R v Owens - [2019] NSWDC 705

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Owens [2019] NSWDC 705
Hearing dates: 13 June 2019
Decision date: 13 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Full time custodial order of 2 years 5 months to be served by way of an intensive correctional order. For orders see [28] – [36]

Catchwords: SENTENCING: supplying a prohibited drug - ongoing supply of a prohibited drug - relevant factors on sentence – courier - trafficking for reward - requirement for deterrent sentences - alternative to full time custody considered - assistance to authorities - early guilty plea
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1995
Cases Cited: EF v R [2015] NSWCA 36;
R v Clark (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 15 March 1990, unreported).
Robertson [2017] NSWCCA 205
Category: Sentence
Parties: Wayne Anthony Owens (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Steward (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Maguire McInerney Lawyers (for the offender)
Ms N Olender, Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2018/00055651
Publication restriction: A non-publication order was made so as not to reveal the offender’s assistance to authorities. A pseudonym has been used and identifying particulars removed from the published version of this judgment.

Judgment – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Wayne Anthony Owens stands for sentence today for two offences: supplying a prohibited drug, not less than 15.54 grams of methylamphetamine: s 25 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1995, maximum penalty 15 years imprisonment; and ongoing supply of methylamphetamine: s 25A Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, maximum penalty 20 years imprisonment. He has asked that when I sentence him for the ongoing supply matter, I take into account one matter involving dealing proceeds of crime on a Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Form 1. I have already made an order by consent allowing those proceeds to be confiscated.
Generally when matters are dealt with on a Form 1, they lead to an increase in the sentence that has to be imposed. The courts have however to be particularly careful when dealing with drug supply matters and recognise that it is implicit in most supply transactions that there will be a reward, and when arresting drug dealers, police sometimes find them with more money and less drugs and sometimes less money and more drugs. It really depends at what time in the business cycle the police interrupt their activity.
The interruption of Wayne Anthony Owens’ criminal activity was brought about partly because he was, along with others, the subject of a police strike force. That task force was focused on another man who faces a jury trial shortly. For the moment, I will not name him. That other man was the principal target of the police investigation. I will refer to him as “the principal.”
Owens was arrested on 19 February 2018. That day Owens did everything he could to bring himself to the attention of the police.…

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 Owens

Details

AGLC: R v Owens [2019] NSWDC 705
Case: [2019] NSWDC 705
Decision Date: 13 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Owens was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Owens, was convicted of supplying a prohibited drug and was facing sentencing. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Owens, considering factors such as his role as a courier, the nature of his involvement in drug trafficking, and the need for deterrence. The court also needed to weigh the requirement for an alternative to full-time custody and Owens's cooperation with authorities.

The primary legal issue was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Owens, considering his role as a courier in the drug trafficking operation. The court had to assess the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the offence, and the principles of sentencing for drug-related offences. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a sentence other than full-time custody would be more appropriate, given Owens's assistance to authorities and his early guilty plea.

The court held that while Owens's role as a courier and the ongoing nature of his supply of a prohibited drug were serious matters, his early guilty plea and assistance to authorities were mitigating factors. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence in drug-related offences but also recognised the benefits of an alternative to full-time custody. Ultimately, the court decided on a sentence of 2 years and 5 months, to be served by way of an intensive correctional order. This decision balanced the need for deterrence and the circumstances of the offence with the mitigating factors present in the case.

The final orders of the court included a full-time custodial order of 2 years and 5 months, to be served by way of an intensive correctional order. The court also made specific orders regarding the conditions and duration of the intensive correctional order, as detailed in the judgment from [28] to [36]. This sentence aimed to address the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating factors and the need for an alternative to full-time custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial order of 2 years 5 months to be served by way of an intensive correctional order. For orders see [28] – [36]

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 Owens [2019] NSWDC 705
Hearing dates:	13 June 2019
Decision date:	13 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Full time custodial order of 2 years 5 months to be served by way of an intensive correctional order. For orders see [28] – [36]
Catchwords:	SENTENCING: supplying a prohibited drug - ongoing supply of a prohibited drug - relevant factors on sentence – courier - trafficking for reward - requirement for deterrent sentences - alternative to full time custody considered - assistance to authorities - early guilty plea
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Act 1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1995
Cases Cited:	EF v R [2015] NSWCA 36; R v Clark (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 15 March 1990, unreported). Robertson [2017] NSWCCA 205
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Wayne Anthony Owens (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Steward (for the offender) Solicitors: Maguire McInerney Lawyers (for the offender) Ms N Olender, Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):	2018/00055651
Publication restriction:	A non-publication order was made so as not to reveal the offender’s assistance to authorities. A pseudonym has been used and identifying particulars removed from the published version of this judgment.