R v M

Case [2005] NSWCCA 224 16 June 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
R v M [2005] NSWCCA 224

HEARING DATE(S): 16/06/2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

16 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
James J at 34; Buddin J at 1; Rothman J at 35

DECISION:
Grant leave to appeal. Allow the appeals against the sentences imposed in the District Court. Quash the sentences imposed and in lieu thereof in respect of each offence sentence the applicant to a non-parole period of 2 years with a total term of 4 years. In respect of the offence of supply a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine order that the non-parole and the total sentence commence on 9 August 2004. In respect of the offence of supply a commercial quantity of ecstasy order that the non-parole period and total sentence commence on 9 August 2005. The overall non-parole period will thus expire on 8 August 2007 at which time the applicant will be eligible for release on parole. The total term will expire on 8 August 2009.

CATCHWORDS:
Sentence - supply of commercial quantities of prohibited drugs - assistance to the authorities - partial accumulation of sentence

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AMT [2005] NSWCCA 151
R v Davies [2004] NSWCCA 39
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v NP [2003] NSWCCA 195
R v OPA [2004] NSWCCA 464
R v Pang (1998) 105 A Crim R 474
R v Way [2004] 60 NSWLR 168
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 196 ALR 451

PARTIES:
Regina
M (Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/607

COUNSEL:
P Barrett (Crown)
S Odgers SC (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Crown)
WM Bruce Associates (Applicant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/11/0152

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Berman DCJ

2005/607

JAMES J
BUDDIN J
ROTHMAN J
THURSDAY 16 JUNE 2005

R v M

Judgment

1 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him in the District Court. The applicant entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court to two separate offences of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug between 10 April 2003 and 1 August 2003. One charge related to the supply of methylamphetamine and the other to the supply of ecstasy. He adhered to those pleas when he appeared for sentence in the District Court.

2 In respect of each matter the applicant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years with a total term of 5 years imprisonment. The sentence for the latter offence (which related to the supply of ecstasy) was ordered to commence a year after the commencement of the earlier offence. The total effective non-parole period is thus one of 4 years with the total overall term of imprisonment being one of 6 years. Each offence attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or a substantial pecuniary penalty.

3 The applicant requested that two further offences, which appeared on a Form 1 document, be…

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 M

Details

AGLC: R v M [2005] NSWCCA 224
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 224
Decision Date: 16 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v M, the respondent pleaded guilty to the supply of commercial quantities of prohibited drugs. M's case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court needed to consider the seriousness of the offence, M's criminal history, and the extent of their cooperation with law enforcement. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether M's cooperation warranted a partial accumulation of the sentence, which would result in a lesser penalty.

The court examined M's level of involvement in the drug supply operation, their criminal history, and the extent to which they had assisted the authorities in dismantling the operation. The judge noted that M's cooperation had led to the arrest of other individuals involved in the drug trade and the seizure of a significant amount of drugs. In light of this, the court considered whether M's assistance should be rewarded with a partial accumulation of sentence, effectively reducing the time M would spend in prison.

The court ultimately decided that M's cooperation with law enforcement warranted a partial accumulation of sentence. The judge acknowledged the substantial impact of M's assistance in disrupting the drug trade and preventing further criminal activity. The court imposed a sentence that reflected M's cooperation, resulting in a reduced prison term. The final orders of the court were that M be sentenced to a specified number of years in prison, with credit given for the partial accumulation of sentence based on their cooperation with the authorities.

Orders