R v Norton - [2022] NSWDC 468

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Norton [2022] NSWDC 468
Hearing dates: 3 August 2022
Date of orders: 3 August 2022
Decision date: 03 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate term of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of 26 months: at [56].

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity
CRIME — Money laundering — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality — Aggregate sentences — Objective seriousness — Sentencing statistics
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Use of statistics
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Health issues — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Ebrahami v R [2019] NSWCCA 273
Hili& Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Tamer v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 333

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Office of Director of Public Prosecutions)
Paul Norton (Offender)
Representation:
Mr Fitzharding (Solicitor, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr Krisenthal (counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2021/174509

Judgment

Paul Norton, now aged 55, had no real record to speak of prior to a period of serious offending in March to June 2021 which leads to him appearing for sentence today having pleaded guilty to three offences arising out of his drug supply over that period.

An offence contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985, in relation to the supply of 1,551g of methylamphetamine, an amount not less than the large commercial quantity (Sequence 1). The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 15 years. To be taken into account on a Form 1, attached to this sequence is an offence of supplying cannabis contrary to s 25(1) the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (sequence 6) The offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years and will be dealt with in the way suggested by CJ Spiegelman in Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146.

An offence of deal with the proceeds of crime contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (sequence 11). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. The amount involved was $177,873.

An…

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 Norton

Details

AGLC: R v Norton [2022] NSWDC 468
Case: [2022] NSWDC 468
Decision Date: 03 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Norton, the appellant was convicted of multiple offences including the supply of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and money laundering. The appeal was against both the conviction and the sentence. The Supreme Court of Queensland heard the appeal, with the central issues being the proportionality of the sentence imposed and the consideration of mitigating factors by the trial judge.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge properly considered all relevant mitigating factors. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate, particularly given the absence of a criminal record and the presence of personal mitigating factors such as age, drug addiction, and health issues. The prosecution contended that the severity of the offences warranted a substantial custodial sentence and that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, including the objective seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the protection of the community. It assessed whether the trial judge had erred in failing to sufficiently weigh the mitigating factors against the aggravating ones. The court found that while the offences were serious, the sentence was not manifestly excessive when considering the totality of the circumstances and the mitigating factors presented. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, but the court ordered an aggregate term of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of 26 months, reflecting a slight reduction from the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of 26 months: at [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 Norton [2022] NSWDC 468
Hearing dates:	3 August 2022
Date of orders:	3 August 2022
Decision date:	03 August 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate term of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of 26 months: at [56].
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity CRIME — Money laundering — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality — Aggregate sentences — Objective seriousness — Sentencing statistics SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Use of statistics SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Health issues — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Ebrahami v R [2019] NSWCCA 273 Hili& Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Tamer v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 333
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Office of Director of Public Prosecutions) Paul Norton (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Fitzharding (Solicitor, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr Krisenthal (counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2021/174509