R v Dyson [2023] NSWDC 72

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dyson [2023] NSWDC 72 Hearing dates: 14 March 2023 Date of orders: 22 March 2023 Decision date: 22 March 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Priestley SC DCJ Decision: See [85-86] Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Knowingly direct activities of a criminal group Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Cases Cited: Chamon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112 Greaves v R [2020] NSWCCA 140 Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49 Jimmy v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 60 Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297. Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116 Texts Cited: Attorney General's Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ Category: Sentence Parties: Rex (Crown) Nathan Beau Dyson (Offender) Representation: Council: Franklin for the Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Solicitor: Ashkan Tai Lawyers (Offender) File Number(s): 2021/00181765

Reasons on Sentence

Introduction 1. Nathan Beau Dyson, ("the offender") appears for sentence in respect of two offences, namely: 1. Directing the activities of a criminal group whose activities were organised and ongoing in breach of section 93T(4A) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. 2. Supplying a prohibited drug, namely cocaine, in not less than a commercial quantity in breach of sections 25(2) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment and it has a standard non-parole period of 10 years. 1. In respect of the supply offence there is a further charge under section 25(2) to be taken into account by way of the Form 1 procedure. 2. In relation to the maximum sentences and, in respect of the section 25(2) offence, the standard non-parole period, those matters are taken into account as legislative guideposts, indicating the legislature's view of the seriousness of the offending to provide assistance in arriving at the appropriate sentence. In relation to the standard non-parole period I note that in Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [29] the High Court made clear that it has application even when the offending is not considered to be in the middle of the range of seriousness as that term is used in section 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act ("CSPA"). 3. In regards to the Form 1 procedure it is important that the focus remains on the principal offences for which the offender is being sentenced. The procedure allows that in doing this greater weight may be given to the elements of personal deterrents and the community's entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences. Those two elements are entitled to greater weight than they may otherwise be given when sentencing for the primary offence; see Attorney General's Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ.