R v Louis Foster - [2017] NSWDC 120

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Louis Foster [2017] NSWDC 120
Hearing dates: 18 May 2017
Decision date: 24 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [85]

Catchwords: Supply prohibited drugs, two offences; take part in supply of prohibited drugs
Legislation Cited: Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36
Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157
Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260
Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Nguyen [2015] NSWCCA 268
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Louis Foster (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
C Morgan (Crown)
C Mendez (Offender)

File Number(s): 16/70304
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender is to be sentenced in respect of three counts as follows:

Sequence 1 – Take part in supply of an amount of a prohibited drug, namely, 31.5 kilograms of cannabis, being an amount which is not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug, pursuant to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”).

The maximum penalty for the offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units.

Sequence 3 – Take part in supply of a prohibited drug, namely, 28 grams of cocaine, pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA.

The maximum penalty for the offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units.

Sequence 8 – Supply prohibited drug, namely, 6.605 kilograms of cannabis, pursuant to 25(1) of the DMTA.

The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units.

The offender has asked to be taken into account three matters on a Form 1, each of which occurred between 15 September 2015 and 4 March 2016. They are:

Sequence 5 – Agree to supply 8.538 kilograms of cannabis.

Sequence 6 – Offer to supply 928 grams of cannabis.

Sequence 10 – Agree to supply 4.5 grams of cocaine on four occasions.

The offender was arrested on 4 March 2016 and spent one month, two weeks and three days in custody until he was released on bail on 21 April 2016.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 18 May 2017 at Wagga Wagga. The Crown Sentence Summary (Ex A) included a Statement of Agreed Facts, which may be summarised as follows.
In December 2015, police established a strike force to investigate drug supply by the offender. Investigations revealed that the offender sourced cannabis from a male in Yass. It was then transported from Yass to Wagga Wagga where the offender would supply other people with the drug from his home at Lake Albert.
On 28 January 2016, the offender was arrested for failing a roadside drug test. Whilst he was in custody, police accessed…

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 Louis Foster

Details

AGLC: R v Louis Foster [2017] NSWDC 120
Case: [2017] NSWDC 120
Decision Date: 24 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Louis Foster was heard. The defendant, Louis Foster, was charged with two counts of supplying a prohibited drug and one count of participating in the supply of a prohibited drug. The offences occurred in 2021 and were prosecuted under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalties for these serious drug-related offences.

The legal issues before the court were the nature and severity of the offences, as well as the appropriate sentencing principles to apply. The defence argued for a non-custodial sentence, citing the defendant’s personal circumstances and previous good character. The prosecution, however, urged the court to impose a custodial sentence due to the seriousness of the crimes and the need for general deterrence. The court had to balance these arguments and consider the relevant statutory provisions and sentencing principles.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the gravity of the offences and the defendant’s active role in the supply of prohibited drugs. The court considered the statutory maximum penalties for each offence and the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes. The court found that a non-custodial sentence would not adequately address the community’s need for deterrence and protection. Consequently, the court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary. The court imposed a sentence that took into account the totality of the defendant’s offending and his personal circumstances, ultimately deciding on a term of imprisonment that balanced punitive and rehabilitative objectives.

The orders made by the court included a full-time custodial sentence. Further details of the sentence and any associated orders can be found at [85] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [85]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Louis Foster [2017] NSWDC 120
Hearing dates:	18 May 2017
Decision date:	24 May 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [85]
Catchwords:	Supply prohibited drugs, two offences; take part in supply of prohibited drugs
Legislation Cited:	Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159 Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36 Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157 Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Nguyen [2015] NSWCCA 268
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Louis Foster (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: C Morgan (Crown) C Mendez (Offender)
File Number(s):	16/70304
Publication restriction:	Nil