R v Julian Edward Abraham

Case [2016] NSWDC 106


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Julian Edward Abraham [2016] NSWDC 106
Hearing dates:26 May 2016
Decision date: 10 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [64] to [66]

Catchwords: Three offences of supply prohibited drugs; co-offender; aggregate sentence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Briouzguine v R [2014] NSWCCA 264
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184
R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41
R v Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Julian Abraham (Offender)
Representation:

Solicitor:
K Stanley (Crown)

  Counsel:
J Glissan QC (Offender)
File Number(s):15/251798
Publication restriction:Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender was committed for sentence on 10 December 2015 from Queanbeyan Local Court on the following three charges, to which he had entered a plea of guilty:

  1. Supply prohibited drug – large commercial quantity of MDMA pursuant to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”).

The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000.00. There is a standard non-parole period of 15 years imprisonment.

  1. Supply prohibited drug – commercial quantity of cocaine pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA.

The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000.00. There is a standard non-parole period of 10 years imprisonment.

  1. Supply prohibited drug – methylamphetamine pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA.

The maximum penalty for the offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $220,000.00.

  1. The offences occurred on 27 August 2015 in the circumstances described below. The three charges are in common to three of the offences of a co‑accused, Mr Benjamin Miles.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place at Queanbeyan District Court on 26 May 2015. The Crown bundle became Ex A. It included a Statement of Agreed Facts, which may be summarised as follows.

  2. The offender was born on 9 April 1990 and was 25 years of age at the time of the offending.

  3. In June 2015, New South Wales Police conducted a controlled operation in relation to the supply of prohibited drugs involving the co-offender, Benjamin Miles. At about 12.45pm on 27 August 2015, the offender met with the co‑offender at a McDonalds restaurant in Cooma. Both men were observed to leave the restaurant and drive in separate vehicles to the Bullocks Flat Ski Tube Station where the offender parked in car park A, whereas the co-offender parked his vehicle in car park B. A meeting then took place between the co‑offender and a female known to police in respect of the supply of prohibited drugs. Following that conversation, the co-offender walked to the vehicle occupied by the offender, and the offender then drove that vehicle to car park B, where the co-offender exited the vehicle…

Continue reading R v Julian Edward Abraham

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Julian Edward Abraham [2016] NSWDC 106
Case
[2016] NSWDC 106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Julian Edward Abraham, was charged with three separate instances of supplying a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine. The case was heard in the District Court of Western Australia, presided over by His Honour Judge Slattery. The respondent pleaded guilty to all charges and the matter proceeded to sentencing.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the respondent's crimes and the manner in which the sentences should be aggregated. The court had to consider the respondent's criminal history, the circumstances of the offences, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in the relevant legislation.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court examined the respondent's criminal history, which included previous convictions for drug-related offences. The court also considered the gravity of the current offences, including the quantity of drugs involved and the potential harm to the community. The court found that the respondent was a significant supplier of methylamphetamine and had played a key role in the distribution chain. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message against drug trafficking. After considering all relevant factors, the court decided on a full-time custodial sentence. The specific details of the sentence, including the length and any fines, are outlined in the orders section of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [64] to [66]

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.