R v Turk - [2020] NSWDC 400

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turk [2020] NSWDC 400
Hearing dates: 17 June 2020
Decision date: 17 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. Non parole period of 1 year 2 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Supply not less than commercial quantity prohibited drug - rolled up amount - multiple supplies to undercover operative - no direct harm to community as drugs intercepted.
SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentencing -- early plea – acceptance of responsibility - drug addiction - gambling addiction - strong family support – remorse - solid prospects if assisted on parole - special circumstances.

Legislation Cited:
Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1989
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103
R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Siwek v R [2017] NSWCCA 178

Texts Cited:
Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497. parolesupervisionandreoffending.pdf

Category: Sentence
Parties: Jarrod Turk (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms E Parkes, Solicitor Advocate, Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Mr M Rollestone (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00325981

SENTENCE – ex tempore revised

Drug supply

The sale of illicit drugs causes considerable harm, not just to those who purchase and ingest them but to the community in general. The trade in illicit drugs is one of the principal sources for crime in our community. It is not just the sale of drugs that causes harm; it is the crimes that are committed by those who seek to obtain funds for drugs; it is the destruction of personal and family life that is caused by the use of drugs, and frankly, by the imposition of harsh penalties on those caught supplying drugs.
The law of this State is clear; in most cases, those who engage in the sale of drugs for profit, if caught, will end up in gaol. Parliament on behalf of the community and the courts of criminal appeal have stated repeatedly that only a substantial full time custodial sentence could properly reflect objective seriousness of crimes involving commercial supply of illicit drugs, and only such sentences could meet the purposes of sentencing: s 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999.
In commercial drug supply matters courts are required to impose a sentence which by its severity must attempt to deter others. People who are tempted to supply drugs must ask themselves a simple question, is it worth it? The answer to that question is simple as the evidence in this case makes clear and as Mr Turk…

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 Turk

Details

AGLC: R v Turk [2020] NSWDC 400
Case: [2020] NSWDC 400
Decision Date: 17 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Turk, was convicted of supplying a prohibited drug in a quantity that, though not strictly commercial, was significant enough to warrant criminal action. Turk had supplied the drugs to an undercover operative on multiple occasions, but the drugs were intercepted before reaching the community, thereby preventing any direct harm. The case was heard in the higher court of Australia, where the defendant appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The legal issues the court had to decide centred on the appropriate sentence for Turk's crime, considering several mitigating and aggravating factors. The prosecution argued for a sentence that would reflect the seriousness of the crime, while the defence highlighted mitigating factors such as Turk's early plea, his acceptance of responsibility, his drug and gambling addictions, strong family support, genuine remorse, and the prospects of rehabilitation if granted parole. The court had to balance these factors against the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

The court carefully considered all the mitigating and aggravating factors presented. Turk's early plea and acceptance of responsibility were significant mitigating factors. Additionally, the court noted Turk's drug and gambling addictions, which provided insight into his troubled background and circumstances. The strong family support and his expressed remorse further underscored his potential for rehabilitation. However, the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and protection of the community could not be overlooked. After weighing all these factors, the court decided on a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the crime and the mitigating circumstances.

The court sentenced Turk to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months. The non-parole period was set at 1 year and 2 months, reflecting the court's consideration of both the seriousness of the crime and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. Non parole period of 1 year 2 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 Turk [2020] NSWDC 400
Hearing dates:	17 June 2020
Decision date:	17 June 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. Non parole period of 1 year 2 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Supply not less than commercial quantity prohibited drug - rolled up amount - multiple supplies to undercover operative - no direct harm to community as drugs intercepted. SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentencing -- early plea – acceptance of responsibility - drug addiction - gambling addiction - strong family support – remorse - solid prospects if assisted on parole - special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103 R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66 R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 Siwek v R [2017] NSWCCA 178
Texts Cited:	Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497. parolesupervisionandreoffending.pdf
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Jarrod Turk (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Solicitors: Ms E Parkes, Solicitor Advocate, Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Mr M Rollestone (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00325981