R v Paxton - [2009] NSWDC 326

CITATION: R v PAXTON [2009] NSWDC 326

HEARING DATE(S): 6 November 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 November 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: For the offence of receiving I set a fixed term of imprisonment of three years to date from 10 May 2008.
For the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine I set a fixed term of imprisonment of eight years to date from 10 May 2009.
For the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine I set a fixed term of imprisonment of twelve years to date from 10 May 2011.
For the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of ecstasy I set a non-parole period of sixteen years, that will commence on 10 May 2013, and a balance of parole of seven years. This means that the offender will be eligible to be released to parole on 9 May 2029.
The overall sentence is one of a non-parole period of twenty-one years with a head sentence of twenty-eight years.
In each case I have taken into account the relevant form 1 matters.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Form 1 - Plea of guilty - Supply a commercial quantity of cocaine - Supply a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine - Supply a large commercial quantity of ecstasy - Receiving - Supply to pay debts

CASES CITED: R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152
Regina v Walsh and Little [2005] NSWSC 125

PARTIES: The Crown
Mark Allan Paxton

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/8173

COUNSEL: Mr S Cairns - Offender

SOLICITORS: NSW DPP

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Mark Allan Paxton appears to be sentenced after having supplied enormous quantities of drugs, quantities rarely seen in the courts. Overall he supplied about eight and a half kilograms of ecstasy, 335 grams of cocaine, 2.3 kilograms of methylamphetamine, almost half a kilo of an admixture of heroin, and almost 6 kilograms of cannabis. Those figures alone show the enormous extent of Mr Paxton’s criminality.

2 In looking at the appropriate sentence to impose upon him there is not much assistance that can be gained from other cases due to the fortunate rarity of offending of this extent. The crown referred me to the case of R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152, and also the case of Regina v Walsh and Little [2005] NSWSC 125 who supplied and manufactured drugs, and more than Mr Paxton was involved in. But it is to be remembered that they were all dealt with before the introduction of standard non-parole periods, a significant factor affecting the sentences I will ultimately announce on Mr Paxton.

3 The offender’s criminality, in so far as I am concerned commenced on 14 March 2008. Police had been interested in the activities of two men, Orchard and Burnett. Burnett was a keen drug supplier but needed to obtain substantial quantities of drugs in order to pass them on. He had been operating in the Lake Macquarie area but…

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 Paxton

Details

AGLC: R v Paxton [2009] NSWDC 326
Case: [2009] NSWDC 326
Decision Date: 6 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Paxton, was before the court on a plea of guilty to several serious drug-related offences, including the supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine, the supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, the supply of a large commercial quantity of ecstasy, and receiving drugs for the purpose of supply to pay debts. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the primary judge was responsible for determining the appropriate sentence for each offence. The court was required to consider various legal issues, including the seriousness of the offences, the offender's culpability, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crimes. The court also had to take into account the relevant statutory provisions and sentencing principles, including the need to deter and protect the community, as well as the offender's potential for rehabilitation.

The court considered the severity of the offences, the offender's role in the drug trade, and the quantity of drugs involved. The court noted that the offender had supplied large quantities of dangerous drugs, which posed a significant risk to the community. The court also took into account the offender's previous criminal history, which included convictions for drug-related offences. The court held that the offender's conduct was of a high degree of culpability and that the offences were of a serious nature. The court further found that the offender had shown no remorse for his actions and had continued to engage in criminal activity even after being released on bail.

The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community. The court set a fixed term of imprisonment for the offence of receiving, a fixed term of imprisonment for the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine, a fixed term of imprisonment for the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, and a non-parole period of sixteen years for the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of ecstasy. The court also took into account the relevant statutory provisions and sentencing principles, including the need to deter and protect the community, as well as the offender's potential for rehabilitation. The court considered that the overall sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the seriousness of the offences.

The court made several orders regarding the sentence. For the offence of receiving, the court set a fixed term of imprisonment of three years to date from 10 May 2008. For the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine, the court set a fixed term of imprisonment of eight years to date from 10 May 2009. For the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, the court set a fixed term of imprisonment of twelve years to date from 10 May 2011. For the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of ecstasy, the court set a non-parole period of sixteen years, which will commence on 10 May 2013, and a balance of parole of seven years. The overall sentence was one of a non-parole period of twenty-one years with a head sentence of twenty-eight years. The court took into account the relevant form 1 matters in each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

For the offence of receiving I set a fixed term of imprisonment of three years to date from 10 May 2008.

For the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine I set a fixed term of imprisonment of eight years to date from 10 May 2009.

For the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine I set a fixed term of imprisonment of twelve years to date from 10 May 2011.

For the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of ecstasy I set a non-parole period of sixteen years, that will commence on 10 May 2013, and a balance of parole of seven years. This means that the offender will be eligible to be released to parole on 9 May 2029.

The overall sentence is one of a non-parole period of twenty-one years with a head sentence of twenty-eight years.

In each case I have taken into account the relevant form 1 matters.

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.

CITATION:	R v PAXTON [2009] NSWDC 326
HEARING DATE(S):	6 November 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	6 November 2009
JURISDICTION:	District Court Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	For the offence of receiving I set a fixed term of imprisonment of three years to date from 10 May 2008. For the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine I set a fixed term of imprisonment of eight years to date from 10 May 2009. For the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine I set a fixed term of imprisonment of twelve years to date from 10 May 2011. For the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of ecstasy I set a non-parole period of sixteen years, that will commence on 10 May 2013, and a balance of parole of seven years. This means that the offender will be eligible to be released to parole on 9 May 2029. The overall sentence is one of a non-parole period of twenty-one years with a head sentence of twenty-eight years. In each case I have taken into account the relevant form 1 matters.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentence - Form 1 - Plea of guilty - Supply a commercial quantity of cocaine - Supply a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine - Supply a large commercial quantity of ecstasy - Receiving - Supply to pay debts
CASES CITED:	R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152 Regina v Walsh and Little [2005] NSWSC 125
PARTIES:	The Crown Mark Allan Paxton
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 2009/8173
COUNSEL:	Mr S Cairns - Offender
SOLICITORS:	NSW DPP