Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Debnam, Anthony Charles

Regina v Debnam, Anthony Charles

Case [2018] NSWDC 139 7 June 2018

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Regina v DEBNAM, Anthony Charles [2018] NSWDC 139
Hearing dates: 17 May 2018
Date of orders: 07 June 2018
Decision date: 07 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: His Honour Judge Lerve
Decision:
Sentenced

Catchwords: SENTENCE – firearms offences – mental health issues
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Firearms Act, 1996
Cases Cited: The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383
DJ v R [2017] NSWCCA 319
Jeffree v R [2017] NSWCCA 72
Lachlan v R (2015) 252 A Crim R 277; [2015] NSWCCA 178
Laspina v R [2016] NSWCCA 181
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 212 A Crim R 254
Ngati v R [2014] NSWCCA 125
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Robinson v R [2017] NSWCCA 315
Thalari v R (2009) 196 A Crim R 398
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Anthony Debnam
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Shaw for Debnam
Solicitors:
Ms V Morgan for the Director

File Number(s): 2016/140809
Publication restriction: No

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender appears for sentence in respect of two sets of matters. First, on matter 2016/140809 there is one charge on an indictment, namely:

That (he) between 2 March 2016 and 23 March 2016 at Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales, did supply a prohibited drug, namely 3.95 grams of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Further, on file 2014/371970 the offender pleaded guilty to three counts, namely:

That (he) between 1 July 2014 and 26 August 2014 at Kooringal in the State of New South Wales, did possess a prohibited firearm, namely a shortened .357 magnum calibre six chambers revolving rifle serial number 02118 in contravention of a firearms prohibition order that was in force, contrary to s 74(1) of the Firearms Act, 1996 ; and further
That (he) between 1 July 2014 and 26 August 2014 at Kooringal in the State of New South Wales, did possess a shortened firearm namely a shortened .357 magnum calibre six chamber revolving rifle serial number 02118, without being authorised to do so by a permit, contrary to s 62(1)(b) of the Firearms Act; and further
That (he) between 1 July 2014 and 26 August 2014 at Kooringal in the State of New South Wales, did possess ammunition for a firearm whilst being a person subjected to a Firearms Prohibition Order, contrary to s 74(3) of the Firearms Act.

In addition, in respect of the charge of supply prohibited drug there is one matter on a Form 1 document. That matter is one charge of possess a prohibited weapon without being…

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 Regina v Debnam, Anthony Charles

Details

AGLC: Regina v Debnam, Anthony Charles [2018] NSWDC 139
Case: [2018] NSWDC 139
Decision Date: 07 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Debnam was found guilty of firearms offences. The case came before the court for sentencing. Debnam had no previous criminal history and had pleaded guilty to the charges. However, he had significant mental health issues, including schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Debnam, taking into account his mental health issues.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences, Debnam's guilty plea, his previous good character, and his mental health issues. The court heard evidence from Debnam's psychiatrist, who provided a detailed report on his mental health. The court also considered submissions from both the prosecution and the defence. The court ultimately determined that Debnam's mental health issues were a significant mitigating factor and that a custodial sentence would be detrimental to his mental health. The court therefore sentenced Debnam to a non-custodial sentence of three years' supervision, with conditions including mandatory mental health treatment and regular reporting to a corrections officer.

The court ordered that Debnam be placed under supervision for a period of three years. He is to comply with a range of conditions, including mandatory mental health treatment, regular reporting to a corrections officer, and a curfew. The court also ordered that Debnam pay a fine of $5,000 and make reparations to the victims of his offences. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences but determined that a non-custodial sentence was the most appropriate outcome in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Regina v Debnam, Anthony Charles [2018] NSWDC 139

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

DJ v R
[2017] NSWCCA 319 Para 26

…The decision in Lachlan has been followed in a number of decisions since – see for example DJ v R [2017] NSWCCA 319 at [104].…
Robinson v The Queen
[2017] NSWCCA 315 Para 14

…ender was involved in trafficking to a substantial degree does not have the consequences that it once did, following the decision of Robinson v R [2017] NSWCCA 315 and Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284.…
Parente v R
[2017] NSWCCA 284 Para 14

…to a substantial degree does not have the consequences that it once did, following the decision of Robinson v R [2017] NSWCCA 315 and Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284.…
Jeffree v R
[2017] NSWCCA 72 Para 30

…The Crown favoured the court with copies of the decisions of Jeffree v R [2017] NSWCCA 72 and Thalari v R (2009) 196 A Crim R 398. I will deal with those authorities when dealing with the offender’s issue of intellectual functioning a little later in these remarks.…
Laspina v R
[2016] NSWCCA 181 Para 28

…Rothman J in some (obiter) additional comments in Laspina v R [2016] NSWCCA 181 at [6] said:…
R v Lachlan
[2015] NSWCCA 178 Para 25

…In Lachlan v R (2015) 252 A Crim R 277; [2015] NSWCCA 178 Gleeson JA (Johnson & Garling JJ agreeing) said at [72]:…
Ngati v R
[2014] NSWCCA 125 Para 45

…Beech-Jones J in giving the leading judgment in Ngati v R [2014] NSWCCA 125 at [46] said:…
Aslan v R
[2014] NSWCCA 114 Para 44

…In Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114 Simpson J (as her Honour then was) in giving the judgment of the court at [33] and [34] said:…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 43

…The High Court of Australia in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 212 A Crim R 254 at [54] said…
R v Mahmud
[2010] NSWCCA 219 Para 71

…ences imposed for such offences must “operate as real disincentives to those otherwise attracted to the illegal position of firearms”: R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219 at [71] (R S Hulme J; Giles JA and Latham J agreeing). See also R v Howard [2004] NSWCCA 348 at [66] (Spigelman CJ; Grove J and Smart AJ agreeing); Diony…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 177

…e applicable principles have evolved. They were most recently re-stated by McClellan CJ at CL in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1 at [177]. They are as follows: ‘[Principle 1] Where the state of a person's mental health contributes to the commission of the offence in a…
Cahyadi v R
[2007] NSWCCA 1 Para 58

…counts 1 and 2 on the indictment relate to the possession of the same firearm. In these circumstances, noting what was said by Howie J in Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 at [27], the sentences in respect of those matters would be very substantially but not wholly concurrent if separate sentences were imposed. Any degr…
R v Howard
[2004] NSWCCA 348 Para 66

…ted to the illegal position of firearms”: R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219 at [71] (R S Hulme J; Giles JA and Latham J agreeing). See also R v Howard [2004] NSWCCA 348 at [66] (Spigelman CJ; Grove J and Smart AJ agreeing); Dionys v The Queen at [47]-[48] (Hoeben J; McClellan CJ at CL and Adams J agreeing)."…
R v Hemsley
[2004] NSWCCA 228

…“Whether the principle emerging from cases such as R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 ought be applied, so as to render an offender a less appropriate vehicle for general deterrence, depends upon the circumstances of the case. See, generally, R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179 at 198-200 [109]-[115] and the cases referred…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 3

…n Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No. 1 of 2002, otherwise known as the Guideline Judgment on Form 1 matters, reported at (2002) 56 NSWLR 146.…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 22

…3A(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act rather than a submission that the principles enunciated by the High Court in Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 are enlivened. Given that these matters are now the fourth set of firearms matters for which the offender has appeared for sentence the Crown’s submi…
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31 Para 60

…amzy” type matter. I make this observation for fear that someone reviewing these remarks might suggest that I have breached De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383, noting s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. There are also the matters of general deterrence and the offender’s criminal record.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	Regina v DEBNAM, Anthony Charles [2018] NSWDC 139
Hearing dates:	17 May 2018
Date of orders:	07 June 2018
Decision date:	07 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	His Honour Judge Lerve
Decision:	Sentenced
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – firearms offences – mental health issues
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act, 1986 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Firearms Act, 1996
Cases Cited:	The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383 DJ v R [2017] NSWCCA 319 Jeffree v R [2017] NSWCCA 72 Lachlan v R (2015) 252 A Crim R 277; [2015] NSWCCA 178 Laspina v R [2016] NSWCCA 181 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 212 A Crim R 254 Ngati v R [2014] NSWCCA 125 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 Robinson v R [2017] NSWCCA 315 Thalari v R (2009) 196 A Crim R 398 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Debnam
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Shaw for Debnam Solicitors: Ms V Morgan for the Director
File Number(s):	2016/140809
Publication restriction:	No