R v Taylor - [2024] NSWDC 388

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Taylor [2024] NSWDC 388
Hearing dates: 18 July 2024
Date of orders: 18 July 2024
Decision date: 18 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of Imprisonment 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 3 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness — Deterrence
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age — Health issues — Childhood sexual abuse

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Burrell [2000] NSWCCA 262
R v L (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 17 June 1996, unrep)
R v Sellen (1991) 57 A Crim R 313

Category: Sentence
Parties: David Raymond Taylor (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation: Solicitors:
B Ford solicitor for Douglass & Ford Criminal Law (for the offender)
L McGonigal solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/62210

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

David Taylor was born in 1952. He is for sentence today for an offence of supplying a commercial quantity of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine.
The offence charged, pursuant to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and, for an offence which taking into account only objective factors, falls in the middle of the range, there is a standard non-parole period of 10 years.
The standard non-parole period and the maximum penalty are guides to the exercise of my sentencing discretion. Content should be given to the guidance offered by the standard non-parole period. But that said, every offence and every offender is different. I do not simply start with the maximum or the standard non-parole period and make proportional deductions from them.
I start by considering what was done that establishes the crime for sentence. There are many aspects to this offence that are simply not known. Courts should not speculate. Courts sentence according to what is known. Matters that operate to increase the sentence should be proved beyond reasonable doubt; matters in mitigation, on balance of probabilities. Some matters are uncontroversial, others very much so.

Agreed Facts

Agreed Facts were provided to me. What is known is – that on the afternoon of 23 February 2023 police stopped a vehicle in southern Wollongong owned and being driven by David Taylor. Police searched the vehicle and in a backpack was found a tissue box which appeared heavier than normal. In it was found 492.9 grams of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine.
The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act notes that the commercial quantity for that drug is 250 grams or over and a large commercial quantity is over 500 grams. The quantity of the drug set the penalty range available. Quantity is also one important matter that…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2024] NSWDC 388
Case: [2024] NSWDC 388
Decision Date: 18 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Taylor, the respondent, Taylor, was found guilty of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The case was heard in a higher court of Australia, which is not specified in the text. The primary dispute was centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Taylor given the nature of the offence and various mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court was required to determine the weight to be given to the aggravating factors, such as Taylor's previous criminal record, and the mitigating factors, including his plea of guilty and personal circumstances like his age, health issues, and history of childhood sexual abuse. The objective seriousness of the offence, as well as the need for deterrence, also played a crucial role in the sentencing decision.

The court weighed the various factors and concluded that the most appropriate sentence was imprisonment for a period of three years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. This decision reflects a balanced consideration of the objective and subjective factors presented in the case, aiming to achieve both justice and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of Imprisonment 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 3 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Taylor [2024] NSWDC 388
Hearing dates:	18 July 2024
Date of orders:	18 July 2024
Decision date:	18 July 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of Imprisonment 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 3 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness — Deterrence SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age — Health issues — Childhood sexual abuse
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	R v Burrell [2000] NSWCCA 262 R v L (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 17 June 1996, unrep) R v Sellen (1991) 57 A Crim R 313
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	David Raymond Taylor (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Solicitors: B Ford solicitor for Douglass & Ford Criminal Law (for the offender) L McGonigal solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/62210