R v Pedras [2019] NSWDC 702

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pedras [2019] NSWDC 702 Hearing dates: 21 November 2019 Date of orders: 21 November 2019 Decision date: 21 November 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bennett SC DCJ Decision: Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 Prohibited Weapons Act 1998 Cases Cited: Attorney General's Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] 56 NSWLR 146 McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Thomas Pedras (Offender) Representation: Kenny Ng (Crown) Paul Johnson (counsel) (Offender)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Mardini Defence Lawyers (offender) File Number(s): 2017/000336159

EX TEMPORE REVISED JUDGEMENT

SENTENCE

INTRODUCTION 1. Thomas Pedras pleaded guilty in the District Court at Parramatta where he appeared before me after he was committed to the Court for trial. In respect of charges of supply prohibited drug. 2. Before the matter was allocated to a judge for the determination of the proceedings before a jury an application was made on his behalf in which counsel representing him argued that the evidence upon which the prosecution depended should be excluded. The evidence challenged was the discovery of quantities of prohibited drug in the offender's home found by investigating police who attended the premises in response to the report of what might be said to have been a home invasion in the course of which the offender was shot in the leg. 3. In the exercise of powers given the police by virtue of the crime scene warrant that had been before then issued, the police, in the bedroom occupied by the offender, located parcels of drugs which ultimately led to his prosecution for two offences of supply prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) and s 25(2) respectively of the Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985. 4. I heard the argument upon the application that the evidence be excluded. The premise upon which that argument was advanced was that the police had exercised powers beyond those given to them by the crime scene warrant and that they were, in the circumstances, compelled to limit the scope of their search to the immediate vicinity of where the crime reported had occurred, and that if any further search was required of the premises the duty of the police was to seek the issue of a search warrant in the execution of which they might well, one would expect, have found the exhibits. 5. Evidence was called from a police officer who controlled the search of the premises, purportedly under the authority of the crime scene warrant. In due course I found that the police had acted within the terms of the warrant. The perception I had of the matter was that it was a nonsense to have argued that they had no power to search a two bedroom apartment where there had been a crime involving the use of a semi-automatic weapon, the casings from which could have gone anywhere within the premises. 6. The application was accordingly refused. My judgement upon that topic was delivered on 21 October 2019. The draft was published to me; it has been perfected, and has been included on the offender's file. 7. Different counsel was then retained in the matter and I now have the assistance of Mr Johnson who, in his usual fashion, has provided comprehensive written submissions in support of the case in mitigation of penalty presented on behalf of the offender who, after I had come to the decision upon the point raised by counsel earlier retained, pleaded guilty to a new indictment alleging one offence contrary to s 25(1) Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985, with an additional offence contrary to the same provision to be taken into account when I determine the penalty on the principal offence. 8. There is also an offence before me by way of s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 alleging the possession of a prohibited weapon, namely a Taser. The charge was read to the offender who consents to this Court disposing of the matter and he pleaded guilty.