R v Robson

Case [2022] NSWDC 645

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Robson [2022] NSWDC 645
Hearing dates: 14 April 2022, 15 December 2022
Date of orders: 15 December 2022
Decision date: 15 December 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 109

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – multiple drug offences - supply of commercial quantity of cannabis – offences attached on a Form 1 - supply of indictable quantity of cannabis – knowingly dealing in proceeds of crime – significance of drug rehabilitation program undertaken – parity principle where a (main) co-offender sentenced – whether s 5 threshold has been crossed – whether any sentence of imprisonment should be served by ICO

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act1900 (NSW) ss 193B, 193C

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 11, 17C, 17D, 21A, 24, 48, 66, 68

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ss 10, 25

Cases Cited:

Mandranis v R (2021) 289 A Crim R 260

Nguyen v R (2011) 208 A Crim R 432

Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284

R v Dang [2005] NSWCCA 430

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

R v Huang (2007) 174 A Crim R 370

R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152

R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434

Category:Sentence
Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Mr C Robson (offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Strickland SC for the offender

Solicitors:
Ms S Charles for the ODPP
Korn Tlais for the offender
File Number(s): 2020/00350905
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCING REMARKS

  1. The offender is before the Court for sentencing, following pleas of guilty (to which he adhered to in this sentencing proceeding) to three offences, concerning his conduct at Rose Bay on 10 December 2020.

  2. The offences, the statutory provisions and the maximum penalties are indicated in the following table. There were no statutory non-parole periods for any of these offences.

Offence

Statutory provisions

Maximum penalties

Seq 11

Supply prohibited drug (not less than commercial quantity) (99.99 kg of cannabis leaf between 24.9.20 & 10.12.20)

S 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (‘DMT Act’)

15 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units

Seq 3

Supply prohibited drug (more than indictable quantity but less than a commercial quantity) (10.2212 kg of cannabis leaf on 10.12.20)

S 25(1) of the DMT Act

15 years’ imprisonment and/or 2000 penalty units

Seq 4

Knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime (AUD $614,900)

S 193B(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

15 years’ imprisonment

  1. The offender also acknowledges guilt for and asks the Court to take into account, when sentencing for the principal offence seq 11, the following offences on a Form 1:

Seq 5: knowingly deal with the proceeds of crime ($238,690) contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty being

Seq 7: possessing a prohibited drug (2.14g of 3,4 methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine) contrary to s 10(1) of the DMT Act;

Seq 8: possessing a prohibited drug (0.11g of cocaine) contrary to s 10(1) of the DMT Act

Continue reading R v Robson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Robson [2022] NSWDC 645
Case
[2022] NSWDC 645
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Robson involved the sentencing of the accused for multiple drug offences, including the supply of a commercial quantity of cannabis, the supply of an indictable quantity of cannabis, and knowingly dealing in the proceeds of crime. The accused had undertaken a drug rehabilitation program, which was considered by the court. The accused was the main co-offender, and the case also involved the consideration of the parity principle where the main co-offender had already been sentenced. The court was required to decide whether the threshold under section 5 of the Sentencing Act had been crossed, and whether any sentence of imprisonment should be served by the accused in custody.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the accused's personal history, and the impact of the drug rehabilitation program on the accused's prospects of rehabilitation. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the need to uphold the principle of parity in sentencing where a main co-offender had already been sentenced. The court found that the threshold under section 5 of the Sentencing Act had been crossed, and that any sentence of imprisonment should be served by the accused in custody. The court also took into account the accused's participation in the drug rehabilitation program and the prospects of rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the accused to a term of imprisonment, with the sentence to be served in custody. The court also ordered that the accused pay a fine and make a contribution to the Victims of Crime Assistance Fund. The court also ordered that the accused's driving licence be disqualified for a period of three years. The court took into account the accused's participation in the drug rehabilitation program and the prospects of rehabilitation, but ultimately found that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to uphold the principles of general deterrence and parity in sentencing.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be sentenced to a term of imprisonment to be served in custody, with a fine and a contribution to the Victims of Crime Assistance Fund, and a disqualification of the accused's driving licence for a period of three years. The court also ordered that the sentence be attached on a Form 1, and that the accused be required to undertake a drug rehabilitation program as a condition of parole.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 109

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.