R v Robinson - [2016] NSWDC 400

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Robinson [2016] NSWDC 400
Hearing dates: 14 July 2016, 15 December 2016
Date of orders: 15 December 2016
Decision date: 15 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
The offender is referred for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by means of an Intensive Corrections Order

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Drug supply
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: Chian v R [2016] NSWCCA 45
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Miguel Robinson
Representation:
Counsel:
Solicitors
Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Nyman Gibson Miralis - Offender

File Number(s): 2015/289207

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The circumstances of Miguel Robinson’s offending are distressingly common. Indeed, I alone have done many cases of this kind of recent times. What Mr Robinson did was to obtain a significant quantity of drugs, in this case, 39 tablets of MDMA and take them to a music festival intending to distribute them amongst his friends who, together with him, had pooled their money. Mr Robinson was the person who accepted the role of obtaining those drugs, taking them into the music festival and then sharing them out. This was certainly not a spur of the moment decision which Mr Robinson regretted, at least until he was stopped by a drug detection dog. Mr Robinson was at the time a user of drugs and indeed has a criminal history involving drug possession as well as driving matters.
It was on 3 October 2015 that the Listen Out Music Festival was being held at Centennial Park. Police know that many people attending such festivals will be using and possessing drugs, therefore, they target music festivals with drug detection dogs. At about 4 o'clock the offender entered the festival and a drug detection dog indicated on the offender. He was stopped by police and he told them that he had some drugs in his underpants. The statement of facts says that he said that he had four. Mr Robinson says that he probably said “40” and that the officer may have misheard him. Nothing really turns on the difference. Police took him to a designated searching area. He said to them, “Can I just take them out now?” He then reached into his underpants and removed a condom containing 39 separate capsules which on analysis proved to contain MDMA.
When the matter first came before me earlier this year, Mr Robinson said that he had given up drugs and that he was, in effect, in the process of undergoing a significant rehabilitation. Recognising that many people say they have stopped using drugs, but it is not always the case, I allowed Mr Robinson the opportunity to prove that what he was saying was true. I, therefore, adjourned the matter under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to today’s date.
I accept upon the evidence that has been tendered today that Mr Robinson is a very different man to 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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2016] NSWDC 400
Case: [2016] NSWDC 400
Decision Date: 15 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robinson, the offender was convicted of drug supply offences and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The nature of the dispute involved the appropriate sentence to be imposed, given the offender's criminal history and the severity of the drug supply offences. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the offender's potential for rehabilitation.

The central legal issues were the appropriate weight to be given to the offender's criminal history, the potential for rehabilitation, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court had to balance these considerations with the overarching objective of sentencing, which is to achieve justice for all parties, including the offender, the victim, and the community.

The court concluded that the offender's criminal history, which included previous drug supply offences, was a significant aggravating factor. However, the court also considered the offender's potential for rehabilitation and the need for deterrence and denunciation. In light of these factors, the court determined that an Intensive Corrections Order was the most appropriate sentence. This order would provide the offender with an opportunity to address the underlying causes of his criminal behaviour and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the offender's circumstances and the principles of sentencing in Queensland.

The final orders of the court were that the offender be referred for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by means of an Intensive Corrections Order. This decision provides the offender with an opportunity for rehabilitation while also ensuring that the community is protected from further offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is referred for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by means of an Intensive Corrections Order

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 Robinson [2016] NSWDC 400
Hearing dates:	14 July 2016, 15 December 2016
Date of orders:	15 December 2016
Decision date:	15 December 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	The offender is referred for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by means of an Intensive Corrections Order
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Drug supply
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited:	Chian v R [2016] NSWCCA 45
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Miguel Robinson
Representation:	Counsel: Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown Nyman Gibson Miralis - Offender
File Number(s):	2015/289207