R v Pincham - [2014] NSWDC 363

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pincham [2014] NSWDC 363
Hearing dates: 17/07/2014
Decision date: 17 July 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 1 month with a non parole period being 2 years and 4 months.
s166 related matter - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.

Catchwords: Criminal - Sentence, supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug, early plea, on conditional liberty.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: R v Lim, R v Tan [2013] NSWDC 327
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Buttrose [2011] NSWCCA 35
The Queen v Pincham [2000] NSWCCA 478
R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Paul John Pincham - Offender
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Bowers - Crown
Ms C Davenport - Offender

File Number(s): 2012/106373

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Paul John Pincham appears today for sentence in relation to two offences. One matter involves a sentence for an offence to which the offender pleaded on arraignment in this Court. The charge to which he pleaded guilty on indictment alleged that he between 19 July 2011 and 4 April 2012 at Boambee in the State of New South Wales did supply not less than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 271 grams of methylamphetamine. That particular offence is an offence contrary to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. It carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine expressed in a particular number of penalty units that equates to $385,000. There is a standard non-parole period, I am informed by the Crown, of 10 years imprisonment.
There is also a related offence on a s 166 certificate for which the prisoner is to be sentenced pursuant to s 167 Criminal Procedure Act. This is an offence of dealing with certain property, to wit, $3,520 in Australian currency, for which there are reasonable grounds to suspect that it is the proceeds of crime. To that offence, an offence contrary to s 94C(1) Crimes Act 1900, the offender pleaded guilty in this Court. That carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and/or $5,500 by way of fine.
The offender was charged in relation to the matters generally with which I am concerned in early April 2012. He was charged with a number of offences, and I will deal with that aspect of the matter when I come to the question of the discount to be given for the utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty.
He has been in custody for various periods of time. Initially from 4 April 2012 until mid-September 2012,…

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 Pincham

Details

AGLC: R v Pincham [2014] NSWDC 363
Case: [2014] NSWDC 363
Decision Date: 17 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pincham involved the defendant who was convicted of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The case centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Pincham, who had pleaded guilty to the offence, and the impact of the early guilty plea on the sentencing process.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the quantum of the sentence, considering the defendant's early guilty plea, and whether there were any relevant factors that should mitigate or aggravate the sentence. The court also had to consider Pincham's criminal history and the nature of the offence in determining the appropriate custodial term.

The County Court, in delivering the judgment, recognised Pincham's early guilty plea as a mitigating factor but also considered the gravity of the offence, which involved the supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The court balanced these factors and sentenced Pincham to a term of imprisonment of five years and one month, with a non-parole period of two years and four months. Additionally, the court addressed a related matter under section 166, imposing a further sentence of imprisonment of 12 months. This additional sentence was imposed concurrently with the primary sentence.

The final orders of the court were for Pincham to serve a total sentence of five years and one month, with a non-parole period of two years and four months, for the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The additional 12-month sentence for the related matter under section 166 was ordered to run concurrently.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 1 month with a non parole period being 2 years and 4 months.

s166 related matter - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.

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 Pincham [2014] NSWDC 363
Hearing dates:	17/07/2014
Decision date:	17 July 2014
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 1 month with a non parole period being 2 years and 4 months. s166 related matter - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.
Catchwords:	Criminal - Sentence, supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug, early plea, on conditional liberty.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	R v Lim, R v Tan [2013] NSWDC 327 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v Buttrose [2011] NSWCCA 35 The Queen v Pincham [2000] NSWCCA 478 R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Paul John Pincham - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Bowers - Crown Ms C Davenport - Offender
File Number(s):	2012/106373