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 1985Cases 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 1Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Julian Abraham (Offender)Representation: Solicitor:
Counsel:
K Stanley (Crown)
J Glissan QC (Offender)
File Number(s): 15/251798 Publication restriction: Nil
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
The offender was born on 9 April 1990 and was 25 years of age at the time of the offending.
-
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
- AGLC
- R v Julian Edward Abraham [2016] NSWDC 106
- Case
- [2016] NSWDC 106
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.