R v Standen - [2011] NSWSC 1422

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Standen [2011] NSWSC 1422
Hearing dates: 14/03/11 - 11/08/11, 01/09/11, 14/11/11-16/11/11, 22/11/11 - 23/11/11
Decision date: 08 December 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: James J
Decision:
For the offence of conspiring to import -sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years to date from 2 June 2008. Fixed a non-parole period of 12 years to date from 2 June 2008. The earliest date on which the offender will be eligible for release on parole in respect of this offence will be 1 June 2020.
For the offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug - sentenced to a non-parole period of imprisonment of 16 years commencing on 2 June 2008 with a balance of the term of six years making a head sentence of 22 years. The earliest date on which the offender will be eligible for release on parole in respect of this offence will be 1 June 2024.
For the offence of conspiring to pervert the course of justice - sentenced to imprisonment for three and a half years to date from 2 June 2008. In the circumstances including that the sentence has now expired I decline to fix a non-parole period or to make a recognizance release order in respect of the sentence for this offence.

Catchwords: SENTENCE - importation of drugs - supplying drugs - perverting the course of justice
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (NSW)
Commonwealth Crimes Act
Commonwealth Criminal Code
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Representation: TA Game SC / HK Dhanji / S Buchen - Crown
Director of Public Prosecutions - Commonwealth
Elliot Lawyers

File Number(s): 2009/8922

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 11 August this year, after a trial conducted before me, a jury found Mark William Standen (who I will generally refer to as Mr Standen or the prisoner) guilty of the three offences with which he had been charged, namely:-

1. That between 1 January 2006 and 2 June 2008 he conspired with Bakhos Jalalaty, James Henry Kinch and divers others to import a substance believing that another person intended to use any of the substance to manufacture a controlled drug, the substance being a border controlled precursor, namely pseudoephedrine, and the quantity being a commercial quantity.

2. That between 1 January 2006 and 2 June 2008 he knowingly took part in the supply of an amount of a prohibited drug, to wit 300 kilograms of pseudoephedrine, being an amount not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug.

3. That between 1 January 2006 and 2 June 2008 he conspired with Bakhos Jalalaty and James Henry Kinch to pervert the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth, by agreeing that he would use his knowledge and information obtained by him in order to avoid proceedings being instituted or…

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 Standen

Details

AGLC: R v Standen [2011] NSWSC 1422
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1422
Decision Date: 08 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Standen, the appellant stood before the High Court of Australia to contest the severity of his sentence, which was imposed following his conviction for the importation and supply of drugs, as well as for perverting the course of justice. The trial court had handed down a lengthy sentence, and Standen appealed, arguing that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the crimes committed. The appeal was heard by a panel of judges who were tasked with reviewing the legal principles surrounding sentencing and determining whether the trial court had erred in its assessment.

The legal issues that required resolution in this case centred around the principles of sentencing in criminal law, specifically the factors that a court must take into account when determining the appropriate punishment for a convicted offender. The court was called upon to consider whether the trial court had appropriately balanced the various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial court had erred in considering certain aspects of Standen's background and personal circumstances in the sentencing process.

The High Court, after a thorough review of the evidence and the trial court's reasoning, found that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant sentencing principles and had not erred in imposing the sentence. The court confirmed that the sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate to the gravity of the crimes. The judges emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the offender's conduct, including the multiple offences and the significant impact on the community, in determining an appropriate punishment. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge had appropriately weighed the need for deterrence and the protection of the community against the offender's personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Standen's sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court in this matter. The decision reinforces the principle that courts must carefully consider all relevant factors when determining a sentence, and that appellate courts will intervene only if there has been a clear error in the application of the law or the sentencing process.

Orders