R v Scanes - [2022] NSWDC 102

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Scanes [2022] NSWDC 102
Hearing dates: 4 April 2022
Date of orders: 7 April 2022
Decision date: 07 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:
See [79 - 81]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Indictable quantity

Legislation Cited:
Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Bail Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Redfern v R [2012] NSWCCA 178
Mandranis [2021] NSWCCA 97
Alferink [2021] NSWDC 473
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown (Regina)
Scanes (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel for the Accused

File Number(s): 2019/00164036
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

Judgment

Jason Rodney Scanes appears for sentence on three charges of supplying a prohibited drug in breach of section 25(1) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act (DMTA) and two counts of dealing with proceeds of crime under section 193B(2) of the Crimes Act. Each of these offences has a 15 year maximum penalty. I take the maximum penalties into account as the legislative guidepost to assist in arriving at the appropriate sentence. There is no standard non-parole period in respect of any of the offences.
There are two charges to be dealt with on a Form 1. One is the offence of possession of a prohibited drug namely cannabis leaf in breach of section 10 DMTA which has a maximum term of two years and/or 20 penalty units, and the second is the offence of failing to appear in breach of section 79 of the Bail Act, the maximum penalty for which is relevantly three years imprisonment or 30 penalty units.
In regard to the Form 1 procedure it is important that the focus remains on the principal offence for which the offender is being sentenced. The procedure allows that in doing this greater weight may be given to the elements of personal deterrents and the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences. Those two elements are entitled to greater weight than they may otherwise be given when sentencing for the primary offence; see Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ. The Form 1 matters are to be taken into account when sentencing for count 1 which is the first of the supply offences.
The Crown bundle includes two section 166 certificates. One is in respect of the possess offence and one in respect of the fail to appear offence. The certificate brings the matters into the District Court, and I take these matters into account by way of the Form 1 procedure and will not be sentencing them summarily.

The facts

Exhibit A includes an agreed statement of facts. There are some errors in it such…

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 Scanes

Details

AGLC: R v Scanes [2022] NSWDC 102
Case: [2022] NSWDC 102
Decision Date: 07 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Scanes, the accused was brought before the court in relation to allegations of drug supply. The nature of the dispute centred around the supply of a prohibited drug in an indictable quantity. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had supplied a prohibited drug in an indictable quantity. This involved examining the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence's counterarguments, including the credibility of witnesses and the interpretation of any intercepted communications or transactions that may have implicated the accused.

The court found that the prosecution had indeed established the necessary elements for a conviction. The reasoning included a thorough examination of the evidence, particularly the testimonies of witnesses and the documentary evidence, which collectively demonstrated that the accused was involved in the supply of a prohibited drug in an amount exceeding the threshold for an indictable offence. The court was satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

As a result, the court found the accused guilty as charged. The final orders of the court, detailed in paragraphs [79-81], outlined the sentencing and any ancillary orders related to the conviction. The accused was sentenced accordingly, and the court provided directions for any further proceedings or appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [79 - 81]

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 Scanes [2022] NSWDC 102
Hearing dates:	4 April 2022
Date of orders:	7 April 2022
Decision date:	07 April 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:	See [79 - 81]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Indictable quantity
Legislation Cited:	Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Redfern v R [2012] NSWCCA 178 Mandranis [2021] NSWCCA 97 Alferink [2021] NSWDC 473 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown (Regina) Scanes (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel for the Accused
File Number(s):	2019/00164036
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted