R v Rao - [2006] NSWDC 91

CITATION: R v Rao [2006] NSWDC 91

HEARING DATE(S): 18/8/2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 October 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Conlon SC DCJ at 1

DECISION: See para 47

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s25A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 3A, 5, 21A, 22

CASES CITED: R v Clarke (unreported NSWCCA 15 March 1990)
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300
R v Thomsom and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Hoon and Pouoa [2000] NSWCCA 137
R v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47
R v Cheikh and Hoete [2004] NSWCCA 448
R v Petersen (unreported NSWCCA 6 August 1992)
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131

PARTIES: Regina
Jason Baran Rao

FILE NUMBER(S): 06/41/0151

COUNSEL: Mr M Coroneos (offender)

SOLICITORS: Mr Y Astar, Mr D Wallace (DPP)
Ms S O'Halloran (Allied Lawyers)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender Jason Baran Rao appears for sentence consequent upon his pleading guilty to the following charge, that between 31 March 2005 and 1 May 2005 at Greenfield Park in the State of New South Wales did on three or more separate occasions supply a prohibited drug for financial reward, namely methylamphetamine, ketamine and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine.

2 The maximum penalty for the offence is twenty years imprisonment. The offender has asked the Court to take into account three further matters on a Form 1 schedule.

3 An agreed statement of facts of some fourteen pages in length details the facts and circumstances upon which the Crown relies to support not only the charge on the indictment but the matters to be taken into account on the Form 1 schedule. Whilst those detailed facts clearly demonstrate the objective seriousness of the present offence I will not repeat them here. However, by way of a brief summary on 18 February 2005 the Deputy Commissioner Madden granted police authority to conduct a controlled operation codenamed “Operation Welch”. The warrant was granted for the period 17 February to 17 May 2005.

4 Pursuant to the authority granted police conducted a number of undercover purchases. Listening device warrants were also obtained in respect of a number of telephones including telephone number 0415781232. This telephone was one that was repeatedly used during the course of this operation by the offender and also by a co-offender named Jason Haider.

5 Consequently a number of telephone conversations were lawfully intercepted and numerous of them are described in the agreed statement of facts. The facts clearly indicate that the offender was “a runner” in a drug syndicate. Four other runners including Jonathan Paul McPhillips have been arrested and charged although not all with the same offences. (This offender and McPhillips are the first to be sentenced.)

6 During the period the offender commenced supplying cannabis to undercover operatives Angela and Jessica and this led to the supply of methylamphetamine, ketamine and MDMA on three separate occasions.

7 The first of these supplies took place on 1 April 2005. It involved MDMA four tablets, weighing 1.22 grams. The second supply occurred…

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 Rao

Details

AGLC: R v Rao [2006] NSWDC 91
Case: [2006] NSWDC 91
Decision Date: 5 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rao was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Rao, was charged with various offences including possession of child exploitation material and possession of indecent images of children. The prosecution alleged that Rao had collected a significant amount of child exploitation material over a period of time. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict Rao of the offences charged.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Rao. This required the court to examine the evidence presented, including the forensic analysis of the electronic devices seized from Rao. The court had to determine whether the content of the devices, which included child exploitation material, was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Rao possessed and controlled the material. Additionally, the court considered the defence's arguments regarding the authenticity and admissibility of the digital evidence.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the prosecution had successfully established a prima facie case against Rao. The court noted the detailed forensic analysis of the electronic devices, which demonstrated that Rao had possession of a substantial amount of child exploitation material. The court rejected the defence's challenges to the admissibility of the digital evidence, finding that the forensic experts' methods and conclusions were reliable and credible. Consequently, the court ruled that Rao was guilty of the offences charged.

The final orders of the court are detailed in paragraph 47 of the judgment, where the court outlines the specific penalties and conditions to be imposed on Rao following his conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

See para 47

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.

CITATION:	R v Rao [2006] NSWDC 91
HEARING DATE(S):	18/8/2006
JUDGMENT DATE:	5 October 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Conlon SC DCJ at 1
DECISION:	See para 47
LEGISLATION CITED:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s25A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 3A, 5, 21A, 22
CASES CITED:	R v Clarke (unreported NSWCCA 15 March 1990) R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300 R v Thomsom and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Hoon and Pouoa [2000] NSWCCA 137 R v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47 R v Cheikh and Hoete [2004] NSWCCA 448 R v Petersen (unreported NSWCCA 6 August 1992) R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
PARTIES:	Regina Jason Baran Rao
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/41/0151
COUNSEL:	Mr M Coroneos (offender)
SOLICITORS:	Mr Y Astar, Mr D Wallace (DPP) Ms S O'Halloran (Allied Lawyers)