R v Raccosta - [2020] NSWDC 702

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Raccosta [2020] NSWDC 702
Hearing dates: 19 March 2020
Date of orders: 25 March 2020
Decision date: 25 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a 2 year non-parole period.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Sentencing — Drug offences — Ongoing supply — Supply prohibited drug — Deemed supply — Offender from overseas — Likelihood of deportation — Special circumstances — Absence of family contact

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246
Hanna v The Environmental Protection Authority [2019] NSWCCA 299
Jung v R [2017] NSWCCA 24
Kwon v R [2011] NSWCCA 58
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284, (2017) 96 NSWLR 63
R v Chi Sun Tsui (1985) 1 NSWLR 308
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) CLR 270

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Lorenzo Raccosta (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G R Heathcote
Solicitors:
Ms S Stuart for the Crown
Calabrese Lawyers instructing defence counsel

File Number(s): 2019/00171724

Judgment

Lorenzo Raccosta is an entrepreneurial Italian who came to Australia on a visa which permitted him to obtain employment. Despite obtaining employment in a number of industries, he sought to increase his income by supplying prohibited drugs.
He now appears to sentence following his pleas of guilty with respect to one offence of supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis contrary to the provisions of s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Such an offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.
He has also pleaded guilty for the deemed supply of a prohibited drug arising from his possession of 59.39 grams of 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDMA). This separate substantive offence contravenes s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.
Two other offences namely, dealing with the proceeds of crime relating to $565 found in his possession carrying a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment, and a second offence of possession of a prohibited drug, namely 0.11 grams of cocaine, carrying a two year maximum penalty, have each been placed on a Form 1. I am asked to take the offences on the Form 1 into account in determining an appropriate sentence for the charge of ongoing supply.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts giving rise to the various offences are set out in a Statement of Agreed Facts. In May 2019, police attached to the Kings Cross Drug Unit conducted a controlled operation with respect to the suspected supply of drugs. On 25 May 2019, three female police undercover operatives went to the vicinity of the Kanga House Backpackers Hostel in Victoria Street, Potts Point. The circumstances which led the police to that location is not revealed in the Agreed Facts.
In the course of a conversation with a small group of persons at the front of the backpackers hostel, the…

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 Raccosta

Details

AGLC: R v Raccosta [2020] NSWDC 702
Case: [2020] NSWDC 702
Decision Date: 25 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Raccosta, was convicted of multiple drug-related offences, including supplying a prohibited drug and deemed supply of a prohibited drug. The court heard that the appellant, who had entered Australia from overseas, had been involved in the ongoing supply of prohibited drugs. The case reached the court for sentencing, with the appellant's legal team arguing for special circumstances to be considered, including the lack of family contact in Australia. The prosecution, however, argued for a standard sentencing approach given the severity of the offences.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the appellant's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the arguments presented by both parties regarding special circumstances. The court also had to consider the likelihood of deportation post-sentence and how this might affect the appellant's rehabilitation prospects. The key issue was balancing the deterrent effect of the sentence with the potential for the appellant's rehabilitation, particularly in the absence of family support in Australia.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the appellant's involvement in the supply of prohibited drugs and the seriousness of the offences. The court noted that the appellant had no prior criminal history and had entered Australia from overseas, factors that could be considered under special circumstances. However, the court found that the appellant's lack of family contact in Australia did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the offences. After weighing all the factors, the court sentenced the appellant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of three years, with a non-parole period of two years.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of two years. This sentence reflected the court's assessment of the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the limited scope for rehabilitation considerations given the appellant's circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a 2 year non-parole period.

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 Raccosta [2020] NSWDC 702
Hearing dates:	19 March 2020
Date of orders:	25 March 2020
Decision date:	25 March 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a 2 year non-parole period.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Sentencing — Drug offences — Ongoing supply — Supply prohibited drug — Deemed supply — Offender from overseas — Likelihood of deportation — Special circumstances — Absence of family contact
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246 Hanna v The Environmental Protection Authority [2019] NSWCCA 299 Jung v R [2017] NSWCCA 24 Kwon v R [2011] NSWCCA 58 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284, (2017) 96 NSWLR 63 R v Chi Sun Tsui (1985) 1 NSWLR 308 The Queen v Olbrich (1999) CLR 270
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Lorenzo Raccosta (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G R Heathcote Solicitors: Ms S Stuart for the Crown Calabrese Lawyers instructing defence counsel
File Number(s):	2019/00171724