R v Michael Peter Christiansen - [2011] NSWSC 840

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Michael Peter Christiansen [2011] NSWSC 840
Hearing dates: 8 November 2010, 21 February; 3 June; 14th June 2011
Decision date: 29 July 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Latham J
Decision:
On count 1 on the indictment, a non parole period of 15 years and 3 months to date from 16 March 2011, expiring 15 June 2026, with a balance of term of 5 years and 9 months expiring 15 March 2032.
On count 2 on the indictment, a fixed term of one year and 8 months imprisonment, to date from 16 December 2008, expiring 15 August 2010.
On count 3 on the indictment, a non parole period of 5 years to date from 16 December 2008, expiring 15 December 2013, with a balance of term of one year and 7 months, expiring 15 July 2015.
On count 4 on the indictment, a non parole period of 2 years and 3 months to date from 16 December 2008, expiring 15 March 2011, with a balance of term of 2 years and 2 months, expiring 15 May 2013.
The offender is eligible for release on 16 June 2026.
I order that the drugs the subject of the offences be destroyed; save for the 2985.5 grams methylamphetamine the subject of Count 3 on the Indictment"
Dismissed charged H36016379/11 - Possess Prohibited Drug (2985.5g methylamphetamine and H36016379/32 - Possess Prohibited drug 327.58g cocaine ) 0 back up under s 167(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Act.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - late guilty plea - offence above mid range of objective seriousness - offender hired to provide protection for a drug deal - possess firearm - supply large commercial quantity of methtylamphetamine - amendment of indictment to reflect correct law part code - supply cocaine - discount for assistance to authorities - expression of remorse and sound prospects of rehabilitation - no finding of special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Warby v R [2007] NSWCCA 173
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Offender - Michael Peter Christiansen
Representation: Crown - CK Maxwell QC
Offender - MC Ramage SC
Crown - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Offender - Michael Croke & Co

File Number(s): 2009/146069

SENTENCE

On 8 November 2010, the offender, Michael Peter Christiansen, pleaded guilty to four offences, namely that he did murder Paul Elliott on 6 December 2008, that he did possess a shortened firearm without being authorised to do so on 16 December 2008, that he did supply 2985.5 gms of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) on 16 December 2008 and that he did supply 327.58 gms of a prohibited drug (cocaine) on 16 December 2008. The offender was convicted of each of those offences on that date.

There are a further 21 offences on a Form One that the offender wishes to have taken into account when sentenced in respect of the murder…

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 Peter Christiansen

Details

AGLC: R v Michael Peter Christiansen [2011] NSWSC 840
Case: [2011] NSWSC 840
Decision Date: 29 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Michael Peter Christiansen involved the defendant, who was charged with various drug-related offences and murder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Christiansen was initially charged with supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and possessing a firearm. However, the charges were amended to include the supply of cocaine, and the indictment was altered to reflect the correct law part code. The crux of the legal issues revolved around the sentencing of Christiansen for his crimes, particularly the murder charge, given his late guilty plea and the various factors that needed to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.

The court had to consider several factors in sentencing Christiansen, including the late guilty plea, the objective seriousness of the offences, and the circumstances surrounding the murder. The court also had to assess the impact of Christiansen's assistance to the authorities and his expression of remorse on the sentencing. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the prospects of rehabilitation against the need for deterrence and denunciation. The defence argued for a discount in sentence due to Christiansen's assistance to the authorities and his remorse, while the prosecution emphasised the gravity of the crimes committed. The court ultimately determined that the offences were above the mid-range of objective seriousness and that the late guilty plea warranted a higher starting point for sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that while there were mitigating factors such as Christiansen's assistance to the authorities and his expression of remorse, these did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences. The court acknowledged that Christiansen had sound prospects of rehabilitation but emphasised the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also noted that there were no special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the normal sentence for the offences. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes and the mitigating factors, without making a finding of special circumstances. The final orders of the court were communicated in the judgment, detailing the specific sentence imposed on Christiansen for his various offences.

Orders