R v Mott - [2022] NSWDC 204

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mott [2022] NSWDC 204
Hearing dates: 6 June 2022
Date of orders: 6 June 2022
Decision date: 06 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:
Orders at [48].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – knowingly take part in supply of prohibited drug (commercial quantity) – drone used to transport drugs over the Murray River during COVID-19 border closures – limited criminal history – strong subjective case – history of drug addiction – medium risk of reoffending – remorse demonstrated – form 1 offences –

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Blanch v R [2019] NSWCCA 304
Hanh Thi Nguyen v R [2011] NSWCCA 92
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
Mourtada v R [2021] NSWCCA 211
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
R v Calcutt [2012] NSWCCA 40
R v Fabian (1992) 64 A Crim R 365
R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Pickett [2010] NSWCCA 273

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Brooke Dee Mott
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Chapman (offender)
Solicitors:
Ms S Norman (Crown)
Mr M Rogers (offender)

File Number(s): 2021/00050911
Publication restriction: Nil

Ex Tempore Judgment

Introduction

Brooke Mott is to be sentenced for a charge of knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely, 336 grams of methylamphetamine, an amount not less than the commercial quantity, contrary to section 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 10 years’ imprisonment.
The maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods are an important guidepost in the assessment of sentence. A sentencing judge should steer by, but not aim for them.
The offender also asks that I take into account pursuant to section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 two further charges listed on a Form 1. They are: knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, and dealing with the proceeds of crime contrary to section 193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offences on the form 1 are referable to sequence 6, the charge of knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (commercial quantity).
I note that having availed herself of this arrangement, the offender has the benefit of not facing separate punishment for the additional offences. I have reviewed the principles enunciated in Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518.
The Court is to impose a sentence for the totality of the criminality before it, reflected in both the offence for which the offender is to be sentenced and the offences taken into account. This may…

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 Mott

Details

AGLC: R v Mott [2022] NSWDC 204
Case: [2022] NSWDC 204
Decision Date: 06 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mott involved the defendant being charged with engaging in the supply of a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity. The particular circumstances of the case included the use of a drone to transport the drugs over the Murray River during the COVID-19 border closures. The matter was heard in the relevant court. The defendant had a limited criminal history but there was a strong subjective case against them, coupled with a history of drug addiction. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the risk of reoffending and the defendant's demonstrated remorse.

The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who was found guilty of multiple form 1 offences. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the use of a drone to circumvent border restrictions, the quantity of drugs involved, and the defendant's personal background. The court also had to weigh the defendant's limited criminal history and demonstrated remorse against the significant nature of the offence and the risk of reoffending.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the innovative method used to transport the drugs. However, it also considered the defendant's limited criminal history, their history of drug addiction, and their demonstrated remorse. The court found that the defendant posed a medium risk of reoffending. After balancing these factors, the court decided that the appropriate sentence was one that reflected both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating personal circumstances of the defendant. The court outlined the specific orders to be made at [48].

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders at [48].

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 Mott [2022] NSWDC 204
Hearing dates:	6 June 2022
Date of orders:	6 June 2022
Decision date:	06 June 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Grant DCJ
Decision:	Orders at [48].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – knowingly take part in supply of prohibited drug (commercial quantity) – drone used to transport drugs over the Murray River during COVID-19 border closures – limited criminal history – strong subjective case – history of drug addiction – medium risk of reoffending – remorse demonstrated – form 1 offences –
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Blanch v R [2019] NSWCCA 304 Hanh Thi Nguyen v R [2011] NSWCCA 92 Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 Mourtada v R [2021] NSWCCA 211 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 R v Calcutt [2012] NSWCCA 40 R v Fabian (1992) 64 A Crim R 365 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Pickett [2010] NSWCCA 273
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Brooke Dee Mott
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Chapman (offender) Solicitors: Ms S Norman (Crown) Mr M Rogers (offender)
File Number(s):	2021/00050911
Publication restriction:	Nil