R v Tanti

Case [2021] NSWDC 381


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tanti [2021] NSWDC 381
Hearing dates: 5 August 2021
Date of orders: 5 August 2021
Decision date: 05 August 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence of 4 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME - Possess Shortened Firearm - Possess Defaced Firearm - Possess Loaded Firearm in Public Place - Supply prohibited drug - Drive whilst disqualified - Negligent driving

SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence - early plea - multiple offences - Forms 1 - s 166 summary matters - serving Local Court sentences - totality – application of Pearce v The Queen – long term drug addict – long record - escalation of seriousness of offending - some recent insight into need for rehabilitation programmes - community support

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Criminal ProcedureAct1986

Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985

Firearms Act 1996

Cases Cited:

Attorney General’s Application No 1 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1 (2007) 168 A Crim R 41

Do v R [2010] NSWCCA 182

El Jamal v R [2017] NSW CCA 243

Markarian v the Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295

R v Lachlan [2015] NSW CCA 178

R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704

R v Thurgar (1990) 51 A Crim R 109

Tran v R [2010] NSWCCA 183

Texts Cited:

D. Wetherburn & S. Rahman, The Vanishing Criminal, MUP, 2021

Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497, 2011, BOCSAR

Category:Sentence
Parties: Matthew Tanti (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms E Parkes, Solicitor Advocate, Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Ms A Kerr (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s): 2021/00018485

sentence

Introduction

  1. In May 2020 Matthew Tanti was released to parole. It was not the first time he had been to gaol. He had served a number of short sentences since 2006. He was then 32. He had a wife and two children and skills as a roof tiler. Unfortunately he also had a long term methylamphetamine addiction. By September he was in trouble again. It appears he was using ½ gram a day. He was arrested and bailed for driving while disqualified on both the 5th and 22nd September 2020. In December 2020 he was arrested for goods in custody and drug possession offences. On 18 January 2021 he committed a break and enter offence.

  2. On 21 January 2021 Tanti was driving a car south on the Princes Highway near Kembla Grange. The car he was driving belonged to a man police knew was disqualified from driving. Unsurprisingly…

Continue reading R v Tanti

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tanti [2021] NSWDC 381
Case
[2021] NSWDC 381
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tanti involved an individual who was charged with multiple criminal offences. The defendant was found to be in possession of a shortened firearm, a firearm with its serial number defaced, and a loaded firearm in a public place. Additionally, he was charged with supplying a prohibited drug and driving while disqualified and in a negligent manner. The matter was heard in the NSW Supreme Court.

The legal issues that the court had to determine were primarily focused on sentencing. The court had to consider the principles of totality and proportionality in sentencing, taking into account the defendant's early plea, multiple offences, and the need for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the defendant's long criminal history, his status as a long-term drug addict, and the escalation in the seriousness of his offending over time. Furthermore, the court had to balance these factors against the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the protection of the community.

The court found that the defendant's criminal history was extensive, with a pattern of escalating offending culminating in the current charges. However, the court also noted that the defendant had recently shown some insight into the need for rehabilitation programmes and had some community support. The court considered the defendant's early plea and the fact that he had been serving sentences in the Local Court, which would be taken into account in the calculation of the aggregate sentence. The court ultimately decided to impose an aggregate sentence of 4 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months. The court found that this sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offending and took into account all relevant factors.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a total of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months. The court noted that this sentence was arrived at by considering all relevant factors, including the defendant's early plea, multiple offences, and the need for rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offending and would provide general and specific deterrence, as well as protection for the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 4 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months.

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.