C: S Dowling A: P Boulten SC C: S Kavanagh A: Placanica Lawyers
File Number(s):
2010/112983
Decision under appeal
Date of Decision:
2011-05-24 00:00:00
Before:
Sides DCJ
File Number(s):
2010/112983
Judgment
HOEBEN JA: I agree with RS Hulme J and the orders which he proposes.
RS HULME J: On 24 May 2011, the abovenamed Applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced by Sides DCJ in respect of two offences of supplying heroin on three or more separate occasions during a period of 30 consecutive days. One charge related to the period between 1 and 30 March 2010. The second related to the period between 1 and 30 April 2010. The amount of heroin supplied during each of the periods was particularised as 80 grams.
The offences alleged fell within s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and each carried a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of 3,500 penalty units.
Taken into account in connection with what I shall refer to as the first offence was a further offence of the deemed supply of 22.1 grams of heroin found after the…
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 Remus Ritter v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Remus Ritter v R [2012] NSWCCA 121
Case
[2012] NSWCCA 121
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved Remus Ritter, who was charged with the ongoing supply of heroin. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Maxwell. The central issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Ritter, who had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug.
The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, including the gravity of the offence and the need to deter such activities. Given the quantity of heroin involved and the ongoing nature of the supply, the court recognised the significant harm caused to the community. The defence argued for a sentence that reflected Ritter's cooperation with authorities and his potential for rehabilitation. However, the prosecution emphasised the need for a sentence that would act as a deterrent to others involved in similar criminal activities.
Justice Maxwell determined that the circumstances of the case warranted a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The judge took into account the plea of guilty, the cooperation with authorities, and the potential for rehabilitation. However, the court emphasised the substantial harm caused by the ongoing supply of dangerous drugs. Ultimately, Justice Maxwell imposed a sentence of imprisonment, balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation. The exact length of the sentence and any parole considerations were detailed in the judgment.