R v Carr, Dean William [2022] NSWDC 231
Section 25D(4)(a) did not exclude the 25% discount because the comparison required consideration of the brief of evidence for all offences on the original indictment, including the firearms offences, and the facts or evidence relevant to those firearms offences were not substantially the same as the facts or evidence establishing the new count of supply of a commercial quantity of heroin. The offence was objectively at the low end for offences of its type because Mr Carr's role was limited to returning Mr Welsh's backpack containing heroin that Mr Carr knew was for supply, he had no stake or interest in the drugs, did not handle or package them, and was at the bottom of the hierarchy,...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 April 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence for Supply of a Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug / Sentencing After Plea of Guilty
- Outcome
- Dean William Carr was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and three months with a non-parole period of 18 months, and special circumstances were found. He was presently eligible for parole.
- Legal Topics
- ['supply of a Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'new Count Offence' 'objective Seriousness' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'aboriginal Offenders and Bugmy Considerations' 'drug Addiction' 'mental Illness' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Supply of a Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug / Sentencing After Plea of Guilty
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the offender should receive a 25% utilitarian discount for his plea of guilty to a new count offence under s 25D(3)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or only a 10% discount.' 'Whether s 25D(4)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 made the 25% discount inapplicable.' "What sentence should be imposed for supply of a commercial quantity of heroin having regard to the offender's role, the quantity of heroin, his criminal record, subjective circumstances, mental health, Bugmy considerations, rehabilitation prospects, remorse and parity with Mr Welsh." 'Whether special circumstances should be found for the non-parole period.']
Ratio Decidendi
Section 25D(4)(a) did not exclude the 25% discount because the comparison required consideration of the brief of evidence for all offences on the original indictment, including the firearms offences, and the facts or evidence relevant to those firearms offences were not substantially the same as the facts or evidence establishing the new count of supply of a commercial quantity of heroin. The offence was objectively at the low end for offences of its type because Mr Carr's role was limited to returning Mr Welsh's backpack containing heroin that Mr Carr knew was for supply, he had no stake or interest in the drugs, did not handle or package them, and was at the bottom of the hierarchy,...
Court Disposition
Dean William Carr was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and three months with a non-parole period of 18 months, and special circumstances were found. He was presently eligible for parole.
Orders
- ['Dean William Carr is convicted on supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.' 'The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and three months to date from 26 August 2020 and expiring on 25 November 2022.' 'A non-parole period...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment