R v Koekoe - [2012] NSWDC 254

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Koekoe [2012] NSWDC 254
Hearing dates: 12 November 2012
Decision date: 12 November 2012
Before: Sides QC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 6 months with a total term of 16 months. - Matters on s 166 withdrawn and dismissed. - Order the drugs to be destroyed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Discount for guilty plea - Supply - Ecstasy - Ketamine - Methylamphetamine - Amphetamine
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Act 1999.
Cases Cited: R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Cr R 1
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Tiare Koekoe
Representation: C Irani - Crown
W Sandilands - Offender

File Number(s): 2012/205187

Sentence

HIS HONOUR: The Offender Tiare Koekoe appears for sentence consequent upon her pleading guilty on 1 November 2012 to supplying 22.8 grams of ecstasy at Olympic Park on 30 June 2012.

The offence has a maximum penalty of fifteen years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units. There is no standard non parole period and it cannot be dealt with summarily.

The Offender pleaded guilty on arraignment and on the first occasion that the matter came before this Court. In a case a few years ago, the Court of Criminal Appeal [R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Cr R 1] emphasised the need for consistency across the State in the approach to the discount given for the utility of guilty pleas. Here at Parramatta, as the list judge, it is patently obvious that only a tiny percentage of cases committed for trial are resolved by way of a plea of guilty upon arraignment. There are a large number of matters involving offenders who plead guilty in the Local Court and who are committed for sentence. But, of those who are committed for trial, on each Monday somewhere in the order of twenty-five to thirty-three per cent of cases where a trial is due to begin are resolved by way of a guilty plea.

There is a need to encourage such guilty pleas to be entered at a much earlier date. The consequence of this high percentage of matters listed for trial that resolve in guilty pleas on the day of the trial or within the week the trial is listed is that the Court has to over-list the matters that are listed for trial. This sometimes results in matters being marked "not reached", which can involve great expense to the taxpayer and to self-funded litigants. Notwithstanding the need to ensure that the approach is consistent across the jurisdiction, it seems to the Court that there is a need to revisit the percentage of a discount delivered in the usual case where a guilty plea is entered on arraignment.

The only additional thing that occurs, usually between committal for trial and arraignment, is a Crown Prosecutor screens a matter and finds an indictment. The way the cases are conducted here suggests that conferences with complainants and witnesses usually take place at…

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 Koekoe

Details

AGLC: R v Koekoe [2012] NSWDC 254
Case: [2012] NSWDC 254
Decision Date: 12 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Koekoe, the defendant was convicted of multiple drug supply charges and faced sentencing before the Court. The case involved the supply of ecstasy, ketamine, methylamphetamine, and amphetamine. The primary legal issues before the Court were the appropriate sentencing for the offences and the potential discount for the defendant's guilty plea. The Court had to balance the seriousness of the offences with the mitigating factor of the defendant entering a guilty plea early in the proceedings.

The Court considered the nature and extent of the defendant's criminal conduct, including the quantities and types of drugs supplied. The sentencing principles under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 were applied, with particular emphasis on deterrence and the protection of the community. The Court acknowledged the discount for the guilty plea but weighed it against the gravity of the offences and the need for an appropriate punitive and deterrent response. After deliberating on the factors, the Court determined that a sentence of sixteen months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six months, was appropriate. The defendant was to be released to parole on 29 March 2013.

The Court's final orders included a sentence of sixteen months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months, effective from 30 September 2012. The Court also ordered the withdrawal and dismissal of the charge under section 166 and mandated the destruction of the seized drugs. The defendant was to be released to parole on 29 March 2013, subject to the conditions prescribed by the Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Act 1999.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 6 months with a total term of 16 months. - Matters on s 166 withdrawn and dismissed. - Order the drugs to be destroyed

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

Tiare Koekoe, the Court convicts you and sentences you to imprisonment. It fixes a non parole period of six months and a total term of sixteen months to commence on 30 September 2012. The Court orders your release to parole on 29 March 2013. Such parole is to be subject to supervision and further supervision as provided for in the standard conditions of parole, prescribed by the regulations under the Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Act 1999. I have sentenced you to sixteen months with six months non parole commencing on 30 September this year. That means you will be released to parole on 29 March next year and then be on parole for a period of ten months. If, during the ten month period that you are on parole, you commit further offences or breach any other condition of parole, such as not doing as your parole officers direct you, the State Parole Authority will revoke your parole and then you will have to go back to gaol to serve the balance of your sentence. Do you understand? OFFENDER: Yes. HIS HONOUR: The 166 charge is withdrawn and dismissed. I make an order for the destruction of drugs.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Koekoe [2012] NSWDC 254
Hearing dates:	12 November 2012
Decision date:	12 November 2012
Before:	Sides QC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 6 months with a total term of 16 months. - Matters on s 166 withdrawn and dismissed. - Order the drugs to be destroyed
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Discount for guilty plea - Supply - Ecstasy - Ketamine - Methylamphetamine - Amphetamine
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Act 1999.
Cases Cited:	R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Cr R 1
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Tiare Koekoe
Representation:	C Irani - Crown W Sandilands - Offender
File Number(s):	2012/205187