R v Jenkinson (No. 3) - [2023] NSWDC 120

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jenkinson (No. 3) [2023] NSWDC 120
Hearing dates: 13 October 2022
Date of orders: 13 October 2022
Decision date: 13 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Specify an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months to be served by way of intensive correction in the community

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity
CRIME — Money laundering — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime
CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug
SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders

Legislation Cited:
CrimesAct1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
EvidenceAct 1995

Cases Cited:
House v King [1936] HCA 40
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
R v Jenkinson (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 286
R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCA 284
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Tepaniav R [2018] NSWCCA 247

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Thomas Jenkinson (Offender)
Representation:
Carl Young (Crown Prosecutor)
Rory Pettit (Counsel for the Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Hamilton Janke Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/00131225

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

Introduction

Thomas Jenkinson appears for sentence upon three charges.
The first of these is for sentence after I found the offender guilty at the conclusion of a trial before me as judge alone.
The second, H 75126608/5 is a matter upon which he was committed for sentence from the Local Court.
The third, H 75126608/1 is a related offence before the Court by way of s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
He confirmed that he pleaded guilty to the indictable charge in the magistrates' court, sequence five and he adheres to his plea of guilty in this Court. The related offence before me by way of the Criminal Procedure Act, sequence one, is a charge of possessing cannabis, a small quantity. He has pleaded guilty to that charge before me.
All three offences were prosecuted as a result of the investigation to which I will refer in the statement of facts that I will offer in the course of this judgement.

The Offences

The charge of which I found the offender guilty was the sole count on the indictment, expressed on the following terms, that he on 1 May 2020 at Nelsons Plains in the State of New South Wales did supply a prohibited drug, namely, psilocybin, in an amount of 98 grams, being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity for that prohibited drug. The offence is contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 20 years with a standard non-parole period of ten years for the purposes of Part 4 Div. 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The maximum penalty for an offence contrary to s 193C(2) Crimes…

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 Jenkinson (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Jenkinson (No. 3) [2023] NSWDC 120
Case: [2023] NSWDC 120
Decision Date: 13 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Jenkinson, the defendant stood trial on multiple charges related to drug offences and money laundering. The charges included the supply of a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity, possession of a prohibited drug, and dealing with money suspected to be proceeds of crime. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant contested each charge, resulting in a complex trial that involved examining the evidence related to the drug supply and the financial transactions that were alleged to be linked to these activities.

The court had to determine several legal issues, including whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Jenkinson had supplied the prohibited drug in a commercial quantity, whether he possessed the drug with intent to supply it, and whether he had dealt with money that he knew or ought to have known was the proceeds of criminal conduct. The court also had to consider the appropriate penalty, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences and the defendant's criminal history.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had successfully proven all the charges against Jenkinson. The evidence of the drug supply and possession, as well as the financial transactions, was deemed sufficient to meet the required standard of proof. The court noted the defendant's criminal history, which included previous drug-related offences, and considered it in the sentencing phase. After weighing these factors, the court decided that an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months was appropriate, to be served by way of intensive correction in the community. This decision recognised the need for punishment and deterrence while also considering the potential for rehabilitation through community-based penalties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Specify an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months to be served by way of intensive correction in the community

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 Jenkinson (No. 3) [2023] NSWDC 120
Hearing dates:	13 October 2022
Date of orders:	13 October 2022
Decision date:	13 October 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Specify an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months to be served by way of intensive correction in the community
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity CRIME — Money laundering — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders
Legislation Cited:	CrimesAct1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 EvidenceAct 1995
Cases Cited:	House v King [1936] HCA 40 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 R v Jenkinson (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 286 R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCA 284 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 Tepaniav R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Thomas Jenkinson (Offender)
Representation:	Carl Young (Crown Prosecutor) Rory Pettit (Counsel for the Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Hamilton Janke Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2020/00131225