R v Wilkinson

Case [2019] NSWDC 288


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wilkinson [2019] NSWDC 288
Hearing dates: 29 March 2019
Date of orders: 29 March 2019
Decision date: 29 March 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

1) The offender is to enter into a conditional release order without conviction for two years.
2) The offender must not commit any offence.
3) The offender must appear before the Court if called upon.
4) The offender is to abstain from consuming illicit drugs.

In relation to the breach of the s 10 for the drive midrange PCA, the file should be marked that no further action shall be taken in regard to the breach.

Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Knowingly take part in supply
SENTENCING — Penalties — Conditional Release Order -— Whether appropriate for 1st time offence — R v Mauger cited
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CRL 257
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51
R v Nguyen [2002] NSWCCA 183
Sabra v R [2015] NSWCCA 38
Walden v Hensler [1987] HCA 54
Yardley v Betts (1979) 1 A Crim R 329
v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Melinda Wilkinson (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms N Walmsley (Crown)
Ms Tanagi (Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/00281665

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. Melinda Wilkinson appears for sentence. She has pleaded guilty to one count that on 16 September 2017 at Penrith she did knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 5.48 grams of 3,4‑methylenedioxyamphetamine known as MDA, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (‘The Act’).

  2. The trafficable quantity for MDA is 0.75 grams and the indictable quantity is 1.25 grams. The statutory maximum penalty is 15 years. It is a guidepost for a sentencing judge to steer by but not aim for.

  3. I have been asked to take into account one matter on a form 1 which is possession of 0.21 grams of ketamine contrary to s 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

THE PLEA

  1. The offender made admissions at the scene and she confirmed those admissions in her record of interview. To one extent it could be said that she has entered a plea at the earliest opportunity.

  2. She was originally charged with knowingly concerned but that was not the indictment that was first put before this Court, and then there was a further indictment of knowingly concerned and a plea was entered.

  3. The Crown submits that the extent of the plea should be somewhere between 5 and 10%. I allow a discount for the utility of 10%.

THE FACTS

  1. At about 10.55am on Saturday 16 September 2017 the offender was walking towards the front ticketing gates at the entrance of the Defqon1 music Festival at the International Regatta Centre in Penrith. She was approached by a police dog which made an indication…

Continue reading R v Wilkinson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Wilkinson [2019] NSWDC 288
Case
[2019] NSWDC 288
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wilkinson involved a defendant charged with knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. Wilkinson faced a charge related to his involvement in the supply of a prohibited substance, a first-time offence for him. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty and whether a conditional release order was suitable, considering the nature of the offence.

The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate penalty for Wilkinson's first-time drug supply offence and whether a conditional release order was suitable in this instance. The court referenced the case of R v Mauger to assess the applicability of such an order for first-time offenders. The court needed to balance the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in its decision.

The court, after considering the precedent and Wilkinson's circumstances, decided that a conditional release order was appropriate. It noted Wilkinson's lack of a criminal record and his acceptance of responsibility as mitigating factors. The court imposed a two-year conditional release order, stipulating that Wilkinson must not commit any further offences, must appear before the court if required, and must abstain from consuming illicit drugs. The court also directed that no further action be taken regarding a separate breach of the provisions of section 10 of the *Police (Correctional Powers) Act 2009 (Vic)* in relation to the drive midrange PCA.

The court's final orders included entering Wilkinson into a conditional release order for two years, prohibiting him from committing any further offences, requiring him to appear before the court if necessary, and mandating that he abstain from consuming illicit drugs. Additionally, the court marked the file to indicate that no further action would be taken in relation to the breach of the *Police (Correctional Powers) Act 2009 (Vic)*.

Orders

Orders of the court

1) The offender is to enter into a conditional release order without conviction for two years.

2) The offender must not commit any offence.

3) The offender must appear before the Court if called upon.

4) The offender is to abstain from consuming illicit drugs.

In relation to the breach of the s 10 for the drive midrange PCA, the file should be marked that no further action shall be taken in regard to the breach.

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.