R v Roberts - [2004] NSWSC 514

CITATION: R v Roberts [2004] NSWSC 514

HEARING DATE(S): 04/06/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 June 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is convicted of each offence. In respect of the first count on the second indictment, the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for 14 months to commence on 10 May 2004 and to expire on 9 July 2005. In respect of the second count on the second indictment, the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for 14 months to commence on 10 September 2004 and to expire on 9 November 2005. In respect of the offence of supply, he is sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years to date from 10 November 2005. There is to a non-parole period of 13 months to expire on 9 December 2006, the date upon which the offender is to be released to parole.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - No question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 - s 25(1)
Crimes Act 1900 - s 154AA(1)

CASES CITED: R v Clark (NSWCCA, unreported, 15 March 1990)
R v Cacciola (1998) 194 A Crim R 178
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616

PARTIES :
Regina v Barry Kenneth Roberts

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70204/03

COUNSEL: R. Herps - Crown
C. Simpson - Offender

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
P. Baird - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 11 JUNE 2004

70204/03 REGINA v BARRY KENNETH ROBERTS
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender stood trial with a co-offender, Kelly Louise Schumacher, on a charge that they did between March 1997 and September 2001 supply a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, in an amount which was not less than a large commercial quantity for that drug. The offender also stood trial on two additional charges being that on specific dates in 2001 he did supply amphetamine in an amount not less than the large commercial quantity.

2 On 21 April 2004 the jury returned verdicts of not guilty in respect of the offences on the indictment. However, the offender and Ms Schumacher were both convicted by the jury of an alternative to the first count, available at common law, being that they did supply a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act. That is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

3 Following the verdict of the jury the offender was arraigned before me on an indictment containing two offences of stealing a motor vehicle contrary to s 154AA(1) of the Crimes Act. The offender pleaded guilty to each of those offences and is to be sentenced by me for those matters as well as the offence of supply. Each of the offences on the second indictment carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

4 I note at the outset that, notwithstanding the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2004] NSWSC 514
Case: [2004] NSWSC 514
Decision Date: 11 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Roberts, the defendant was convicted of charges related to drug possession and supply. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The prosecution sought a custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a non-custodial sentence, citing the defendant's limited criminal history and personal circumstances. The court was required to balance the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in determining an appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate weight to be given to the various sentencing principles and whether the circumstances justified a departure from the usual sentencing approach. The court had to consider the gravity of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and consistent with the sentencing practices in similar cases.

In its judgment, the court found that the offences were serious and warranted a custodial sentence. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message to the community about the consequences of drug-related crimes. However, the court also recognised the defendant's personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court decided that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary, but it was balanced by the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation and the potential for a non-custodial sentence to achieve the same objectives. The court determined that a sentence of two years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year, was appropriate.

The final orders of the court included the defendant's imprisonment for a total of two years, with a non-parole period of one year. The court also ordered that the defendant be eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence, subject to the approval of the parole board. The court's decision reflected a careful consideration of the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the defendant.

Orders