R v Mason - [2022] NSWDC 351

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mason [2022] NSWDC 351
Hearing dates: 13 July 2022
Date of orders: 18 August 2022
Decision date: 18 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [85].

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – knowingly deal with proceeds of crime; supply prohibited drug (commercial quantity).

Legislation Cited:
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Care v R [2021] NSWCCA 101
Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217
Mandranis v R (2021) 289 A Crim R; [2021] NSWCCA 97 260
R v Pullen (2018) 275 A Crim R 509; [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Toole v R [2014] NSWCCA 318
Van Can Ha v R [2008] NSWCCA 141
Williams v R [2014] NSWCCA 57

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Glenn Anthony Mason (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
I. Lloyd QC (Offender)
Solicitors:
M. Wadhera (Crown)

File Number(s): 2021/155963
Publication restriction: Nil.

remarks on sentence

The offender, who was born on 18 February 1962, is to be sentenced in respect of the following two matters:

Supply prohibited drug greater than commercial quantity, pursuant to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”).

The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units. There is a standard non-parole period prescribed of 10 years imprisonment.

Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime pursuant to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The maximum penalty prescribed is 15 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period prescribed.

The offences were committed on 31 May 2021. The offender was arrested the same day and has been in custody since 31 May 2021.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 13 July 2022. The Crown Sentence Summary became Exhibit A. It included a Statement of Agreed Facts, which may be summarised as follows.
In May 2021, NSW Police were authorised to access an encrypted communication platform known as “ANOM” relating to Ian Templeton, pursuant to a Commonwealth surveillance devices warrant. Templeton was monitored in relation to the supply of one kilogram of cocaine, which was to take place on the Northern Beaches of Sydney on Monday 31 May 2021.
At 8.40am that morning, Templeton was observed to leave his home and travel to Terrey Hills, where he met the offender. They were observed in conversation for several minutes and walked to a car park. Upon return to Templeton’s vehicle, the offender was overheard to say, “I’m just paranoid. That’s all.” Templeton responded, “Yeah, I know you are mate.” An exchange then took place at a nearby location where the offender’s vehicle was parked. They were both observed to lean in and out of the offender’s vehicle before Templeton returned…

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 Mason

Details

AGLC: R v Mason [2022] NSWDC 351
Case: [2022] NSWDC 351
Decision Date: 18 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mason, the appellant, Mr. Mason, faced charges related to his involvement in dealing with the proceeds of crime and the supply of a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence handed down by the lower court.

The central legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Mr. Mason. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the original sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the appellant's criminal conduct, and whether an alternative form of punishment, such as an Intensive Correction Order (ICO), would be more suitable.

The court determined that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of Mr. Mason's criminal activities. In considering the nature of the offences, the court emphasised the appellant's involvement in the supply of a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity, which demonstrated a significant level of criminal conduct. The court further noted the appellant's prior criminal history, which included multiple drug-related offences. However, the court also took into account the appellant's expressed willingness to participate in an ICO and his potential for rehabilitation. Consequently, the court decided that an ICO would be a more appropriate form of punishment, as it would provide Mr. Mason with an opportunity to address the underlying causes of his criminal behaviour while also serving his sentence.

The court ultimately determined that the original sentence should be replaced with an ICO. The specific terms and conditions of the ICO are outlined in the court's orders, which can be found in paragraph [85] of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. 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 Mason [2022] NSWDC 351
Hearing dates:	13 July 2022
Date of orders:	18 August 2022
Decision date:	18 August 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [85].
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – knowingly deal with proceeds of crime; supply prohibited drug (commercial quantity).
Legislation Cited:	Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Care v R [2021] NSWCCA 101 Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217 Mandranis v R (2021) 289 A Crim R; [2021] NSWCCA 97 260 R v Pullen (2018) 275 A Crim R 509; [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Toole v R [2014] NSWCCA 318 Van Can Ha v R [2008] NSWCCA 141 Williams v R [2014] NSWCCA 57
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Glenn Anthony Mason (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: I. Lloyd QC (Offender) Solicitors: M. Wadhera (Crown)
File Number(s):	2021/155963
Publication restriction:	Nil.