R v Mackie - [2021] NSWDC 94

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mackie [2021] NSWDC 94
Hearing dates: 14 December 2020
Date of orders: 29 January 2021
Decision date: 29 January 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence imposed one of 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Detain for advantage
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug
CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 86(2)(a)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(2)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 3A
Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW) s 18B

Cases Cited:
Bullock v R [2016] NSWCCA 131
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mati Mackie (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Graham (Crown)
Mr Robinson (Offender)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 2019/231295; 2020/79086
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

Introduction

The offender Mati Mackie is to be sentenced, having pleaded guilty to the following offences. On 13 April 2018, he did without the consent of Shaynaya Fitzpatrick with the intention of obtaining an advantage, namely, information relating to Paul Fitzpatrick, did detain her, while he was in the company of Joseph Shanahan, Jarrod Moran and James Veatufunga. That is a common offence with the offender Mr Moran and the offender Mr Veatufunga. I have just sentenced Mr Moran and I will sentence Mr Veatufunga a little later. It is an offence under s 86(2)(a) of the Crimes Act and has a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and there is no applicable non-parole period.
The offender is also to be sentenced for an offence that on 11 March 2020 he supplied a prohibited drug, namely, 499.8 grams of cocaine being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug. That is an offence under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and has a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of ten years.
The offender also acknowledges his guilt in relation to a possess prohibited drug offence, the possession of 7.87 grams of Stanozolol and asks that I take that offence into account on a Form 1 when sentencing him on the supply prohibited drug offence. Given the amount of drug, the subject of the Form 1 offence, it has a very limited effect upon the sentence I will impose on the supply of prohibited drug offence.
I understand there is a back-up offence related to the supply prohibited drug offence on a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act which is to be withdrawn and dismissed upon the completion of these remarks on sentence.

The Facts

The facts in relation to each of the offences are agreed and the following is taken from the agreed facts.

Detain offence

The victim in the matter is Shaynaya Fitzpatrick, a woman who…

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 Mackie

Details

AGLC: R v Mackie [2021] NSWDC 94
Case: [2021] NSWDC 94
Decision Date: 29 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in this case, Mackie, was charged with multiple offences including deprivation of liberty, supply and possession of a prohibited drug. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Mackie appealed against his conviction and sentence on the basis that the trial judge had misdirected himself in relation to the sentence.

The central legal issues were whether the trial judge had erred in failing to discount the sentences for the deprivation of liberty and drug supply charges and whether the sentence was excessive. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of cumulative sentencing and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court held that the trial judge had indeed misdirected himself by not discounting the sentences for the deprivation of liberty and drug supply charges. However, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive despite the error. The appeal was dismissed, but the sentence was reduced to an aggregate of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.

The court ordered that the sentence be reduced as specified, with no further appeal to be taken against the conviction or sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence imposed one of 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months.

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 Mackie [2021] NSWDC 94
Hearing dates:	14 December 2020
Date of orders:	29 January 2021
Decision date:	29 January 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence imposed one of 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Detain for advantage CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 86(2)(a) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(2) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 3A Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW) s 18B
Cases Cited:	Bullock v R [2016] NSWCCA 131 BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mati Mackie (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Graham (Crown) Mr Robinson (Offender) Solicitors:
File Number(s):	2019/231295; 2020/79086
Publication restriction:	Nil