R v Warren - [2019] NSWDC 820

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warren [2019] NSWDC 820
Hearing dates: 15 November 2019
Decision date: 15 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 4 years 2 months. Non-parole period of 2 years 2 months.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – multiple drug supplies –is deterrent penalty required - impact of deterrent penalties– organised criminal activity – rolled up quantities – Form 1 – use of undercover operative – completion of drug rehabilitation programme while on bail – extraordinary progress – is return to custody necessary – allowance for quasi custody – Intensive Correction Order could not reflect seriousness of crimes.
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: R v Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103
R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66
R v Jose Degouveia; R v Joshua Degouveia [2019] NSWDC 161
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131
Category: Sentence
Parties: Jamie Warren (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D McCallum (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Morrisons Law (for the offender)
Ms A Cabrera (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2018/00092075

SENTENCE – ex tempore revised

It bears repeating and repeating, that the sale of illicit drugs causes considerable harm, not just to those who purchase and ingest the drugs, but to the community in general. The illicit trade in drugs is a principal source of crime in the community. It is not just the crimes committed by the sale of illicit drugs, it is the crimes that are committed by those who seek to obtain funds for drugs, and the crimes which are funded by the profits that can be made, and ultimately the destruction to personal and family life that drugs cause.
Jamie Warren, the offender, does not need a lecture about the harm drugs cause to the community. Throughout his young life, before he was old enough to make any rational choices, drug use has blighted his life and the life of his family. He has for more than a year engaged in the Odyssey House program, and is now seen as a mentor and a leader in that program: A program that does good work helping people come to grips with their drug problems.
The seriousness of the particular offences which are before the Court are reflected in the maximum penalties. For the most serious offence, 20 years imprisonment with a standard non‑parole period of ten years for an offence that falls objectively in the middle of the range, and 15 years for the other matter. Courts are told to do what they can to attempt to deter others from committing the sort of crimes that Warren committed. Ordinarily, we do so by imposing harsh punishment in the hope, and experience shows that it is often just a hope, that that punishment will prevent further crime.
Actual experience, study and empirical research shows that dealing with the root problems, personal and…

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 Warren

Details

AGLC: R v Warren [2019] NSWDC 820
Case: [2019] NSWDC 820
Decision Date: 15 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Warren, the defendant was before the court on charges related to multiple drug supplies. The case was heard in a higher court in Australia, where the defendant's sentence was being determined. The defendant had a history of involvement in organised criminal activities, including the supply of significant quantities of drugs. The court was tasked with considering the appropriate penalty, including whether a deterrent penalty was necessary to address the impact of such activities on the community. Additionally, the defendant had made notable progress in rehabilitation while on bail, which was a factor in the sentencing deliberations.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the relevance of the multiple drug supplies in determining the sentence, the need for a deterrent penalty, and the potential impact of such penalties on organised criminal activity. The court also had to assess the defendant's progress in a drug rehabilitation programme while on bail, and whether this progress justified a lesser sentence. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether returning the defendant to custody was necessary and whether an Intensive Correction Order could adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the defendant's history of involvement in organised criminal activities and the significant quantities of drugs supplied. The court acknowledged the defendant's progress in rehabilitation but ultimately determined that a deterrent penalty was necessary to address the impact of the crimes on the community. The court also noted that while the defendant had made extraordinary progress while on bail, returning to custody was necessary to ensure public safety. The court found that an Intensive Correction Order could not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes, leading to the imposition of a substantial sentence.

The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 4 years and 2 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months. This sentence was intended to reflect the seriousness of the crimes, provide a deterrent effect, and ensure the defendant's reintegration into society under controlled conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 4 years 2 months. Non-parole period of 2 years 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 Warren [2019] NSWDC 820
Hearing dates:	15 November 2019
Decision date:	15 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 4 years 2 months. Non-parole period of 2 years 2 months.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – multiple drug supplies –is deterrent penalty required - impact of deterrent penalties– organised criminal activity – rolled up quantities – Form 1 – use of undercover operative – completion of drug rehabilitation programme while on bail – extraordinary progress – is return to custody necessary – allowance for quasi custody – Intensive Correction Order could not reflect seriousness of crimes.
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	R v Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103 R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66 R v Jose Degouveia; R v Joshua Degouveia [2019] NSWDC 161 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Jamie Warren (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D McCallum (for the offender) Solicitors: Morrisons Law (for the offender) Ms A Cabrera (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2018/00092075