R v Troy Rhodes - [2017] NSWDC 125

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Troy Rhodes [2017] NSWDC 125
Hearing dates: 17 May 2017
Decision date: 26 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [59].

Catchwords: Two offences of supply prohibited drugs; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Summary Offences Act 1988
Cases Cited: Close v R (1991) 31 NSWLR 743
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Carter [2003] NSWCCA 243
R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9
R v Tuuta [2014] NSWCCA 40
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Troy Rhodes (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
L Hanshaw (Crown)
D Barron (Offender)

File Number(s): 16/15226
Publication restriction: Nil

remarks on sentence

The offender was committed for trial on 27 April 2016 from the Wagga Wagga Local Court. A plea of guilty was notified to the Crown by the defence on 17 February 2017 to the following two charges on an Indictment:

Count 1 – On 15 January 2016 at Wagga Wagga, in the State of New South Wales, supplied a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine, in an amount of 54.21 grams, pursuant to ss 25(1) and s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”).

Count 2 – On 15 January 2016 at Wagga Wagga, in the State of New South Wales, supplied a prohibited drug, namely, amphetamine in an amount of 7.78 grams, pursuant to ss 25(1) and s 29 of the DMTA.

In addition, there are five related offences set out in a certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, which are related matters. They are as follows:

Sequence 6 – Possess prohibited drug, namely, 0.40 grams of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (“MDMA”), pursuant to s 10(1) of the DMTA.

Sequence 8 – Have custody of a laser pointed in a public place, pursuant to s 11FA(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1988.

Sequence 9 – Deal with property suspected proceeds of crime, namely, $16,455.00 pursuant to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

Sequence 10 – Possess prohibited drug, namely, 3.33 grams of oxymetholone pursuant to s 10(1) of the DMTA.

Sequence 11 – Possess prohibited drug, namely, 0.62 grams of cocaine, pursuant to s 10(1) of the DMTA.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 17 May 2017. The Crown bundle (Ex A) included a statement of Agreed Facts which may be summarised as follows.
On Thursday 14 January 2016, the offender checked into a motel in Wagga Wagga in his Ford Falcon sedan motor vehicle, registration number CIN 93M. On the following morning, 15 January 2016, the police sighted the accused’s vehicle in the car park at the motel and attended his room there for the purpose of arresting the accused in respect of domestic…

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 Troy Rhodes

Details

AGLC: R v Troy Rhodes [2017] NSWDC 125
Case: [2017] NSWDC 125
Decision Date: 26 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Troy Rhodes, the respondent faced charges related to the supply of prohibited drugs on two separate occasions. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The respondent pleaded guilty to both counts of supplying a prohibited drug. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences and also adhered to the principles of sentencing in criminal matters.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate aggregate sentence for the two offences of supplying a prohibited drug. The court considered several factors, including the nature and quantity of the drugs supplied, the respondent's criminal history, and the impact of the offences on the community. The court also assessed the principles of deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality in sentencing. Given the respondent's previous convictions and the quantity of drugs involved, the court found that a custodial sentence was necessary.

The court emphasised the need for a sentence that adequately reflected the gravity of the offences while also considering the respondent's potential for rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was warranted. The specific details of the sentence, including the length and conditions, were outlined in the court's judgment. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment with the potential for the respondent's rehabilitation, ultimately aiming to protect the community and deter future criminal behaviour.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [59].

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 Troy Rhodes [2017] NSWDC 125
Hearing dates:	17 May 2017
Decision date:	26 May 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [59].
Catchwords:	Two offences of supply prohibited drugs; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Summary Offences Act 1988
Cases Cited:	Close v R (1991) 31 NSWLR 743 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Carter [2003] NSWCCA 243 R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9 R v Tuuta [2014] NSWCCA 40
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Troy Rhodes (Offender)
Representation:	Solicitors: L Hanshaw (Crown) D Barron (Offender)
File Number(s):	16/15226
Publication restriction:	Nil