Regina v Justin James Martin - [2007] NSWDC 358

CITATION: Regina v Justin James Martin [2007] NSWDC 358

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 October 2007

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to three years and four months imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and eight months.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - Supply prohibited drugs ongoing basis - Small scale enterprise - Assistance to authorities - Addiction to methamphetamine - No previous convictions - Good prospects of rehabilitation - Special circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: s25A Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
s23 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Regina v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47

PARTIES: Regina
Justin James Martin

FILE NUMBER(S): 07/51/0067

COUNSEL: Mr McPherson for the Crown

SOLICITORS: Mr Falcomata for the offender

SENTENCE

1. I am sentencing Justin James Martin for the offence of supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis. That is an offence under s25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum of twenty years imprisonment. The drugs to which that particular section apply do not include cannabis and in this case the drugs which were being supplied on an ongoing basis were methylamphetamine. Mr Martin pleaded guilty, it is accepted, at the earliest opportunity.

2. Briefly this is what happened. Mr Martin was identified by the police intelligence as a supplier of amphetamines in the Armidale area. Police set up an operation involving undercover operatives. Those undercover operatives made contact with Mr Martin over a period of some days and he supplied them with drugs on each of the days.

3. On 11 September 2006 he supplied them with .2 grams of methylamphetamine in exchange for $80. On 12 September 2006 he supplied the same amount of drugs for the same amount of money. On the same day the undercover operative received a text message from Mr Martin indicating that he, Mr Martin, could organise the supply of further methylamphetamine from another source. This time the undercover operatives were supplied with .4 grams of methylamphetamine in exchange for $100. The next day, 13 September 2006, the amount was increased again. This time the undercover operatives were supplied with 31/2 grams of methylamphetamine in exchange for $750. The final supply was on 19 September 2006, once again the quantity was increased. The undercover operatives handed Mr Martin $1,300 and in return he supplied them with 7 grams of methylamphetamine.

4. On the same day they indicated that they would pay $2,400 for 14 grams. Some days later a transaction occurred in which that amount of methylamphetamine was supplied in exchange for $2,400. On the day of that supply, which was 26 September 2006, the police terminated the operation and arrested Mr Martin. He made full admissions in his record of interview after his arrest.
5. The offences, I have said, carry a maximum of twenty years. In Regina v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47, Hulme J, with whom Sheller JA and Dowd J agreed,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Justin James Martin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] NSWDC 358
Decision Date: 9 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Justin James Martin was convicted of supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis and brought his case before the court for sentencing. The nature of his offending involved a small-scale enterprise and his addiction to methamphetamine played a significant role in his actions. Martin, who had no prior convictions, presented himself as having good prospects for rehabilitation. The court was tasked with considering these factors alongside the gravity of the offence in determining an appropriate sentence.

The legal issues the court had to address included the severity of Martin's offending, his lack of criminal history, his addiction, his assistance to the authorities, and the potential for rehabilitation. It was essential to balance these mitigating factors against the need to deter similar conduct in the future and to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system. The court was required to weigh these considerations carefully in light of statutory sentencing guidelines and relevant case law.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the significant impact of Martin's methamphetamine addiction on his criminal behaviour. It recognised his cooperation with law enforcement as a mitigating factor. However, the court also highlighted the seriousness of the ongoing supply of prohibited drugs, even on a small scale. Considering all the circumstances, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary but recognised the potential for rehabilitation. The court sentenced Martin to three years and four months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and eight months.

The final orders reflect the court's balanced approach, taking into account both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation, while also ensuring the sentence serves as a deterrent to similar offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to three years and four months imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and eight months.

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:	Regina v Justin James Martin [2007] NSWDC 358
JUDGMENT DATE:	9 October 2007
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ at 1
DECISION:	Sentenced to three years and four months imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and eight months.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - Sentence - Supply prohibited drugs ongoing basis - Small scale enterprise - Assistance to authorities - Addiction to methamphetamine - No previous convictions - Good prospects of rehabilitation - Special circumstances
LEGISLATION CITED:	s25A Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s23 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
CASES CITED:	Regina v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47
PARTIES:	Regina Justin James Martin
FILE NUMBER(S):	07/51/0067
COUNSEL:	Mr McPherson for the Crown
SOLICITORS:	Mr Falcomata for the offender