R v Mackay - [2020] NSWDC 230

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mackay [2020] NSWDC 230
Hearing dates: 14 May 2020
Date of orders: 22 May 2020
Decision date: 22 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:
See [58-59]

Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Manufacture prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Newman (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 157
R v Wylie NSWDC 2020
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mackay (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms Oliver for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Cochrane for the Accused.

File Number(s): 2018/003938192018/00393819
Publication restriction: Unrestricted Unrestricted

Contents

Judgment

Introduction

Form 1 procedure

Standard non-parole period

The facts and objective seriousness

Count 1. Section 93T (4A) direct activities of a criminal group

Counts 2, 3, and 4: supply large commercial quantity of MDA pills x 2 and MDMA pills x 1

Count 5 supply commercial quantity of cocaine

Count 6 supply commercial quantity of MDa pills

Counts 7, 8, and 9; deemed supply of a commercial quantity of MDA; possess proceeds of crime and possess unregistered firearms

Section 21A.

Subjective case

Psych report
Testimonials
Guilty plea
Criminal history
Likelihood of reoffending
Remorse and contrition
Prospects
Conclusion on subjective case

Parity

Totality

Special circumstances

Sentencing considerations

Indicative sentences

Orders

Judgment

Introduction

The offender appears for sentence on 9 charges. One of them is a charge of direct activities of a criminal group and another is the possession of more than 3 unregistered firearms. A third is dealing with proceeds of crime in the very modest amount of $1580. The remaining 6 are very serious charges of supplying large commercial quantity (3 counts) and supplying a commercial quantity (3 counts) of prohibited drugs. In respect of the count of directing the activities of a criminal group the maximum sentence is 15 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. For the large commercial quantity supply charges the maximum sentence is life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years. For the supply commercial quantity charges the maximum sentence is 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 10 years. For the firearms charge the maximum sentence is 20 years of the standard non-parole period of 10 years. The possess proceeds of crime charge has a 15 year maximum sentence of imprisonment and no standard non-parole period.

Form 1 procedure

There are also 3 charges to be dealt with by way of the form 1 procedure. In respect of count 2 which is a charge of supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug the form one matter is to supply a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. In respect of count 4 it is a charge of supplying a prohibited drug in a large commercial quantity…

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 Mackay

Details

AGLC: R v Mackay [2020] NSWDC 230
Case: [2020] NSWDC 230
Decision Date: 22 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mackay involved the prosecution of the appellant, Mr. Mackay, for drug manufacturing offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the appellant challenged the conviction and sentence imposed for producing a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The central issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in the manufacturing of the prohibited substance and whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Primarily, the court had to assess the sufficiency of the evidence presented to establish the appellant's involvement in the drug manufacturing operation. The court also had to consider the correct application of statutory provisions regarding drug manufacturing and whether the sentence imposed was just and proportionate to the crime committed. Furthermore, the court needed to address the appellant's arguments regarding the alleged unfairness in the trial process, including the handling of evidence and the direction given to the jury.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the appellant's involvement in the manufacturing operation beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence, including expert testimonies and the appellant's own statements, established a clear link between the appellant and the drug manufacturing activities. The court further held that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the large-scale nature of the operation. The court rejected the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness, finding that the trial had been conducted in accordance with legal principles and that the jury had been adequately directed. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [58-59]

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 Mackay [2020] NSWDC 230
Hearing dates:	14 May 2020
Date of orders:	22 May 2020
Decision date:	22 May 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:	See [58-59]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Manufacture prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 Newman (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 157 R v Wylie NSWDC 2020 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Mackay (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Oliver for the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Cochrane for the Accused.
File Number(s):	2018/003938192018/00393819
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted Unrestricted