R v Porter (a pseudonym)

Case [2022] NSWDC 680


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Porter (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWDC 680
Hearing dates: 25 November 2022
Date of orders: 14 December 2022
Decision date: 14 December 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence of 6 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 3 months

Catchwords:

CRIME - multiple offences - supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug methylamphetamine - Acquire ammunition subject to Firearms Prohibition Order - Do act with intent to pervert the course of justice - Deal with property reasonably suspected proceeds of crime - Do act with intent to pervert the course of justice - Police pursuit – confiscation of proceeds of crime

SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – multiple offences – assessing objective seriousness of each offence - Form 1 – accumulation and concurrence - accumulation on existing sentence - totality – parity and proportionality with a number of co-offenders - starting date - impact of COVID - good use of time in custody - childhood trauma - childhood deprivation

Legislation Cited:

Courts (Suppression and Nonpublication Orders) Act 2010

Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1995

Firearms Act 1996

Road Transport Act 2013

Cases Cited:

Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246

Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002, [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Basedown v R [2010] NSWCCA 76

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37

Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1

Campbell v R [2014] NSWCCA 102

Director ofPublic Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301

DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156

Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49

Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341

Harrigan v R [2005] NSWCCA 449

Isaac v R [2012] NSWCCA 195

Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217

Magaming v The Queen (2013) 252 CLR 381; [2013] HCA 40

MAKv R [2006] NSWCCA 381

Marinellis v R [2006] NSWCCA 307

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1998] HCA 70

Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39

Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207

Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273

Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26

R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243

R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 at 306

R v Dekker; R v Kominkovski [2021] NSWDC 339

R v Frankcom [2021] NSWDC 294

R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56

R v Giang [2001] NSWCCA 276

R v Glynatsis [2013] NSWCCA 131

R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459 at 466

R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203

R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR…

Continue reading R v Porter (a pseudonym)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Porter (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWDC 680
Case
[2022] NSWDC 680
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Porter involved a defendant charged with multiple serious offences, including the supply of a large commercial quantity of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine, acquiring ammunition in contravention of a Firearms Prohibition Order, and two counts of perverting the course of justice by dealing with property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was tasked with determining the objective seriousness of each offence, assessing how these should accumulate and concur within the sentencing framework. It also needed to consider the totality principle in relation to co-offenders, the starting date for the sentence, and mitigating factors such as the impact of COVID-19, the defendant's good use of time in custody, and personal circumstances including childhood trauma and deprivation.

The court considered the statutory sentencing guidelines and principles applicable to each offence. It examined the aggravating factors of the multiple and serious nature of the crimes, and the defendant's intent and role in the commission of these offences. Mitigating factors such as the defendant's personal background were also evaluated. After considering these elements, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months.

The court made clear that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences while also taking into account the defendant's personal circumstances and the need for proportionality and parity with co-offenders. The sentence was structured to ensure that the defendant's culpability and the impact on the community were appropriately addressed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 6 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 3 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.