R v Peter LEE [2008] NSWDC 332

R v Peter LEE [2008] NSWDC 332

The offender was to be sentenced for possessing the prohibited drugs for the purpose of supply. His explanation that he was merely minding drugs for a group was not accepted on the balance of probabilities, although it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to sell the drugs to unknown partygoers. Given the seriousness of the offending, including 152 tablets and a substantial quantity of the second drug by reference to its commercial quantity, a full-time custodial sentence was required, moderated by the guilty plea discount, concurrency and special circumstances affecting the non-parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Two Offences of Supplying a Prohibited Drug / Sentence After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
In each case sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a head sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months. Sentences to be served concurrently.
Legal Topics
['supply Prohibited Drug' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'full Time Custody' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'drug Destruction Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['supply Prohibited Drug' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'full Time Custody' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'drug Destruction 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing for Two Offences of Supplying a Prohibited Drug / Sentence After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for two offences of supplying prohibited drugs after guilty pleas.' "Whether the offender's account that he was merely holding drugs to be shared among a group should be accepted." 'Whether a full-time custodial sentence was required.' 'Whether special circumstances justified altering the relationship between the non-parole period and the balance of term.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender was to be sentenced for possessing the prohibited drugs for the purpose of supply. His explanation that he was merely minding drugs for a group was not accepted on the balance of probabilities, although it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to sell the drugs to unknown partygoers. Given the seriousness of the offending, including 152 tablets and a substantial quantity of the second drug by reference to its commercial quantity, a full-time custodial sentence was required, moderated by the guilty plea discount, concurrency and special circumstances affecting the non-parole period.

Court Disposition

In each case sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a head sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months. Sentences to be served concurrently.

Orders

  • ['The offender is sentenced to imprisonment on each count.' 'The sentences are to date from 11 September 2008.' 'A non-parole period of 18 months was set to expire on 10 March 2010, on which day the offender is to be released to parole.' 'A balance of term of 18 months was set, making a total overall sentence of 3...