R v Paul Edward Dumas

Case [2016] NSWDC 165


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Paul Edward Dumas [2016] NSWDC 165
Hearing dates:10 August 2016
Decision date: 12 August 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [47]

Catchwords: Supply prohibited drug; indictable quantity of heroin
Legislation Cited: Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986
Cases Cited: Fitzpatrick v R [2010] NSWCCA 26
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Veen v R No. 2 (1998) 164 CLR 465
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Paul Edward Dumas (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:

B Queenan (Crown)
R Jankowski (Offender)

 
File Number(s):15/208928
Publication restriction:Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender was committed for sentence on 3 November 2015 from Taree Local Court. He entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity to one count of supply prohibited drug of greater than indictable quantity, namely, heroin, pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986 (“DMTA”).

  2. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units. The offender has also asked that three drug possession charges be dealt with on a Form 1.

  3. The offender has spent one month and 27 days in custody since his arrest on 16 July 2015.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 10 August 2016. The Crown bundle became Ex A. It contained a Statement of Agreed Facts relating to the supply by the offender of heroin between 2 June 2015 and 5 July 2015, during which a total quantity of 8.55 grams of heroin was supplied to two co‑offenders, namely, Craig Plane and Sarah Bowman. The drug was supplied in a total of 285 caps containing approximately 0.03 grams per cap.

  2. The Agreed Facts may be summarised as follows. In January 2015 a special operation team targeted the supply of heroin by Mr Plane and Ms Bowman in Taree. A telecommunications interception warrant was granted in relation to a telephone service used by the co-offenders, and during the period of the warrant, the offender was identified as a person supplying heroin to them for on‑supply. Surveillance of the co-offenders revealed that the offender was one of two suppliers to his co-offenders. Conversations were recorded in which the offender discussed supply of heroin with his co‑offenders. On each occasion of supply, the offender delivered 50 caps to the co‑offenders and on each occasion they would pay him for 40 caps. The co‑offenders would then retain the profit made by them for the remaining 10 caps. For each supply the offender received $2,000.00. The arrangement was in place for a number of months. Relevantly, supplies took place on 3 June 2015 (50 caps), 18 June 2015 (150 caps), 5 July 2015 (85 caps), amounting to a total of 285 caps.

  3. Following his arrest on 16 July 2015, a search warrant was…

Continue reading R v Paul Edward Dumas

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Paul Edward Dumas [2016] NSWDC 165
Case
[2016] NSWDC 165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Paul Edward Dumas was heard in a court in Australia, where the defendant, Paul Edward Dumas, was accused of supplying a prohibited drug, specifically heroin, in an indictable quantity. The dispute centred around whether the defendant was guilty of this serious offence, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be.

The court was required to determine two main legal issues: firstly, whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had supplied heroin, and secondly, if so, what the appropriate sentence for such an offence would be. The court had to consider the evidence presented, including any witness testimony and forensic evidence, to decide these issues.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence included both direct and circumstantial evidence that linked the defendant to the supply of the heroin. The court considered the gravity of the offence and the defendant's criminal history in determining the appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court decided on a full-time custodial sentence. The specific details of the sentence, including the length and conditions of imprisonment, were outlined in the final orders of the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [47]

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.