R v AH [2019] NSWDC 82

R v AH [2019] NSWDC 82

The first drug manufacturing offence was above the mid-range and into the upper range because the offender operated a clandestine laboratory in a residential home where two young children were exposed to multiple prohibited drugs, and the offending was not a one-off event. The two deemed supply offences were slightly below mid-range, the witness-influencing offence was between the lower and middle range, and the offender's prospects of rehabilitation were guarded because genuine remorse was not established. Full-time imprisonment, general and specific deterrence, and an aggregate sentence were required; special circumstances were not established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
The offender was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years 6 months.
Legal Topics
['manufacture of a Large Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug' 'exposure of a Child to Drug Manufacturing Process' 'supply of a Large Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug' 'influencing a Witness' 'aggregate Sentence' 'form 1 Offences' 'non Publication Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manufacture of a Large Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug' 'exposure of a Child to Drug Manufacturing Process' 'supply of a Large Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug' 'influencing a Witness' 'aggregate Sentence' 'form 1 Offences' 'non Publication Order']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for manufacturing a large commercial quantity of MDA while exposing a child to the manufacturing process.' 'What sentence should be imposed for two offences of supplying large commercial quantities of prohibited drugs.' 'What sentence should be imposed for acting with the intention of influencing a witness.' 'Whether special circumstances should be found to vary the ratio between the head sentence and non-parole period.' 'Whether an aggregate sentence should be imposed and what indicative sentences should underpin it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first drug manufacturing offence was above the mid-range and into the upper range because the offender operated a clandestine laboratory in a residential home where two young children were exposed to multiple prohibited drugs, and the offending was not a one-off event. The two deemed supply offences were slightly below mid-range, the witness-influencing offence was between the lower and middle range, and the offender's prospects of rehabilitation were guarded because genuine remorse was not established. Full-time imprisonment, general and specific deterrence, and an aggregate sentence were required; special circumstances were not established.

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years 6 months.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted of manufacturing a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, two offences of supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, and acting with the intention of influencing a witness.' 'The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years.' 'A...