R v Waters, Codie - [2008] NSWDC 287

CITATION: R v Waters, Codie; Waters, Grant and Waters, Shannon [2008] NSWDC 287

HEARING DATE(S): 18/07/08

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 July 2008

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ

DECISION: Codie Waters: 4years 9months 15 days Non parole period of 2 years 9 months and 15 days
Shannon Waters: Sentenced 3years Non parole period 2 years.
Grant Waters: Sentenced 2years and 9months; Non parole period 2 years.
Ordered drugs to be destroyed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - co-offenders - supply prohibited drug - commercial quantity - standard non parol period offence - 252 gms - CW principal offender - GW and SW participate in supply, delivery and collection at direction of CW - offence in context of prior on-going offending - drugs sourced from Canberra based supplier - supply continues in face of reasonable known risk of police surveillence - Form 1 matters, receiving, cultivate cannabis - 10 plants - receiving stolen property - quantity close to lower threshold of commercial quantity - plea of guilty - standard non parol period not appropriate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1989
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act

CASES CITED: R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329
R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597
R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
R v Smiroldo [2000] NSWCCA 120
R v Kalache [2007] NSWCCA 2
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168

PARTIES: Regina
Codie Anthony Waters
Grant Anthony Waters
Shannon Lawrence Waters

FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/11/0627

COUNSEL: Defence: B. Levet

SOLICITORS: Crown: Mr H Baker

JUDGMENT

1. These are the sentence proceedings of Codie Waters, Shannon Waters and Grant Waters. During a period between 7 February and 28 July 2006, Codie Waters was subject to close monitoring by police investigating unlawful supply of amphetamine and cannabis in and around the south coast. A special strike force named Ravensworth was established for this purpose. Codie Waters’ mobile phone was monitored from 7 February 2006. On five occasions over this six and a half month period, Codie received a total of nine ounces of amphetamine, approximately 252 grams, with an agreement to be supplied another four ounces (112 grams) which was in the possession of his supplier towards the end of this period when the supplier was arrested. As to the other 252 grams, he either supplied or, with his father and brother, used some of the amphetamines.

2. Grant Waters, Codie’s father, and Shannon Waters, a younger brother, lived with Codie. All three were amphetamine abusers. They had been knowingly concerned with the supply of some 252 grams of amphetamine that had made it to their home from the Canberra supplier. Today, each is to be held accountable for his role in the distribution of amphetamines into the South Coast community situated at or around Moruya. Each offender has asked that when sentencing for the relevant charge he faces in the indictment, I take into account further admitted criminality pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1989. I shall deal with that criminality as…

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 Waters, Codie

Details

AGLC: R v Waters, Codie [2008] NSWDC 287
Case: [2008] NSWDC 287
Decision Date: 25 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Waters, Codie involved three defendants who were convicted of various drug-related offences. Codie Waters, the principal offender, was involved in the supply of a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs, specifically 252 grams, with his co-offenders, Shannon Waters and Grant Waters, participating in the supply, delivery and collection of these drugs at his direction. The drugs were sourced from a Canberra-based supplier and the supply continued despite the known risk of police surveillance. The defendants pleaded guilty to various charges including the supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, receiving stolen property, and cultivating cannabis. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for each defendant, considering the seriousness of their offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The defendants' legal representatives argued that the standard non-parole periods for these offences were not appropriate, given the circumstances of the case.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of each defendant's case, including their roles in the offending, their prior criminal history, and their prospects for rehabilitation. The court found that Codie Waters' role as the principal offender warranted a harsher sentence, while the roles of Shannon and Grant Waters were less significant. The court also took into account the defendants' guilty pleas and their cooperation with law enforcement. Ultimately, the court determined that the standard non-parole periods for these offences were not appropriate, given the circumstances of the case. The court imposed sentences of four years and nine months imprisonment for Codie Waters, three years imprisonment for Shannon Waters, and two years and nine months imprisonment for Grant Waters. The court also ordered that the drugs be destroyed.

In summary, the court found the defendants guilty of various drug-related offences and imposed sentences that reflected the seriousness of their offending, while also taking into account mitigating factors such as their guilty pleas and prospects for rehabilitation. The court determined that the standard non-parole periods for these offences were not appropriate, given the circumstances of the case. The defendants were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and ordered to pay fines. The court also ordered that the drugs be destroyed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Codie Waters: 4years 9months 15 days Non parole period of 2 years 9 months and 15 days

Shannon Waters: Sentenced 3years Non parole period 2 years.

Grant Waters: Sentenced 2years and 9months; Non parole period 2 years.

Ordered drugs to be destroyed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Waters, Codie; Waters, Grant and Waters, Shannon [2008] NSWDC 287
HEARING DATE(S):	18/07/08
JUDGMENT DATE:	25 July 2008
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Codie Waters: 4years 9months 15 days Non parole period of 2 years 9 months and 15 days Shannon Waters: Sentenced 3years Non parole period 2 years. Grant Waters: Sentenced 2years and 9months; Non parole period 2 years. Ordered drugs to be destroyed.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - sentencing - co-offenders - supply prohibited drug - commercial quantity - standard non parol period offence - 252 gms - CW principal offender - GW and SW participate in supply, delivery and collection at direction of CW - offence in context of prior on-going offending - drugs sourced from Canberra based supplier - supply continues in face of reasonable known risk of police surveillence - Form 1 matters, receiving, cultivate cannabis - 10 plants - receiving stolen property - quantity close to lower threshold of commercial quantity - plea of guilty - standard non parol period not appropriate.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1989 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act
CASES CITED:	R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329 R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 R v Smiroldo [2000] NSWCCA 120 R v Kalache [2007] NSWCCA 2 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
PARTIES:	Regina Codie Anthony Waters Grant Anthony Waters Shannon Lawrence Waters
FILE NUMBER(S):	2007/11/0627
COUNSEL:	Defence: B. Levet
SOLICITORS:	Crown: Mr H Baker