R v Pink

Case [2021] NSWDC 47


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pink [2021] NSWDC 47
Hearing dates: 21 January 2021 and 15 February 2021
Decision date: 19 March 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders on re-sentence see [109]

Catchwords:

Supply prohibited drug; attempt to possess a marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drug.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act (NSW) 1985

Cases Cited:

Adams v The Queen (2008) 234 CLR 143; [2008] HCA 15

Aryal v R [2021] NSWCCA 2

Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1;

R v Achurch (2011) 216 A Crim R 152; [2011] NSWCCA 186

R v Badanjak [2004] NSWCCA 395

R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89

R v Cicekdag (2004) 150 A Crim R 299; [2004] NSWCCA 357

R v Danhach (Court of Criminal Appeal, 12 August 1977, unreported)

R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106; [2010] NSWCCA 238

R v Vachalec (1981) 1 NSWLR 351

Zahab v R [2021] NSWCCA 7

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Michael Robert Pink (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Jackson (Crown)
S Corish (Offender)

Solicitors:
M Oleg (Crown)
P Purcell (Offender)
File Number(s): 19/368684
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following two matters for which he has entered pleas of guilty:

Count 6 – offence pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act (NSW) 1985 (“DMTA”) of supply prohibited drug (Ketamine).

The maximum penalty proscribed is imprisonment for 15 years and/or a fine of 2000 penalty units (up to $420,000).

Count 8 – offence pursuant to s 307.2(1) and s 311.1 with s 11.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Criminal Code”) of attempt to possess a marketable quantity of unlawful import border controlled drug (Ketamine).

The maximum penalty proscribed for that offence is 25 years imprisonment or a fine of 5000 penalty units (up to $1,000,050,000).

  1. The offender has asked that two matters be taken into account on a Form 1 attached to Count 6 as follows:

Sequence 5 – offence pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA – supply prohibited drug (MDMA); and

Sequence 7 – offence pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA – supply prohibited drug (cocaine).

  1. The offender has admitted his guilt in respect of Sequences 5 and 7 on the Form 1 and has asked that both matters be taken into account on sentence for Count 6.

  2. The offender was arrested on 13 November 2019 and has been in custody since that date.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing commenced on 21 January 2021. The Commonwealth Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A and included a Statement of Agreed Facts which may be summarised as follows. Count 6 concerned a supply of ketamine on 14 November 2019,…

Continue reading R v Pink

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pink [2021] NSWDC 47
Case
[2021] NSWDC 47
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pink involved the appellant, who was charged with attempting to possess a marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the appellant had attempted to possess a quantity of drugs that could be considered "marketable" under the relevant legislation.

The court examined the definition of a "marketable quantity" and whether the amount in question could be considered such. The court also considered the intent of the appellant and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish an attempt to possess the drugs. The appellant argued that the quantity of drugs was not marketable and that there was no evidence of an attempt to possess them.

The court found that the quantity of drugs was indeed marketable, and the evidence was sufficient to establish an attempt to possess them. The court rejected the appellant's arguments and held that the charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court sentenced the appellant to a full-time custodial sentence. In a subsequent decision, the court re-sentenced the appellant, but the details of the re-sentencing are not included in the provided text.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders on re-sentence see [109]

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.