R v Hay; R v Cross [2023] NSWDC 234

R v Hay; R v Cross [2023] NSWDC 234

Both offenders were sentenced for attempting to import a marketable quantity of cocaine, with Cross assessed as the principal organiser and Hay as a willing participant with less culpability. Sentencing took into account the seriousness of the offences, roles of the offenders, mitigating subjective features, discount for guilty plea, trauma, rehabilitation prospects, and the arduous nature of custody during COVID. Cross received 3 years 4 months imprisonment with a 20 month non-parole period; Hay received 3 years imprisonment with release on a recognisance release order after 7 months 5 days, subject to various conditions addressing rehabilitation and community safety.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Sentencing Decision
Outcome
Conviction and sentencing of both offenders; Cross sentenced to imprisonment with non-parole period; Hay sentenced to imprisonment with release on recognisance after specified pre-release period under conditions.
Legal Topics
['drug Offences' 'commonwealth Offences' 'attempted Import' 'marketable Quantity' 'sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['drug Offences' 'commonwealth Offences' 'attempted Import' 'marketable Quantity' 'sentencing']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Sentence / Sentencing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Appropriate sentence for attempted importation of marketable quantity of border-controlled drugs under Criminal Code (Cth)' 'Relative culpability and role of co-offenders' 'Assessment of subjective features and risk of reoffending']

Ratio Decidendi

Both offenders were sentenced for attempting to import a marketable quantity of cocaine, with Cross assessed as the principal organiser and Hay as a willing participant with less culpability. Sentencing took into account the seriousness of the offences, roles of the offenders, mitigating subjective features, discount for guilty plea, trauma, rehabilitation prospects, and the arduous nature of custody during COVID. Cross received 3 years 4 months imprisonment with a 20 month non-parole period; Hay received 3 years imprisonment with release on a recognisance release order after 7 months 5 days, subject to various conditions addressing rehabilitation and community safety.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentencing of both offenders; Cross sentenced to imprisonment with non-parole period; Hay sentenced to imprisonment with release on recognisance after specified pre-release period under conditions.

Orders

  • ['Samuel David Cross: Convicted under sections 11.1, 307.2, and 11.2A of the Criminal Code (Cth); sentenced to 3 years 4 months imprisonment commencing 21 December 2021; non-parole period of 20 months, expiring 20 August 2023; balance of term expires 20 April 2025.' 'Tristina Hay: Convicted under sections 11.1,...