R v Stewart - [2023] NSWDC 469

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stewart [2023] NSWDC 469
Hearing dates: 17 October 2023
Date of orders: 27 October 2023
Decision date: 27 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:
See [84 – 87]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Redfern v R [2012] NSWCCA 178
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
R v Doan [2000] NSWCCA 317
R v Alferlink [2021] NSWDC 473
Hall v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 220
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264

Texts Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ.

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (The Crown)
Jason Stewart (The Offender)
Representation: Gilson for the Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions
Ramsland solicitor for the Offender

File Number(s): 2022/00108645
Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

Jason Michael Stewart appears for sentence in respect of four offences. In respect of three of those offences there are a total of a further five offences to take into account in accordance with the Form 1 procedure.
The charges, their maximum penalty and the relevant Form 1 matter/s are as follows:

The offence under section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act (DMTA) of supplying a prohibited drug of more than an indictable quantity but less than a commercial quantity on 10 December 2021, being 9.087 kg of cannabis. The maximum sentence for this offence is 10 years imprisonment. The Form 1 matters for this offence are two further section 25(1) matters of supplying a prohibited drug, in one case of more than the indictable but less than a commercial quantity and in the other, of more than a small but less than an indictable quantity, both on 14 April 2022 and being the drug cannabis; in these reasons this offence will be referred to as Count 1.

The offence under section 193B(3) of the Crimes Act of dealing with proceeds of crime being reckless as to whether it is proceeds of crime and being in this case $12,300. The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment. In respect of this offence there is to be taken into account in accordance with the Form 1 procedure two further offences under that same section both occurring on 14 April 2022 and in one case being more than $5000 and in the other less than or equal to $5000. In these reasons this offence will be referred to as Count 2.

The offence under section 25(1) DMTA of supplying a prohibited drug of more than an indictable quantity but less than a commercial quantity being 190.7 g of methylamphetamine on 14…

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 Stewart

Details

AGLC: R v Stewart [2023] NSWDC 469
Case: [2023] NSWDC 469
Decision Date: 27 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stewart, the defendant was charged with possession and supply of a prohibited drug. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant argued that the drugs were not his and that he had no intention to supply them.

The primary legal issues for the court to determine were the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence linking the defendant to the drugs in question. The court had to consider whether the prosecution had proven the elements of possession and supply of a prohibited drug. The court also needed to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the chain of custody of the evidence.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the evidence provided by the prosecution was compelling and reliable. The court was satisfied that the prosecution had met its burden of proof, establishing the defendant's possession and supply of the prohibited drug. The court found that the defendant's defence was not credible and that the evidence presented was consistent and corroborated by multiple sources. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty of both possession and supply of a prohibited drug.

The final orders of the court were detailed in paragraphs 84 to 87 of the judgment. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term determined by the court, reflecting the seriousness of the offences. The court also ordered that the defendant be subject to a good behaviour bond and other conditions as deemed appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [84 – 87]

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 Stewart [2023] NSWDC 469
Hearing dates:	17 October 2023
Date of orders:	27 October 2023
Decision date:	27 October 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	See [84 – 87]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Redfern v R [2012] NSWCCA 178 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 R v Doan [2000] NSWCCA 317 R v Alferlink [2021] NSWDC 473 Hall v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 220 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
Texts Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rex (The Crown) Jason Stewart (The Offender)
Representation:	Gilson for the Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions Ramsland solicitor for the Offender
File Number(s):	2022/00108645
Publication restriction:	N/A