R v Michael Corbett - [2016] NSWDC 61

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Michael Corbett [2016] NSWDC 61
Hearing dates: 27 April 2016
Decision date: 29 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full time custodial sentence imposed.
For Orders see [56]

Catchwords: Sentencing – ongoing supply prohibited drugs
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited: EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36
Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217
Knight v R [2015] NSWCCA 222
Lam v R [2014] NSWCCA 50
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Cahyadi (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
R v Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55
R v Elfar [2003] NSWCA 358
R v Hide [2003] NSWCCA 371
R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Michael Corbett (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
A Meredith (Crown)
M King (Offender)

File Number(s): 15/179096
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender was committed for sentence on 3 February 2016 from Wagga Wagga Local Court on one charge of ongoing supply, pursuant to s 25A of the Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (“DMTA”). The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units. There is no standard non-parole period.
In addition, the offender has asked that two matters be taken into account on a Form 1. They are as follows:

Sequence 1 – Supply 0.14 grams of methylamphetamine and;

Sequence 2 – Supply 0.11 grams of methylamphetamine.

The sentence hearing

At the sentence hearing on 27 April 2016, the Crown Bundle (Ex A) included an Agreed Statement of Facts. That Statement related to 11 occasions when the offender supplied methylamphetamine to undercover police between 23 April 2015 and 15 June 2015 in Wagga Wagga. The offender was arrested on 17 June 2015 and remained in custody from that date until 3 October 2015 (3 months and 17 days).

The circumstances of the offending

A police operation known as Strikeforce CALYX was established to investigate drug supply activities in Wagga Wagga in February 2015. As part of that operation, two female undercover police officers met with a female person on 23 April 2015, and she took them to premises in Wagga to meet the offender. The offender told them to return later in the day, as he was receiving a supply of ice that day. Later that day, the undercover officers gave the female person $200 and she then approached the offender and gave him $200. The offender left the location and returned approximately one hour later and supplied a substance which was found to be 0.14 grams of methylamphetamine. This was the conduct that comprised sequence 1 on the Form 1.
On Friday 24 April 2015, the two female undercover police officers again met with the third person, and all three attended the same premises in Wagga. The third person was supplied with $200 to purchase 2 points of methylamphetamine. She entered the premises and a short time later exited…

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 Michael Corbett

Details

AGLC: R v Michael Corbett [2016] NSWDC 61
Case: [2016] NSWDC 61
Decision Date: 29 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Corbett was before the court for sentencing following a conviction for ongoing supply of prohibited drugs. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter future criminal behaviour. The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the offence's seriousness, the offender's culpability, and the principles of sentencing applicable to ongoing drug supply. The court considered the nature of the drugs supplied, the extent of the offender's involvement, and the potential harm caused to the community.

In determining the sentence, the court placed significant weight on the offender's role in the supply chain and the potential for significant community harm. The court also took into account the offender's previous criminal history and the need for general deterrence. The principles of proportionality and the need to protect the community were paramount in the court's reasoning. The court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the gravity of the offence and to ensure public safety.

The court imposed a full-time custodial sentence, reflecting the severity of the offender's actions and the need to deter others from engaging in similar criminal activity. The specific details of the sentence, including the length and conditions, were outlined in the final orders. The court's decision emphasised the importance of holding offenders accountable for their actions and the critical role of the criminal justice system in protecting society from the harms associated with drug supply.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence imposed.

For Orders see [56]

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 Michael Corbett [2016] NSWDC 61
Hearing dates:	27 April 2016
Decision date:	29 April 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full time custodial sentence imposed. For Orders see [56]
Catchwords:	Sentencing – ongoing supply prohibited drugs
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited:	EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36 Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217 Knight v R [2015] NSWCCA 222 Lam v R [2014] NSWCCA 50 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Cahyadi (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 R v Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55 R v Elfar [2003] NSWCA 358 R v Hide [2003] NSWCCA 371 R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Michael Corbett (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: A Meredith (Crown) M King (Offender)
File Number(s):	15/179096
Publication restriction:	Nil