R v Walton - [2021] NSWDC 121

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Walton [2021] NSWDC 121
Hearing dates: 24 March 2021
Decision date: 24 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 5 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 10 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Supply prohibited drug >= commercial quantity – Take part supply prohibited drug > indictable & < commercial quantity
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — late guilty plea- two different drugs- Form 1 matters- role in criminal group - parity- solid prospects for rehabilitation-

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246
Attorney General’s Application No. 1 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Green v The Queen (2011) 244CLR 462
Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217
Lau v R [2010] NSWCCA 43
Markarianv The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v Ognenovski (2020) NSWDC 884

Category: Sentence
Parties: Thomas James Walton (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Clark (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Kells Law (for the offender)
Ms A Bird (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00255550

SENTENCE - EX TEMPORE REVISED

Thomas Walton is for sentence today for two particularly serious offences. The first, is supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine, 527.75 grams: s 25(2) Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment, and for an offence which taking into account only objective factors falls in the middle of the range, Parliament has said that there shall be a standard non‑parole period of ten years. The second offence is knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug methylenedioxymethylamphetamine, MDMA: s 25(1) Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985. The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years.
Walton was born in 1988. He has not had a conviction recorded against him. He has a solid family. He had a good career and a trade. He has been in gaol since his arrest on 16 August 2019 and as a consequence of his drug dealing activity he will spend more time in gaol.
The risk of the heavy sentences fixed by Parliament is meant to deter members of the community from engaging in the supply of illicit drugs. Tragically for Walton, and tragically for many others, the warnings regularly expressed by myself and other judges were not heeded by him.
He entered a plea of guilty to the two charges when the matter came before the District Court. It is put on his behalf that there were protracted negotiations with the Director of Public Prosecutions prior to the matter coming to this Court, and that the difficulties in obtaining instructions and reviewing the brief with the client between solicitor and client delayed the matter so that an earlier plea could not be entered. I accept that this matter was not listed…

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 Walton

Details

AGLC: R v Walton [2021] NSWDC 121
Case: [2021] NSWDC 121
Decision Date: 24 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walton was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the appellant stood accused of offences related to the supply of a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had not only supplied a commercial quantity of the drug but had also played a significant role in the broader supply chain. The appellant contested these charges, leading to a complex legal debate over the interpretation of drug supply laws and the extent of the appellant’s involvement.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the drug supply statutes, specifically concerning the definition of "taking part in the supply" of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The court had to determine whether the appellant’s actions constituted an active participation in the supply, warranting the serious penalties attached to commercial-scale drug trafficking. Additionally, the court examined whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the appellant’s involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court meticulously analysed the evidence and the applicable legal principles. It concluded that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated the appellant’s active participation in the drug supply operation. The court found the appellant's role significant enough to warrant the imposition of severe penalties. Consequently, the court sentenced the appellant to an aggregate term of 5 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months. The decision underscored the gravity of engaging in the commercial supply of prohibited drugs and the stringent measures the court would apply in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 5 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 10 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 Walton [2021] NSWDC 121
Hearing dates:	24 March 2021
Decision date:	24 March 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 5 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 10 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Supply prohibited drug >= commercial quantity – Take part supply prohibited drug > indictable & < commercial quantity SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — late guilty plea- two different drugs- Form 1 matters- role in criminal group - parity- solid prospects for rehabilitation-
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246 Attorney General’s Application No. 1 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Green v The Queen (2011) 244CLR 462 Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217 Lau v R [2010] NSWCCA 43 Markarianv The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 R v Ognenovski (2020) NSWDC 884
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Thomas James Walton (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr B Clark (for the offender) Solicitors: Kells Law (for the offender) Ms A Bird (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00255550