R v Woods - [2019] NSWDC 401

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Woods [2019] NSWDC 401
Hearing dates: 14 June 2019
Date of orders: 17 June 2019
Decision date: 17 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:
See paragraphs [54] to [57]

Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import border-controlled prohibited drug — “dark net” — 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine — cocaine
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Commonwealth offences —Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Criminal Code Act
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act
Cases Cited: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Xiao v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Christopher Woods (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lowe (Crown)
P Lange (Offender)
Solicitors:
A Soukie (Hanna Legal) (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/00229228

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and adhered to those pleas to the following offences; that between 24 November 2014 and 29 March 2017 at Clyde he imported a marketable quantity of a border‑controlled drug, being 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine and cocaine; that is charge sequence 1. There is a second offence that between 26 July and 2 August 2017 at Clyde he imported a marketable quantity of a border‑controlled drug being 3,4‑methylenedioxyamphetamine; that is charge sequence 20. Both those offences are Commonwealth offences being offences under s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act and have a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and/or a fine equivalent to 5,000 penalty units.
There are three State offences for which the offender also stands for sentence. The first State offence is that between 17 May 2017 and 6 June 2017 at Bligh Park, he did, on three or more occasions during a period of 30 consecutive days, supply a prohibited drug other than cannabis being 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine for financial or material reward. An offence of ongoing supply is an offence under s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and has a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine equivalent to 3,500 penalty units. That offence is contained in charge sequence 12. When sentencing the offender on charge sequence 12, he asks that I take into account a further ongoing supply offence which is on a form 1 for which he acknowledges his guilt. That offence is contained on charge sequence 11 and is an ongoing supply offence which occurred between 12 April and 11 May 2017 and also concerned the same drug that is the subject of charge sequence 12.
The second State offence is an offence that on 27 July 2017 at Wilberforce, the offender supplied a prohibited drug being cocaine; that offence is charge sequence 22. The third State offence is that on 27 July 2017 at Wilberforce, the offender supplied…

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 Woods

Details

AGLC: R v Woods [2019] NSWDC 401
Case: [2019] NSWDC 401
Decision Date: 17 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Woods involved a defendant charged with drug-related offences under the Commonwealth. Woods was apprehended at the Australian border for attempting to import a prohibited drug, specifically 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as MDMA, and cocaine. The charges included border control violations and the supply of prohibited drugs. The case was heard in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, presumably the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, given the nature of the drug charges.

The central legal issues before the court were the interpretation of border control laws concerning prohibited substances, the characterisation of the drugs as border-controlled, and the sentencing implications for a first-time offender who had pleaded guilty. The court also needed to consider mitigating factors, including Woods's good character and lack of previous convictions, as well as the subjective considerations pertinent to his age and the special circumstances of his case.

In delivering the judgment, the court first addressed the classification of the substances as border-controlled prohibited drugs, confirming that MDMA and cocaine fall under these categories. The court acknowledged Woods's plea of guilty, his good character, and the absence of any prior criminal record as significant mitigating factors. Additionally, the court considered his young age and the special circumstances, which included his involvement in the "dark net" drug trade. Weighing these factors, the court determined the appropriate sentence, taking into account both the severity of the offence and the mitigating aspects of Woods's case.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence, with specific details outlined in paragraphs [54] to [57] of the judgment. The sentence was tailored to reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating factors presented. The court's decision underscored the importance of both deterrence and rehabilitation in the sentencing process, particularly for first-time offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [54] to [57]

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 Woods [2019] NSWDC 401
Hearing dates:	14 June 2019
Date of orders:	17 June 2019
Decision date:	17 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe DCJ
Decision:	See paragraphs [54] to [57]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import border-controlled prohibited drug — “dark net” — 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine — cocaine CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Commonwealth offences —Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act Criminal Code Act Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act
Cases Cited:	Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Xiao v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Christopher Woods (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: P Lowe (Crown) P Lange (Offender) Solicitors: A Soukie (Hanna Legal) (Offender)
File Number(s):	2017/00229228