R v Jones

Case [2018] NSWDC 439


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jones [2018] NSWDC 439
Hearing dates: 7 December 2018
Date of orders: 07 December 2018
Decision date: 07 December 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:

Bailed under s11 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Supply prohibited drug – MDMA – Neglected childhood – Whether ICO continues to be “a sentence of considerable severity”.
Cases Cited: Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205,
Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Jade Jones
Representation: Counsel:
J Hale - Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s): 2017/165806 & 2018/71653

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: It is the Crown submission in this case that the offences committed by Mr Jones demonstrated a significant involvement in drug dealing activities. I accept that submission. But it is the submission of Mr Hale, who appears for Mr Jones, that when all the circumstances of the case are looked at, the matter can be dealt with by means of an intensive corrections order, especially given that in this case that ICO could be imposed for a period of three years.

  2. On 2 June 2017, police were in Warners Bay. They saw a man approaching a parked car. This car turned out to be driven by the offender, Jade Jones. Police watched as the man leant in through a passenger’s side window and then stand up, holding a brown paper bag. Police considered this to be suspicious activity. They, therefore, searched the car after asking Mr Jones what he was doing there. They discovered a silver lock box in the boot of the car and, when the police opened that box using a key given to them by Mr Jones, they discovered four mobile phones, multiple clear resealable bags and a clear resealable bag containing powder and pills. Later, when analysed, that last item proved to be 45.62 grams of MDMA.

  3. Somewhat ironically, it turned out that the brown paper bag that police saw being handed over to the man who leant in through the passenger’s side window of Mr Jones’ vehicle did not actually contain any drugs. It was a bag of McDonald’s food.

  4. The offender was charged with an offence of supplying a prohibited drug. He pleaded guilty to that offence, being committed for sentenced on 31 January 2018. He was thus on bail when police went to his premises on 1 March and executed a search warrant. The offender was not home, so police rang him on his mobile and asked if he wished to attend. He said he would, but he did not.

  5. Police searched his premises and discovered a pill press, some chemicals, some metal dyes, and other chemical equipment. Eventually, indeed only a few days later, Mr Jones turned himself into the police station.

  6. It is apparent that what Mr Jones was doing was manufacturing MDMA pills. He said that there were some pills of poor quality which he would grind down to a powder form and then,…

Continue reading R v Jones

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Jones [2018] NSWDC 439
Case
[2018] NSWDC 439
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones involved the defendant, Jones, who was convicted of supplying a prohibited drug, specifically MDMA. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Jones had a history of a neglected childhood and the defence sought to argue that this should be considered in the sentencing process. The central legal issue was whether the Indefinite Care Order (ICO) imposed on Jones remained a sentence of considerable severity, particularly given his background. The court was required to determine the appropriate balance between the severity of the sentence and the mitigating factors presented by Jones's history.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the ICO, and considered whether the severity of the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed. The court acknowledged the significant impact of Jones's neglected childhood on his circumstances but also recognised the seriousness of the offence of supplying a prohibited drug. The court found that while the ICO was a severe sentence, it was not disproportionate given the nature of the offence and the need to protect the community. The court held that the ICO remained a sentence of considerable severity, but one that was warranted in the circumstances.

In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the ICO imposed on Jones, finding that it was a proportionate response to the offence committed. The court recognised the mitigating factors of Jones's background but determined that these did not outweigh the need for a severe sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to protect the community. The final orders included Jones being bailed under section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bailed under s11 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

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.