R v Taylor - [2024] NSWDC 232

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Taylor [2024] NSWDC 232
Hearing dates: 16 May 2024
Date of orders: 24 May 2024
Decision date: 24 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:
See [Orders}

Catchwords:
CRIME — Firearms offences — Possess ammunition without holding a licence/permit/authority
CRIME — Firearms offences — Possess or use a prohibited weapon without permit
CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Knowingly take part in supply

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
McLaren v R [2012] NSWCCA 284
Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192
Nasrallahv R [2021] NSWCCA 207
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2

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

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (The King)
Bryce Taylor (The Offender)
Representation: Gilson for the Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions
Kearney counsel for The Offender

File Number(s): 2022/00310098, 2022/00321902

Introduction

Reasons on Sentence

Bryce Taylor, the offender, appeared for sentence on 16 May 2024 in respect of five matters dealt with on indictment. In respect of count 1 there is a further matter to be taken into account by way of the Form 1 procedure. There are then a further nine matters to be dealt with summarily being matters that have been brought to this court by way of a section 166 certificate. Accordingly, there are 15 matters that require consideration. The following table sets out the charges on indictment as well as the Form 1 matter and each of the summary matters and indicates the approximate date of the offending, the maximum sentence and if applicable the standard non-parole period:

Count / Seq

Sec

Date

Max

snpp

1

51(1A)(a) FA

27.9.22

20y

10y

F1

51(1) FA

27.9.22

5y

2

51(1A)(a) FA

16.10.22

20y

10y

3

25A(1) DMTA

27.9.22 - 3.10.22

20y

No

4

25A(1) DMTA

15.10.22 - 27.10.22

20y

No

5

25(1); DMTA (cannabis)

17.10.22

10y

No

Seq

Section 166 certificate summary matters

1

s10(1) DMTA; 8mg Buprenorphine

17.10.22

2y & / or 20 pu

n/a

2

s65(3) FA; poss am

17.10.22

50 pu

n/a

3

s7(1) WPA; poss proh weapon; taser

17.10.22

14y

n/a

4

s7(1) WPA; poss proh weapon; knuckle dusters

17.10.22

14y

n/a

5

s7(1) WPA; poss proh weapon; expandable baton

17.10.22

14y

n/a

11

s10(1) DMTA; 8.5g cannabis oil

17.10.22

2y

n/a

12

s10(1) DMTA; 13.96g THC

17.10.22

2y

n/a

14

s10(1) DMTA; 62.76g methandienone

17.10.22

2y

n/a

16

s10(1) DMTA; .12 meth

17.10.22

2y

n/a

*Count / Seq*	*Sec*	*Date*	*Max*	*snpp*
1	51(1A)(a) FA	27.9.22	20y	10y
F1	51(1) FA	27.9.22	5y
2	51(1A)(a) FA	16.10.22	20y	10y
3	25A(1) DMTA	27.9.22 - 3.10.22	20y	No
4	25A(1) DMTA	15.10.22 - 27.10.22	20y	No
5	25(1); DMTA (cannabis)	17.10.22	10y	No
*Seq*	*Section 166 certificate summary matters*
1	s10(1) DMTA; 8mg Buprenorphine	17.10.22	2y & / or 20 pu	n/a
2	s65(3) FA; poss am	17.10.22	50 pu	n/a
3	s7(1) WPA; poss proh weapon; taser	17.10.22	14y	n/a
4	s7(1) WPA; poss proh weapon; knuckle dusters	17.10.22	14y	n/a
5	s7(1) WPA; poss proh weapon; expandable baton	17.10.22	14y	n/a
11	s10(1) DMTA; 8.5g cannabis oil	17.10.22	2y	n/a
12	s10(1) DMTA; 13.96g THC	17.10.22	2y	n/a
14	s10(1) DMTA; 62.76g methandienone	17.10.22	2y	n/a
16	s10(1) DMTA; .12 meth	17.10.22	2y	n/a

The offender was initially arrested on 17 October 2022. He was granted bail on 18 October 2022 and arrested again on 27 October. Accordingly count 4 on the indictment was an offence committed at least in part when the offender was on bail. The offender was not on conditional liberty at the time of the…

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 232
Case: [2024] NSWDC 232
Decision Date: 24 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taylor, the appellant faced a range of charges including possession of ammunition without a licence, possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of a prohibited drug, and knowingly participating in the supply of a prohibited drug. The charges were heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Taylor, contested the validity of these charges and the evidence presented against them.

The central legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for each of the charges. This involved examining the admissibility and weight of the evidence presented, including physical evidence such as ammunition and drugs, as well as witness testimonies. The court also needed to determine whether the prosecution had established the requisite intent and knowledge for the drug supply charge.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence, noting that while some items were found in Taylor's possession, the circumstances under which they were discovered and the reliability of the witnesses were critical. The court found that the prosecution had established the elements of the firearms and drug offences beyond reasonable doubt, while the charge of knowingly participating in the supply of a prohibited drug was not substantiated by the evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted Taylor of the drug supply charge but found them guilty of the other charges. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal standards.

The final orders of the court reflected the findings, acquitting Taylor of the drug supply charge while convicting them on the remaining charges. The court imposed penalties consistent with the severity of the offences committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [Orders}

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 232
Hearing dates:	16 May 2024
Date of orders:	24 May 2024
Decision date:	24 May 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	See [Orders}
Catchwords:	CRIME — Firearms offences — Possess ammunition without holding a licence/permit/authority CRIME — Firearms offences — Possess or use a prohibited weapon without permit CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Knowingly take part in supply
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 McLaren v R [2012] NSWCCA 284 Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192 Nasrallahv R [2021] NSWCCA 207 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Texts Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (The King) Bryce Taylor (The Offender)
Representation:	Gilson for the Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions Kearney counsel for The Offender
File Number(s):	2022/00310098, 2022/00321902