R v Wilkins - [2007] NSWDC 65

CITATION: R v Wilkins [2007] NSWDC 65

HEARING DATE(S): 15/03/07

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 March 2007

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Norrish QC DCJ

DECISION: See paragraphs 56 - 59.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - supply methamphetamine - on going supply methamphetamine - cooperation with authorities - early plea - parity - partial accumulation - Form 1 matters.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Tisalandis (1982) 2 NSWLR 430
Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 309
SZ v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 19
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92
R v El Hani [2004] NSWCA 162
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

PARTIES: Regina
Shayne Robert Wilkins

FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0116

COUNSEL: Mr Corr
Mr Weir

SOLICITORS: DPP
Legal Aid NSW

JUDGMENT

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Shayne Robert Wilkins, appears today for sentence in relation to four charges to which he pleaded guilty at the Local Court. The four charges are firstly that he, between 27 November and 16 December 2005 at Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales, did, on three or more separate occasions during a period of thirty consecutive days, supply a prohibited drug other than cannabis, to wit, N,N-dimethylamphetamine (common known as “speed”) for financial or material reward. This is an offence brought pursuant to s 25A(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment.

2 The second charge in time to which he pleaded guilty is another offence pursuant to s 25A(1) alleging ongoing supply of methylamphetamine between 20 January 2006 and 4 February 2006.

3 The third charge in time is an allegation that the prisoner, on 13 April 2006 at Kooringal in the State of New South Wales did agree to supply an amount of a prohibited drug, to wit, 2,000 ecstasy tablets, being an amount which is not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug. That offence brought pursuant to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment.

4 Further, the prisoner pleaded guilty to a charge alleging that he, on 19 April 2006 at Kooringal, did supply a prohibited drug, to wit, “4 ounces of amphetamine”. This is an offence brought pursuant to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years imprisonment. The quantity of the drug supplied is more specifically identified in the statement of facts.

5 The prisoner also requests that I take into account three matters on a Form One. The Crown has asked that I take them into account in relation to the second charge in time to which the prisoner has pleaded guilty. That offence will be hereinafter referred to as the principal offence. The three offences on the Form One include, firstly, an allegation on 23 March 2006 the prisoner did supply 23.8 grams of methylamphetamine; secondly, that he on 3 April 2006 did supply a…

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 Wilkins

Details

AGLC: R v Wilkins [2007] NSWDC 65
Case: [2007] NSWDC 65
Decision Date: 15 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wilkins, the appellant was convicted of multiple drug supply offences and was sentenced to imprisonment. The dispute centred around the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court and the appellant's arguments for a reduced sentence based on factors such as his cooperation with authorities and early plea. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the original sentencing court had appropriately considered the principles of parity and partial accumulation in determining the sentence. The appellant argued that his cooperation with authorities and early plea should have resulted in a more lenient sentence. Additionally, the appellant contended that the sentencing court had not adequately balanced the seriousness of the offences with the mitigating factors.

The High Court considered the principles of sentencing and the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the crimes committed, while also taking into account any mitigating factors. The Court found that the original sentencing court had failed to adequately consider the appellant's cooperation with authorities and his early plea, which warranted a reduction in sentence. The Court also noted that the appellant's ongoing involvement in the supply of methamphetamine was a significant factor in the severity of the sentence. Ultimately, the High Court determined that the original sentence was excessive and ordered a re-sentencing hearing to be conducted with proper consideration of all relevant factors.

The final orders of the Court were that the original sentence be set aside and that the appellant be re-sentenced at a hearing where the sentencing court would properly consider the principles of parity, partial accumulation, and the appellant's cooperation with authorities and early plea. The Court outlined specific factors that the sentencing court must consider in re-determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs 56 - 59.

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 Wilkins [2007] NSWDC 65
HEARING DATE(S):	15/03/07
JUDGMENT DATE:	15 March 2007
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Norrish QC DCJ
DECISION:	See paragraphs 56 - 59.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentence - supply methamphetamine - on going supply methamphetamine - cooperation with authorities - early plea - parity - partial accumulation - Form 1 matters.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
CASES CITED:	R v Tisalandis (1982) 2 NSWLR 430 Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 309 SZ v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 19 R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92 R v El Hani [2004] NSWCA 162 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
PARTIES:	Regina Shayne Robert Wilkins
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/11/0116
COUNSEL:	Mr Corr Mr Weir
SOLICITORS:	DPP Legal Aid NSW