District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jones [2023] NSWDC 357 Hearing dates: 17 February 2023 Date of orders: 23 February 2023 Decision date: 23 February 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Priestley SC DCJ Decision: 23 February 2023
Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Indictable quantity
CRIME — Property offences — Receiving stolen motor vehicle
CRIME — Property offences — Steal motor vehicle
CRIME — Property offences — Steal property
CRIME — Property offences — Take and drive a conveyance
CRIME — Property offences — Larceny
CRIME — Driving offences — police pursuit
CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter and steal
CRIME — Property offences — Destroying or damaging property
Legislation Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR
Cases Cited: Hall v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 220
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Texts Cited: NA
Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Beau Jones (Offender)Representation: Solicitors:
Enderwick (Crown)
Beesley (Offender)
File Number(s): 2022/00137073, 2022/00137117 Publication restriction: NA
JUDGMENT
-
The offender, Beau Michael Jones, appears for sentence in respect of 17 offences committed between April and August 2021. There are also five matters on five different Form 1s which are to be taken into account in sentencing for five of the 17 offences. Each of the Form 1 matters is the offence of destroying property and the property destroyed is the property the subject of the principal offence.
-
On 31 August 2022 the offender was sentenced in respect of five other offences committed on 9 August 2021 which was the date of his arrest. The parties are agreed that the sentence arrived at today should apply the principle of totality taking into account the sentence already imposed for those five offences. The result is there is a need for consideration of 27 different offences five of which appear on 5 different Form 1s.
-
Set out at the conclusion of these reasons Is a table which identifies firstly with five offences already sentenced, indicated by the letters “a” through to “e” inclusive and setting out the indicative sentences and aggregate sentence imposed for that offending, and then sets out 17 of the offences being sentenced today. In respect of those offences the table gives a short form statement of the facts and states the assessment of objective seriousness and also indicates the indicative sentences both before and after the 25% discount. The table then notes the Form 1 matters. Finally, the table sets out the last three offences which are drug offences conceded by the Crown to be low in objective seriousness and being drug activity discovered through telephone intercepts in respect of the first two of those counts and by the location of drugs upon the search of the offender’s residence in respect of the third of…
Continue reading R v Jones
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Jones [2023] NSWDC 357
- Case
- [2023] NSWDC 357
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address included the determination of the quantity of the drug supplied to establish whether the offence was indictable, the validity of the charge related to the possession of the stolen motor vehicle, and the applicability of the various property and driving-related charges. The court had to consider the evidence presented to ascertain whether the defendant's actions constituted the specific offences as charged.
After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the defendant had indeed supplied a significant amount of a prohibited substance, qualifying the offence as indictable. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had unlawfully possessed a stolen motor vehicle and was involved in related criminal activities, including breaking and entering, damaging property, and unlawful taking and driving of a conveyance. The court determined that the evidence supported the charges brought against the defendant. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty on all counts. The final orders were issued on 23 February 2023.
Orders
Orders of the court
23 February 2023
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.