R v Newport, John Robert [2020] NSWDC 245

R v Newport, John Robert [2020] NSWDC 245

The offender's role was slightly higher than the co-offender's because he was trusted by the up-line supplier and ensured transactions and payment, but he was not the principal, not a significant decision-maker and the offending was not sophisticated. The offence fell just below the middle of the range of objective seriousness. A two-year head sentence or Intensive Correction Order would not reflect the seriousness of the offence. Taking into account parity, the absence of Form 1 matters, remorse, the late plea, and excellent rehabilitation, the appropriate starting point was 4 years 9 months imprisonment, reduced by 5% to 4 years 6 months. Special circumstances justified a substantial...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Sentencing After a Late Guilty Plea on the First Day of Trial
Outcome
The offender was convicted and sentenced to 4 years 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period expiring on 8 May 2020 and parole eligibility subject to Community Corrections supervision.
Legal Topics
['supplying a Prohibited Drug on an Ongoing Basis' 'methylamphetamine' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'objective Seriousness' 'residential Rehabilitation as Quasi Custody' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'parity' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation']

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 After a Late Guilty Plea on the First Day of Trial

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for supplying 305.2 grams of methylamphetamine on an ongoing basis contrary to s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).' "Whether the offender's role should be characterised as principal or more serious than that of the co-offender." 'How the objective seriousness of the offence should be assessed, including the significance of quantity, purity, repetition, system and organisation.' 'What allowance should be made for time spent in residential rehabilitation at Odyssey House.' "Whether the offender's rehabilitation justified special circumstances and a significant variation of the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and head sentence." "How parity with the co-offender's sentence should affect the sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's role was slightly higher than the co-offender's because he was trusted by the up-line supplier and ensured transactions and payment, but he was not the principal, not a significant decision-maker and the offending was not sophisticated. The offence fell just below the middle of the range of objective seriousness. A two-year head sentence or Intensive Correction Order would not reflect the seriousness of the offence. Taking into account parity, the absence of Form 1 matters, remorse, the late plea, and excellent rehabilitation, the appropriate starting point was 4 years 9 months imprisonment, reduced by 5% to 4 years 6 months. Special circumstances justified a substantial...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and sentenced to 4 years 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period expiring on 8 May 2020 and parole eligibility subject to Community Corrections supervision.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted.' 'Taking into account a discount of 5%, I impose a sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 1 year 4 months 14 days imprisonment, commencing on 25 December 2018 and expiring on 8 May 2020, with a balance of term of 3 years 1 month 16 days imprisonment, expiring on 24...