R v Walker - [2019] NSWDC 554

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Walker [2019] NSWDC 554
Hearing dates: 2 August 2019
Decision date: 02 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of three years with a non parole period of two years.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence - Multiple offences – drug supply - supply for profit and own use – long term drug user – need to engage in treatment – ICO considered – further custody required – special circumstances found.

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985

Cases Cited:
EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36
Robertson v R [2017} NSWCCA 205

Category: Sentence
Parties: Benjamin John Walker (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Powell (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Morrisons Law (for the offender)
Ms A Cabrera (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2018/00143794

Judgment – ex Tempore revised

Benjamin Walker faces sentence today for two serious offences. Both involve the supply of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine: s 25(1) Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985. He has been in custody since his formal arrest on 8 May 2018; although he was in prison, on this occasion, from 29 April 2018, in relation to matters which have yet to be disposed of in the Local Court.
This is not Walker’s first time in gaol. His record reveals a matter in the Children's Court, which I will ignore as evidence about it is inadmissible: s 15 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. There have been Local Court matters since 1988. He has been gaoled a number of times. He is not entitled to the leniency often given to first offenders, but he is not to be punished again for his criminal history.
Walker has in the past attempted drug rehabilitation programs, with moderate success but ultimate failure. It is clear from his custodial record that even in this most recent time in custody, there have been disciplinary matters for drug‑related activity. He clearly has, since he was relatively young, battled with problems of addiction.
The matters for sentence must be forefront in my mind. In March 2017, Walker sourced 186 grams of methylamphetamine from a supplier in Sydney. He was seen to, and did, package the drugs. He then arranged for two others to deliver the drugs to Wagga Wagga, while he flew down to that city. His companions were not very professional. They consumed some of their product and drew themselves to the attention of the police and were arrested. The offender's messages to them, which were recovered, indicate his frustration with them.
Six months later, Waker was again detected involving himself in drug supply activity. Telephone intercepts were recovered which indicated that he was directing others who would contact him so that he could arrange for the supply of methylamphetamine in small quantities, ranging from 0.5 of a gram for $150 to 3.5 grams - "on tick". The enterprise was brought…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2019] NSWDC 554
Case: [2019] NSWDC 554
Decision Date: 02 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walker involved an appeal against sentence by the respondent, who had been convicted of multiple offences related to the supply of drugs for profit and for his own use. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the respondent sought to have the severity of his sentence reviewed. The legal issues before the court involved the consideration of multiple offences, the nature of the drug supply, the respondent's status as a long-term drug user, and the need for the respondent to engage in treatment, among other relevant sentencing factors.

The court began its analysis by considering the aggregate sentence imposed by the lower court and the non-parole period set. The respondent argued that the sentence was unduly harsh given his personal circumstances, including his status as a long-term drug user and the need for treatment. The court acknowledged the importance of treatment for drug users and the potential for rehabilitation, but also noted the seriousness of the offences committed. The court further considered whether special circumstances existed that warranted a reduction in sentence. In reaching its decision, the court balanced the need for punishment and deterrence against the respondent's need for rehabilitation.

Ultimately, the court found that while special circumstances did exist, they did not warrant a reduction in the severity of the sentence. The court determined that the original sentence was appropriate, taking into account the respondent's personal circumstances and the need for treatment. The court also emphasised the importance of addressing drug supply and its associated harms within the community. The court confirmed the aggregate sentence of three years with a non-parole period of two years, as originally imposed by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of three years with a non parole period of two years.

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 Walker [2019] NSWDC 554
Hearing dates:	2 August 2019
Decision date:	02 August 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of three years with a non parole period of two years.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence - Multiple offences – drug supply - supply for profit and own use – long term drug user – need to engage in treatment – ICO considered – further custody required – special circumstances found.
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited:	EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36 Robertson v R [2017} NSWCCA 205
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Benjamin John Walker (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Powell (for the offender) Solicitors: Morrisons Law (for the offender) Ms A Cabrera (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2018/00143794