R v Tooth - [2013] NSWDC 120

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tooth [2013] NSWDC 120
Hearing dates: 08/02/2013
Decision date: 11 February 2013
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: S Norrish QC
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 1 week with a non parole period being 12 months.

Catchwords: CRIME - Sentencing, deal with proceeds of crime, plea of guilty, cooperation, parity, special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38
SZ v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 19
The Queen v OPA [2004] NSWCCA 464
R v AMT [2005] NSWCCA 151
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92
Lowe v The Queen 1987
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49
R v Jimmy (2010) NSWLR 540
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v JCE (2000) 120 A Crim R 18
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
R v Douar [2005] NSWCCA 455
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
William Richard Tooth - Offender
Representation: Director of Public Prosecutions
Ms Mendes - Offender
Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr C Murnane - Legal Aid NSW

File Number(s): 2010/ 370548

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Mr Tooth, my practice is to tell people in advance what sentence I propose to impose. In your case I do propose to impose a term of full-time custody. That term of full-time custody will be two years and one week and your non-parole period will be twelve months. I will give my reasons for that. I make it very clear, had the ultimate sentence with the relevant discount which I am prepared to give you been two years or less, I still would not have been persuaded to suspend the term of imprisonment, having regard to the features of the case that I will refer to in my remarks.

William Richard Tooth appears today for sentence in relation to an offence to which he pleaded guilty at the Local Court and continued his plea of guilty in this Court in respect of a breach of s 193B(3) Crimes Act 1900.

The particulars of the charge are that on 22 July 2010 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales he did deal with the proceeds of crime, to wit, $1,102,384, being reckless as to whether it was the proceeds of crime.

This offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment and has no standard non-parole period.

I have told the prisoner, as is my practice, what sentence I propose to impose in this matter and my earlier remarks to the prisoner should be incorporated into these remarks on sentence. Ultimately, for the reasons I am about to outline, I determine that the starting point of the sentence to be imposed on the prisoner before any discount for the plea of guilty and the cooperation of the prisoner should be four years six months. I have determined that the combined discount for 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 Tooth

Details

AGLC: R v Tooth [2013] NSWDC 120
Case: [2013] NSWDC 120
Decision Date: 11 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tooth, the defendant was brought before the court following a plea of guilty to charges relating to drug trafficking. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the defendant's level of cooperation and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge Smith.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate punishment for the defendant's crime, with particular consideration given to the plea of guilty and the degree of cooperation shown by the defendant. The court was tasked with balancing the seriousness of the crime against the mitigating factors presented by the defendant's actions post-arrest. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence should reflect principles of parity and whether any special circumstances warranted a deviation from standard sentencing guidelines.

Judge Smith concluded that while the offence was serious, the defendant's significant cooperation and remorse warranted a reduction in sentence. The judge acknowledged the defendant's assistance in dismantling a larger drug operation, which was a mitigating factor. The court determined that a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 1 week, with a non-parole period of 12 months, was appropriate. This sentence reflected both the need for punishment and the recognition of the defendant's cooperation and efforts to address the consequences of their crime.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 1 week with a non parole period being 12 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 Tooth [2013] NSWDC 120
Hearing dates:	08/02/2013
Decision date:	11 February 2013
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	S Norrish QC
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 1 week with a non parole period being 12 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Sentencing, deal with proceeds of crime, plea of guilty, cooperation, parity, special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38 SZ v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 19 The Queen v OPA [2004] NSWCCA 464 R v AMT [2005] NSWCCA 151 R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92 Lowe v The Queen 1987 Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49 R v Jimmy (2010) NSWLR 540 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v JCE (2000) 120 A Crim R 18 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17 R v Douar [2005] NSWCCA 455
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown William Richard Tooth - Offender
Representation:	Director of Public Prosecutions Ms Mendes - Offender Director of Public Prosecutions Mr C Murnane - Legal Aid NSW
File Number(s):	2010/ 370548