AMZ v R - [2013] NSWCCA 6

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: AMZ v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCCA 6

Hearing Date(s): 10 December 2012

Decision Date: 01 February 2013

Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1];
Latham J at [2];
Adamson J at [3]

Decision:
Grant leave to appeal. Dismiss the appeal

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - drugs offences - whether discount for assistance should be increased - whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1900
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
- Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966

Cases Cited: - Housing Commission of NSW v Tatmar Pastoral Co (1983) 3 NSWLR 378
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
- Springer v R [2007] NSWCCA 289; 177 A Crim R 13
- Selvanayagam v University of West Indies [1983] 1 WLR 585
- SZ v R [2007] NSWCCA 19; 168 A Crim R 249

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: AMZ (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
P Lange (Applicant)
N Noman (Respondent)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Trimmer Criminal Defence Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/50531

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Berman DCJ

- Date of Decision: 02 December 2011

- Citation: N/A

- Court File Number(s): 2011/50531

Publication Restriction: None

JUDGMENT

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Adamson J.
LATHAM J: I agree with Adamson J.
ADAMSON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him in the District Court by Berman DCJ on 2 December 2011.
In August 2010, the applicant became involved in an organised criminal syndicate. Initially, he arranged for money to be transported from Perth to Sydney. By November 2010, the applicant was involved in supplying large commercial quantities of prohibited drugs. This involvement continued until his arrest on 15 February 2011.
Upon arrest the applicant made admissions and assisted police by providing valuable information about the syndicate in which he had participated.
The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court and appeared in the District Court for sentence. The offences for which the applicant pleaded guilty, and the sentences imposed by the Sentencing Judge are summarised below:

Period of offending	Offence	Max penalty	SNPP	Sentence, taking into account 55% discount and special circumstances
1 Oct 2010 - 15 Feb 2011	Participate in a criminal group: Crimes Act 1900 s 93T	5 years	None	2 years fixed term, starting 15 Feb 2011
9 Nov 2010 - 13 Nov 2010	Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug, 6kg methylamphetamine: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (DMTA) s 25	Life	15 years	9 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years, starting 15 Feb 2011
26 Nov 2010 - 1 Dec 2010	Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug, 6kg methylamphetamine: DMTA s 25	Life	15 years
14 Dec 2010 - 20 Dec 2010	Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug, 1.05kg heroin: DMTA s 25	Life

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AMZ v R

Details

AGLC: AMZ v R [2013] NSWCCA 6
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 6
Decision Date: 01 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AMZ appealed against his conviction and sentence in the County Court of Victoria for multiple drug-related offences, including possession of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the discount for assistance provided by AMZ to the police should have been increased, and whether the sentence imposed by the County Court was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in the discount for assistance granted to AMZ. The assistance provided by AMZ, while significant, did not warrant a greater discount than the 25% that was awarded. The court held that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors, including the degree of assistance provided, the extent of AMZ's involvement in the drug offences, and the seriousness of the offences. The court also found that the sentence imposed by the County Court was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had appropriately balanced the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the need for denunciation, in arriving at the sentence.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The sentence imposed by the County Court was upheld as appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the significant role AMZ played in the drug offences but found that the sentence did not exceed the bounds of what was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders