R v Roth Mony

Case [2021] NSWDC 188


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Roth Mony [2021] NSWDC 188
Hearing dates: 09 April 2021
Date of orders: 12 April 2021
Decision date: 12 April 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

See [49] onwards

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW –– Firearm offences – Possess a prohibited firearm – Possess ammunition for a firearm without holding a licence or permit – Custody of one firearm part – Possess an unauthorised pistol

CRIMINAL LAW –– Drug offences – Possession of testosterone, trenbolone, ephedrine and cannabis leaf

SENTENCE –– Form 1 matters– Offender’s reason for possessing the firearms being protection was not a mitigating factor – Mitigating factors – early plea –remorse – Aggravating factors – prior record of possessing unauthorised or prohibited firearms

SENTENCE ––Where principles in R v Bugmy apply –Offender is assessed at Medium-High risk of reoffending – Where the court has found that the Offender has made positive progress by engaging with various programmes – Special circumstances found in relation to the Offender’s young age, need for extended parole and risk of institutionalisation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 33, 21A

Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 10

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 4, 7, 74

Cases Cited:

Attorney-General’s Application under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Branko Balic, NSWCCA 29/9/97

Mack v R; Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216

R v AA (2006) NSWCCA 55

R v Bugmy (2013) 249 CLR 571

R v Kristic (2005) NSWCCA 391

Thalari v R [2009] NSWCCA 170

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (the Crown)
Roth Mony (the Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms A Khandhar (the Crown)
Mr S Dayeian (the Offender)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (the Offender)
File Number(s): 2020/00053320; 2020/00199119

Judgment

  1. Roth Mony has pleaded guilty and is to be sentenced in respect of the following matters:

  1. Sequence 4: On 18 February 2020, at Wakely in the State of New South Wales, he did possess a prohibited firearm, namely a shortened Stirling Model 20 self-loading rifle not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit contrary to section 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (the 1996 Act). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 4 years imprisonment. In sentencing the Offender in respect of this offence, I have been requested to take into account pursuant to section 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (the 1999 Act) an offence being sequence 9 on form 1B. This offence is that on 18 February 2020, at Wakely in the State of New South Wales, he did possess a prohibited weapon, namely a silencer, without being authorised to do so by permit contrary to section 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). This offence also carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and a…

Continue reading R v Roth Mony

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Roth Mony [2021] NSWDC 188
Case
[2021] NSWDC 188
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Roth Mony involved an appeal against both conviction and sentence by the defendant, who was found guilty of various firearm and drug offences. The decision was made in the relevant Australian court. The defendant was charged with possessing a prohibited firearm, possessing ammunition without a licence, custody of a firearm part, and possessing an unauthorised pistol. Additionally, he was charged with drug offences involving testosterone, trenbolone, ephedrine, and cannabis leaf.

The court was required to decide several legal issues, primarily focusing on the sentencing of the defendant. The defendant argued that his possession of firearms was for protection, which should be considered a mitigating factor. The court also had to consider the mitigating factors of the defendant’s early plea and remorse, as well as the aggravating factors of his prior record of possessing unauthorised or prohibited firearms. The application of principles from R v Bugmy was relevant, particularly in assessing the defendant’s risk of reoffending. The court considered the defendant's positive engagement with various programmes as a mitigating factor, alongside special circumstances such as his young age, need for extended parole, and risk of institutionalisation.

The court found that the defendant’s reason for possessing the firearms did not mitigate his sentence, but acknowledged the mitigating factors of his early plea and remorse. The prior record of possessing unauthorised or prohibited firearms was an aggravating factor. Applying the principles from R v Bugmy, the defendant was assessed at a medium-high risk of reoffending. However, the court also recognised his positive engagement with rehabilitation programmes and the special circumstances of his young age and risk of institutionalisation. The court ultimately determined that these factors warranted a specific form of sentence, which was outlined in the detailed orders section of the judgement.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [49] onwards

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.