CRIMINAL LAW – offences – supply prohibited drug, not less than large commercial quantity – possess pistol not being authorised SENTENCING – remorse – accumulation - parity - aggregate sentences – special circumstances – outlaw motor cycle gangs – general deterrence
Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985 Firearms Act, 1996
The offender pleaded guilty before the Local Court at Wagga Wagga on 13 June 2018 in respect of four offences, namely (in the order in which they appear in the Crown tender bundle, exhibit A on sentence):
That (he) between 9 July 2016 and 3 November 2016 at Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales, did supply an amount of a prohibited drug, namely 510 grams of methylamphetamine being an amount which was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985, and further
That (he) on 20 December 2016 at Mount Austin (in the State of New South Wales) did possess a pistol namely loaded 9mm self-loading silver 1911 – A1 pistol not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit, contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act, 1996, and further
That (he) on 20 December 2016 at Rosemeadow in the State of New South Wales, did supply an amount of a prohibited drug, namely 225.75 grams of 3,4-methyldioxy-methylamphetamine, being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, and further
That (he) on 20 December 2016 at Forest Hill in the State of New South Wales, did supply 498.2 grams of methyl amphetamine being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.
The pleas of guilty were adhered…
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 Peter Yealland
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Peter Yealland [2018] NSWDC 364
Case
[2018] NSWDC 364
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Yealland involved the defendant, Peter Yealland, who was charged with multiple offences including supplying a prohibited drug in a quantity exceeding a large commercial amount and possessing a pistol without authorisation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue for the court was to determine the appropriate aggregate sentence for Yealland, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the principle of parity in sentencing.
The court had to assess whether the sentences for each offence should be cumulative or concurrent, and if so, how they should be aggregated. The court also considered Yealland's background, including his involvement in an outlaw motorcycle gang, and the potential for special circumstances to be taken into account. The court examined the principle of parity, ensuring that the sentence reflects the seriousness of the crimes and serves the dual purpose of punishment and deterrence. Additionally, the court evaluated the role of remorse and any other relevant mitigating factors.
In its reasoning, the court held that the sentences should be cumulative due to the severity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court also acknowledged the special circumstances surrounding Yealland's involvement with an outlaw motorcycle gang, which added to the seriousness of the crimes. The court concluded that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, balancing the need for punishment with the principles of parity and deterrence. The final orders specified the aggregate sentence, detailing the cumulative terms for each offence, as outlined in the judgment.