Regina v Jasper - [2004] NSWSC 155

CITATION: Regina v Jasper [2004] NSWSC 155

HEARING DATE(S): 11 March 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

DECISION: Prisoner sentenced.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - supply heroin - prisoner previously sentenced for another offence in respect of the same criminal activity.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 249
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 32
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 32

CASES CITED: R v Jasper [2003] NSWSC 285
R v Jasper [2003] NSWSC 287
R v Jasper [2003] NSWCCA 186
R v Patison [2002] NSWSC 1248
R v Patison [2003] NSWCCA 171

PARTIES :
Regina v Matthew John Jasper

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70088/02

COUNSEL: J Gibson - Crown
J Dailly SC - Accused

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown
Walter Madden Jenkins - Accused

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

DUNFORD J

THURSDAY 11 MARCH 2004

70088/02 REGINA v MATTHEW JOHN JASPER

1 HIS HONOUR: On 27 February 2003, the prisoner was arraigned before me on an indictment dated 31 October 2002 containing six counts. By his counsel he sought a ruling that the evidence sought to be relied on by the Crown to support two of the counts was not sufficient to constitute the offences charged, namely, supply not less than a large commercial quantity of heroin and, in the alternative, supply heroin.

2 On that day, I ruled in favour of the prisoner and quashed those two counts, indicating that I would give my reasons at a later date, which I ultimately did on 11 April 2003: R v Jasper [2003] NSWSC 285.

3 The prisoner thereupon pleaded guilty to the remaining counts in the indictment of 31 October 2002 and adhered to pleas of guilty formerly entered before Barr J in respect of an indictment dated 13 December 2002. He also asked that a number of other offences be taken into account, in accordance with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32.

4 On 11 April 2003, I sentenced him in respect of all those offences, imposing terms of imprisonment totalling 7 years with non-parole periods totalling 5 years: R v Jasper [2003] NSWSC 287. The overall sentences imposed were the same as those previously imposed on David Phillip Patison, his co-offender in respect of most of the offences: R v Patison [2002] NSWSC 1248.

5 Subsequently, my judgment quashing the two counts in the indictment of 31 October 2002 was reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeal: R v Jasper [2003] NSWCCA 186 and the Crown appeal against the sentences imposed on Patison was dismissed: R v Patison [2003] NSWCCA 171.

6 The prisoner has now been arraigned on a fresh indictment on the two counts formerly struck from in the indictment of 31 October 2002 and has pleaded not guilty to the count of supply not less than a large commercial quantity of heroin, but guilty to the alternative lesser charge of…

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 Jasper

Details

AGLC: Regina v Jasper [2004] NSWSC 155
Case: [2004] NSWSC 155
Decision Date: 11 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Jasper was a criminal case heard in an Australian court where the defendant, Jasper, was charged with supplying heroin. The case involved the sentencing of Jasper, who had previously been sentenced for another offence related to the same criminal activity. The court had to determine the appropriate penalty for Jasper's latest offence, considering his prior conviction and the nature of the crime.

The legal issues before the court included the principles of sentencing for repeat offenders and the severity of penalties for drug-related crimes. The court had to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, taking into account the previous conviction and the harm caused by the supply of heroin. The court also considered the aggravating factors, such as the impact of drug supply on the community and the potential for Jasper to reoffend.

The court ultimately decided that Jasper's previous conviction for a related offence warranted an increased sentence for his current offence. The court found that the supply of heroin posed a significant risk to public health and safety, and that Jasper's criminal history indicated a pattern of behaviour that needed to be deterred. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect the community from further harm caused by Jasper's actions. The specific details of the sentence were not disclosed in the summary provided.

Orders