R v Selena Jahnsen

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Selena Jahnsen [2016] NSWDC 158
Hearing dates:28 July 2016
Decision date: 05 August 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

For orders see [44]

Catchwords: Deemed supply of methylamphetamine; full-time custodial sentence; offender referred for assessment for Intensive Correction Order
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999?
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36
PAK v R [2015] NSWCCA 45
R v Cacciola (1998) 104 ACrimR 178
R v Clarke NSWCCA unreported, 15 March 1990
R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
R v Dodd (1991) 57 ACrimR 349
R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Youssef v R [2014] NSWCCA 285
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Selena Jahnsen (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Schaudin (Offender)

  Solicitors:
N Rastovic (Crown)
File Number(s):15/350240
Publication restriction:Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender was committed for sentence on 22 March 2016 from Taree Local Court. She entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity to one count of deemed supply of methylamphetamine pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“the DMTA”).

  2. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years and/or 2,000 penalty units. There is no standard non-parole period prescribed.

  3. The offender has asked that two matters be taken into account on a Form 1. Those offences are as follows:

  1. Supply prohibited drug (3.4 grams methylamphetamine).

  2. Goods suspected stolen in premises ($3,800.00).

  1. The offender was arrested on 27 November 2015 and spent one day in custody before her release on bail.

The Sentence Hearing

  1. The Crown bundle became Ex A on the sentence hearing. It contained a Statement of Agreed Facts which outlined first, the circumstances of the first offence on the Form 1 of supply methylamphetamine (3.4 grams), which informs the deemed supply charge. A fair summary of those facts is that on 27 November 2015, the offender supplied another person with 3.4 grams of methylamphetamine of 78.5% purity, packaged in a plastic resealable bag, and hidden inside the removed finger of a blue rubber glove. Police arrested that person and seized a mobile phone, whereby the offender’s data, including text messages, were identified.

  2. Later that day, Police executed a search warrant at the offender’s home. The offender was cautioned and admitted she was in possession of one gram of methylamphetamine in her en-suite bathroom. Also located in that bathroom were the follow indicia of drug supply:

  • A set of digital scales.

  • A large number of small plastic resealable bags.

  • A number of glass pipes and related paraphernalia.

  • A number of syringes (both opened and packaged).

  1. In other areas of the house the Police located the following:

  • A number of blue rubber gloves (some with fingers removed).

  • Further syringes, glass pipes and related paraphernalia.

  • The offender’s mobile phone (subsequent analysis revealed a number of messages relating to supply prohibited drugs).

  • A small black lock box containing $3,800.00.

  • A tick list.

  • 18.37 grams…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Selena Jahnsen and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] NSWDC 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Selena Jahnsen, was charged with one count of supplying methylamphetamine, contrary to section 40(1)(b) of the *Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985* (NSW). The offence was alleged to have occurred on 26 March 2020, when the respondent was found in possession of 20 grams of methylamphetamine, with a street value of approximately $4,000, and cash in the amount of $2,000. The District Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining the matter.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondent was in possession of the methylamphetamine for the purpose of supply. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentence, if the respondent was found guilty. This involved an analysis of the respondent’s criminal history, her culpability, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court found that the evidence demonstrated that the respondent was not just in possession of the drugs, but had the requisite intention to supply them. This was supported by the significant quantity of the drug, the presence of cash, and the respondent's criminal history. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offence, noting the harmful effects of methylamphetamine on individuals and the community. Given the respondent's prior convictions, the court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary. The respondent was also referred for assessment for an Intensive Correction Order, reflecting the court’s intent to balance punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

For orders see [44]

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.