance consistency in punishment against individual justice.

The Court found that the death of the co-offender did not constitute an aggravating factor as it was not directly caused by the appellant's actions. The court emphasised that the offender's limited period of involvement and good character needed to be weighed against the severity of the offence. The court concluded that while the manufacturing of a large quantity of methylamphetamine was a serious offence, the mitigating factors significantly reduced the appropriate severity of the sentence. The Court ordered a reduction in the aggregate sentence, taking into account the appellant's limited involvement and good character.

Orders