R v MRN

Case [2006] NSWCCA 155 18 May 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: MRN v R [2006] NSWCCA 155

HEARING DATE(S): 14 March 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 May 2006

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; James J at 2; Simpson J at 3

DECISION: leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; applicant re-sentenced: Count 1: imprisonment for four years, commencing on 10 October 2003, and expiring on 9 October 2007, with a non-parole period of three years expiring on 9 October 2006; Count 4: imprisonment for three years, commencing on 10 October 2003, and expiring on 9 October 2006, with a non-parole period of two years expiring on 9 October 2005; Count 6: (taking into account the Form 1 offences) imprisonment for seven years commencing on 10 October 2004, and expiring on 9 October 2011, with a non-parole period of four years expiring on 9 October 2008; Counts 8, 9 and 10: imprisonment for five years commencing on 10 October 2003, and expiring on 9 October 2008, with a non-parole period of three and a half years expiring on 9 April 2007; The aggregate sentence is of a head sentence of eight years with a non-parole period of five years. The earliest date on which the applicant would be eligible for release on parole is 9 October 2008.

CATCHWORDS: application for leave to appeal against severity of sentences - pleas of guilty to six drug charges - further Form 1 offences taken into account - posession of pre-cursor intended for use by another person in manufacture of prohibited drug - supply cannabis - ongoing supply methylamphetamine, MDMA, lysergic acid, cocaine - very serious course of criminal conduct - offence called for substantial period of full-time custody - subjective circumstances - assistance to authorities - assistance of limited value - bail granted for rehabilitation purposes - protracted proceedings - treatment of delay in sentencing - assumption that delays were entirely attributable to applicant - evidence of rehabilitation - extent of rehabilitation - finding of no special circumstances - 5,200 intercepted telephone calls and SMS messages recorded - error of fact in respect of telephone calls - not evident that all telephone calls and text messages related to drug dealing - error in approach to assistance to authorities - not significant - sentences imposed within the range available for drug dealing on the scale engaged in - treatment of delay unfair to applicant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Part 3 Division 3, s11, s21A, s23, s44(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s5D
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s3, s24A, s25A, s29

CASES CITED: R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121; 106 A Crim R 303
R v Douar [2005] NSWCCA 455
R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267
R v Gay [2002] NSWCCA 6
R v Hoon; R v Pouoa [2000] NSWCCA 137
R v Johnson [2005] NSWCCA 186
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; 134 A Crim R 174
R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Smiroldo [2000]…

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 MRN

Details

AGLC: MRN v R [2006] NSWCCA 155
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 155
Decision Date: 18 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v MRN, the appellant sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed upon him following his guilty pleas to six drug charges. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, MRN, was convicted of possessing a precursor intended for use by another person in the manufacture of a prohibited drug, supplying cannabis, and engaging in the ongoing supply of methylamphetamine, MDMA, lysergic acid, and cocaine. The cumulative effect of the appellant's criminal conduct warranted a substantial period of full-time custody, but the subjective circumstances, including the appellant's limited assistance to the authorities and his participation in a rehabilitation program while on bail, were considered.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were unduly severe, taking into account the subjective circumstances of the appellant. The court had to assess the extent of the appellant's rehabilitation efforts, the value of his assistance to the authorities, and the impact of the delays in sentencing on the appellant. The court also needed to determine if the sentences imposed were within the appropriate range for the drug dealing offenses committed by the appellant. After thorough consideration, the court concluded that the sentences were not excessively severe and did not warrant leave to appeal. The court found that the appellant's rehabilitation efforts and assistance to the authorities were of limited value, and the sentences imposed were within the appropriate range for the scale of drug dealing engaged in by the appellant.

The court's reasoning focused on the seriousness of the offenses committed, the appellant's lack of meaningful assistance to the authorities, and the evidence of his rehabilitation efforts. The court did not find the appellant's delay in sentencing to be entirely attributable to him and noted that the sentences imposed were within the range available for the offenses. The court ultimately determined that there were no special circumstances that warranted an appeal against the severity of the sentences. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors and a thorough analysis of the appellant's subjective circumstances. The appeal against the severity of the sentences was dismissed.

Orders