R v Slater

Case [2019] NSWDC 471

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Slater [2019] NSWDC 471
Hearing dates: 24 July 2019
Date of orders: 24 July 2019
Decision date: 24 July 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

In relation to the State matter, a sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years, commencing 26 June 2017 and expiring on 25 June 2022; 

In relation to the Commonwealth offences, a sentence of three years imprisonment, commencing 26 June 2019 and after a period of two years, being 25 June 2021, the offender is to enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months pursuant to s 19AC.

Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth and State offences
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Commonwealth and State offences
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1914
Criminal Code (Cth)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 215 ALR 213
R v DP [2019] NSWCCA 55
R v Holder; R v Johnson (1983) 3 NSWLR 245
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Yeung v R [2018] NSWCCA 52
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Leigh Slater (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
P Lowe (Crown)
A Chhabra (Offender)

  Solicitors:
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Hanna Legal (Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/00190412

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. Leigh Slater appears before me for sentence. He has pleaded guilty to four charges. They are as follows:

  2. Charge 1, between 25 August 2016 and 6 October 2016, knowingly take part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (998 grams), contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment and/or 5,000 penalty units. There is a standard non-parole period of 15 years.

  3. Charge 2, on 17 March 2016, traffic in a controlled drug (55 grams) methylamphetamine, contrary to s 302.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), maximum penalty ten years and/or 2,000 penalty units.

  4. Charge 3, on 17 July 2016, traffic in a controlled drug (55 grams) methylamphetamine, contrary to s 302.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), maximum penalty ten years and/or 2,000 penalty units.

  5. Charge 4, on 18 August 2016, traffic in a controlled drug (83 grams) methylamphetamine, contrary to s 302.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), the maximum penalty ten years and/or 2,000 penalty units.

  6. The maximum penalties and the standard non-parole period are an important guidepost in the assessment of sentence. A judge should steer via the maximum penalty but not aim for it.

  7. The offender has been in custody since 26 June 2017 and has spent two years and 29 days, including today’s date (24 July 2019), in custody solely referable to the charges before the Court.

THE PLEA

  1. On 25 January 2019 the offender appeared at the Penrith Local Court and entered pleas of guilty and was committed for sentence.

Discount for State Offence

  1. The guilty plea and the timing of the plea are…

Continue reading R v Slater

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Slater [2019] NSWDC 471
Case
[2019] NSWDC 471
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Slater, the appellant, was convicted of multiple drug-related offences under both State and Commonwealth law. The case reached the court, where the primary issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed for these convictions. Given the overlap between the State and Commonwealth offences, the court had to determine whether the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, and if so, to what extent.

The legal issue before the court was the imposition of sentences for multiple convictions, particularly where the offences were related and involved both State and Commonwealth law. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing under both jurisdictions, the nature and gravity of the offences, and the overarching goal of deterrence and rehabilitation. The appellant's legal team argued for concurrent sentencing, while the prosecution urged the court to impose consecutive sentences to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences.

The court found that the offences were of significant gravity, involving large quantities of drugs and repeated criminal activity. While acknowledging the appellant's acceptance of responsibility and efforts towards rehabilitation, the court determined that consecutive sentences were appropriate to ensure sufficient punishment and deterrence. The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years for the State offences, and a three-year sentence for the Commonwealth offences, to commence after the State sentence. This approach reflected the need to balance the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

In relation to the State matter, a sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years, commencing 26 June 2017 and expiring on 25 June 2022;

In relation to the Commonwealth offences, a sentence of three years imprisonment, commencing 26 June 2019 and after a period of two years, being 25 June 2021, the offender is to enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months pursuant to s 19AC.

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.