R v Thompson - [2019] NSWDC 19

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Thompson [2019] NSWDC 19
Hearing dates: 12 February 2019
Decision date: 14 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Three year Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [75]

Catchwords: Deemed supply of prohibited drugs
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571
Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A CrimR 58
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Craig Thompson (aka Craig Varty) (Offender)
Representation: Ms L Burgoyne, Solicitor, ODPP (Crown)
Mr H White, Counsel instructed by Mr E Renard of Legal Aid (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/270753
Publication restriction: Nil

Remarks on Sentence

The offender, who was born in 1980, is to be sentenced in respect of three offences:

Sequence 1 - Supply prohibited drug (103.27g methylamphetamine).

Sequence 7 - Supply prohibited drug (81.85g MDMA).

Sequence 14 - Supply prohibited drug (9.95g MDA).

Each of the charges is brought pursuant to s.25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”). The maximum penalty for each offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 2,000 penalty units. There is no Standard Non-Parole Period proscribed.
The offender has asked that in respect of the offence in sequence 7, supply prohibited drug (81.85 grams MDMA) that the following matters be taken into account on a Form 1 namely:

Sequence 2 - Goods in personal custody, being $2,174.50 cash. This offence is pursuant to s.527C(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is six months imprisonment and/or a fine of 5 penalty units.

Sequence 5 - Resist officer in execution of duty. This offence is pursuant to s.58 Crimes Act and the maximum penalty is five years at law (two years summary jurisdiction) and/or a fine of 50 penalty units.

Sequence 8 - Possess prohibited drug, namely 40.1 g of cannabis. The offence is pursuant to s.10(1) of the DMTA and has a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and/or 20 penalty units

Sequence 9 - Possess tablet press of drug encapsulator. The offence is pursuant to s.11B(1) of the DMTA. The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment and/or 20 penalty units.

Sequence 10 - Goods in personal custody being $5,350 cash. The offence is pursuant to s.527C(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is six months imprisonment and/or a fine of five penalty units.

The following backup offences have been set out in a Certificate Pursuant to Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986:-

Sequence 2 goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen.

Sequence 3 carry cutting weapon upon apprehension

Sequence 4 assault officer in execution of duty

Sequence 5 resist officer in execution of duty.

Sequence 8 possess prohibited drug

Sequence 9 possess tablet press or drug incapsulator.

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson [2019] NSWDC 19
Case: [2019] NSWDC 19
Decision Date: 14 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thompson was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Thompson, was charged with offences related to the deemed supply of prohibited drugs. The matter came before the court for sentencing after Thompson had pleaded guilty to the charges. The prosecution sought a custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a non-custodial alternative, citing Thompson's background and potential for rehabilitation.

The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). Key issues included the nature and circumstances of the offence, Thompson's criminal history, and the need for the sentence to deter both the offender and others from committing similar offences. Additionally, the court had to weigh the arguments for and against a custodial sentence, considering Thompson's prospects for rehabilitation and the potential impact of imprisonment on his life.

The court found that Thompson's actions constituted a serious breach of public trust, given the nature of the offence involving prohibited drugs. However, it also acknowledged Thompson's willingness to plead guilty and his potential for rehabilitation. After careful consideration of all factors, the court decided that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate. It imposed a three-year Intensive Correction Order, aiming to address Thompson's offending behaviour while allowing him to remain in the community. This decision reflected a balanced approach between punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Three year Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [75]

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 Thompson [2019] NSWDC 19
Hearing dates:	12 February 2019
Decision date:	14 February 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Three year Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [75]
Catchwords:	Deemed supply of prohibited drugs
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A CrimR 58 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Craig Thompson (aka Craig Varty) (Offender)
Representation:	Ms L Burgoyne, Solicitor, ODPP (Crown) Mr H White, Counsel instructed by Mr E Renard of Legal Aid (Offender)
File Number(s):	2017/270753
Publication restriction:	Nil