Medium Neutral Citation: R v Traynor (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 612
Hearing dates: 1 December 2023
Date of orders: 1 December 2023
Decision date: 01 December 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity — Indictable quantity — Cocaine
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment —Intensive Correction Order not appropriate
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence —Form 1 — Role of offender — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Impact of multiple traumas — Family hardship —Mercy — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-Publications Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Donald (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 198
Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
Henry v R [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149
Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217
Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
Pym v R [2014] NSWCCA 182
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Kelly [1999] UKHL 4; [2000] 1 QB 198
R v R E [2023] NSWCCA 184
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131
R v Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3
Tootell v R [2012] QCA 273

Category: Sentence
Parties: Frank Traynor (a pseudonym) (offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Howell (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Morrisons Law (for the offender)
K Reardon Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2022/69908
Publication restriction:
1. Order pursuant to s 7 Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW):

a. The offender be referred to by a pseudonym.

b. The publication of any of the following be prohibited:

i. information tending to reveal the identity of the offender, a party to these proceedings, in connection with these proceedings or in connection with the evidence given in these proceedings or in connection with information about evidence given in these proceedings; or

ii. information tending to reveal the identity of the offender’s father in connection with these proceedings or in connection with the evidence given in these proceedings or in connection with information about evidence given in these proceedings.

2. Order 1 shall apply:

a. To all media including but not limited to print, radio, television, internet and social media;

b.…

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 Traynor (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Traynor (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 612
Case: [2023] NSWDC 612
Decision Date: 01 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Traynor, heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, involves the defendant, Traynor, who was charged with supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine, an offence under the Drug Misuse Act 1986. Traynor pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. The key legal issues before the court were the determination of the objective seriousness of the offence, the identification of any mitigating factors, and the formulation of a sentence that appropriately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation.

The court first considered the objective seriousness of the offence, noting the large quantity of cocaine involved, which indicated a significant level of involvement in drug supply. The court assessed the role of Traynor in the offence, concluding that he played a substantial role, which increased the severity of the sentence. However, the court also took into account mitigating factors, including Traynor’s plea of guilty, which was acknowledged as a substantial discount on the sentence. Additionally, the court recognised Traynor’s expressions of remorse, his history of drug addiction, and the impact of multiple traumas and mental illness, all of which were considered in determining the appropriate penalty.

In arriving at the sentence, the court engaged in an instinctive synthesis of all relevant factors. While an intensive correction order was deemed inappropriate, the court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary. The court found that a sentence of three years and ten months, with a non-parole period of one year and eleven months, was appropriate, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the mitigating circumstances presented. This sentence aimed to provide both punishment and an opportunity for Traynor to address his underlying issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Traynor (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 612

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

R v RE
[2023] NSWCCA 184 Para 20

…o regard it as a matter of some seriousness relative to matters where there is perhaps a one-off supply involving the same quantity of drugs: R v R E [2023] NSWCCA 184 at [35].…
Stanley v DPP (NSW)
[2023] HCA 3 Para 69

…ess than 3 years could be imposed, adopting the forward-looking approach set out by the High Court in Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3, and the material before me, particularly his compliance with harsh bail conditions, and his progress towards rehabilitation, that there would be no…
Lloyd v R
[2022] NSWCCA 18 Para 33

…here to lessen the effects of the opinion of those who provided affidavits to the Court or of the professionals who provided their reports: Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18; Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88]; Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226 at [116]; Pym v R [2014] NSWCCA 182 at [79].…
Donald (a pseudonym) v R
[2021] NSWCCA 198 Para 65

…moral culpability. There are many ways underlying mental problems can be treated by the courts in amelioration of penalty: Donald (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 198 at [116] citing Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177].…
Luque v R
[2017] NSWCCA 226 Para 33

…idavits to the Court or of the professionals who provided their reports: Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18; Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88]; Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226 at [116]; Pym v R [2014] NSWCCA 182 at [79].…
Jadron v R
[2015] NSWCCA 217 Para 13

…undercover operatives or to other customers. The rolling up of this quantity was accepted by the defence: Hamzy v R(1994) 74 A Crim R 341; Jadron v R[2015] NSWCCA 217. It has some advantage to the offender in that it restricts the maximum penalty available as prescribed by the legislation for a single offence, rath…
Pym v R
[2014] NSWCCA 182 Para 33

…ssionals who provided their reports: Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18; Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88]; Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226 at [116]; Pym v R [2014] NSWCCA 182 at [79].…
Devaney v R
[2012] NSWCCA 285 Para 33

…the opinion of those who provided affidavits to the Court or of the professionals who provided their reports: Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18; Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88]; Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226 at [116]; Pym v R [2014] NSWCCA 182 at [79].…
R v Tootell; ex parte
[2012] QCA 273 Para 44

…h is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon. [But it] need not be unique or unprecedented or even rare”: Tootell v R [2012] QCA 273 at [18]; R v Kelly [1999] UKHL 4; [2000] 1 QB 198 at [208].…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 65

…ration of penalty: Donald (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 198 at [116] citing Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177].…
R v Way
[2004] NSWCCA 131 Para 23

…erial before me to indicate that the offender was induced in any way to supply the drugs to the undercover operatives: R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131 at [181].…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 26

…ence and retribution for the crime for sentence: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 at [39]-[42].…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111 Para 36

…e community, and has done all that is possible, while subject to strict bail, in the community to demonstrate progress to rehabilitation: Henry v R [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149 at [273].…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 36

…s done all that is possible, while subject to strict bail, in the community to demonstrate progress to rehabilitation: Henry v R [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149 at [273].…
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Redrow Group Plc
[1999] UKHL 4 Para 44

…r unusual, or special, or uncommon. [But it] need not be unique or unprecedented or even rare”: Tootell v R [2012] QCA 273 at [18]; R v Kelly [1999] UKHL 4; [2000] 1 QB 198 at [208].…
[2000] 1 QB 198
[2000] 1 QB 198 Para 44

…pecial, or uncommon. [But it] need not be unique or unprecedented or even rare”: Tootell v R [2012] QCA 273 at [18]; R v Kelly [1999] UKHL 4; [2000] 1 QB 198 at [208].…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
1 mention
Court Suppression and Non-Publications Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
1 mention
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 26)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Traynor (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 612
Hearing dates:	1 December 2023
Date of orders:	1 December 2023
Decision date:	01 December 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity — Indictable quantity — Cocaine SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment —Intensive Correction Order not appropriate SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence —Form 1 — Role of offender — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Impact of multiple traumas — Family hardship —Mercy — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Court Suppression and Non-Publications Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Donald (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 198 Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 Henry v R [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149 Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217 Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18 Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226 Pym v R [2014] NSWCCA 182 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Kelly [1999] UKHL 4; [2000] 1 QB 198 R v R E [2023] NSWCCA 184 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131 R v Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291 Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3 Tootell v R [2012] QCA 273
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Frank Traynor (a pseudonym) (offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: S Howell (for the offender) Solicitors: Morrisons Law (for the offender) K Reardon Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2022/69908
Publication restriction:	1. Order pursuant to s 7 Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW): a. The offender be referred to by a pseudonym. b. The publication of any of the following be prohibited: i. information tending to reveal the identity of the offender, a party to these proceedings, in connection with these proceedings or in connection with the evidence given in these proceedings or in connection with information about evidence given in these proceedings; or ii. information tending to reveal the identity of the offender’s father in connection with these proceedings or in connection with the evidence given in these proceedings or in connection with information about evidence given in these proceedings. 2. Order 1 shall apply: a. To all media including but not limited to print, radio, television, internet and social media; b.…