District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lewis [2018] NSWDC 522 Hearing dates: 10-14 September, 17-21 September, 30 November Date of orders: 14 December 2018 Decision date: 14 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: 12 years NPP 9 years
Catchwords: CRIME. SENTENCE.
Offender found guilty by a jury of manufacturing a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. Offender part of a joint criminal enterprise. Role of offender considered.
PARITY. Another offender who pleaded guilty sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, NPP 6 years 9 months. That offender suffered personal injuries which were accepted to be extra-curial punishment and was remorseful.Legislation Cited: Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (The Crown)
Mark Brett Lewis (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
A. Metcalfe (Crown)
R. Webb (Offender)
File Number(s): 2016/00019543 Publication restriction: Nil.
Sentence
-
HIS HONOUR: Mark Brett Lewis stands for sentence as a consequence of having been convicted by a jury of a charge to which he pleaded not guilty. The charge was that between 27 December 2015 and 30 December 2015 at East Kurrajong in this State he did manufacture 13.059 kilograms of methylamphetamine which was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug. The jury was empanelled and the trial commenced on Monday, 10 September 2018. The first evidence was given on the following day. The jury returned its verdict on Friday, 21 September 2018. A note sent by the jury to me telling me that they had reached their verdict, was received by me at 5.01pm. The Crown then made a detention application which was not opposed by the offender. The offender has been in custody since that time.
-
The salient facts are fairly clear. The offender was employed by the Hawkesbury City Council at its waste water depot at South Windsor. His supervisor was Michael Patrick Stewart. Mr Stewart was the owner and occupier at all relevant times of a property known as 744 East Kurrajong Road, East Kurrajong. That is a large residential landholding slightly less than 1 acre. It contains a three bedroom conventional single storey bungalow with a carport annexed to it. Erected elsewhere on the property was what has been described as a shed but was more properly described as a double steel garage. It appears not to have been used by Mr Stewart as a garage but as a shed for storage of items and for use, for example, as a place in which pool could be played on a pool table which was found in it.
-
The offender and Mr Stewart had worked together at the Hawkesbury City Council from approximately 2010. Not only were they work colleagues but they had a social relationship. According to Mr Stewart, he was asked by the offender whether he would lend his shed to enable a friend or mate of the offender to store some equipment. In his evidence Mr Stewart was asked what the arrangement was about the material to be stored in his…
Continue reading R v Lewis
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lewis [2018] NSWDC 522
- Case
- [2018] NSWDC 522
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were the appropriate weight to be given to parity when sentencing an offender, and the role of the offender in the joint criminal enterprise. The offender argued that the sentence of another offender who pleaded guilty and received a sentence of 9 years imprisonment, non-parole period 6 years 9 months, should be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. The offender also argued that they played a minor role in the joint criminal enterprise.
The court considered the principle of parity and noted that the sentence of the other offender was not determinative of the appropriate sentence for the offender in this case. The court also considered the role of the offender in the joint criminal enterprise and found that the offender played a significant role in the manufacture of the methylamphetamine. The court determined that the appropriate sentence for the offender was 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years. The court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending, the need for general deterrence, and the need to protect the community. The offender's appeal against sentence was dismissed and the original sentence was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
12 years NPP 9 years
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.