B v R - [2015] NSWCCA 314

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: B v R [2015] NSWCCA 314
Hearing dates: 24 November 2015
Decision date: 11 December 2015
Before: Johnson J at [1]
Button J at [38]
Fagan J at [39]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted but the appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) - quantity just short of large commercial quantity – sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months with a non-parole period of two years after application of 60% discount for guilty plea and assistance to authorities – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – no error demonstrated – sentence not manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Blair v R [2005] NSWCCA 78; 152 A Crim R 462
Do v R [2008] NSWCCA 34
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Hockey v R [2006] NSWCCA 146
Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234
R v Anderson [2012] NSWCCA 175
R v Dang [2005] NSWCCA 430
R v Mendez [2005] NSWCCA 246; 155 A Crim R 241
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
SZ v R [2007] NSWCCA 19; 168 A Crim R 249
Thompson-Davis v R [2013] NSWCCA 75
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: B (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Edwards (Applicant)
Ms T Smith (Respondent)
Solicitors:
SF Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/292938
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

---

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

5 December 2014

Before:

Berman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/292938

Judgment

JOHNSON J: The Applicant, B, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on 5 December 2014 for an offence of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) contrary to s.25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. A pseudonym is used in this judgment to describe the Applicant because of evidence before the Court concerning his assistance to authorities.
After a plea of guilty, the Applicant was sentenced by his Honour Judge Berman SC at the Sydney District Court to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of two years commencing on 26 September 2014 and expiring on 25 September 2016, with a balance of term of 18 months commencing on 26 September 2016 and expiring on 25 March 2018.
The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 20 years with a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

Ground of Appeal

The Applicant relies upon a single ground of appeal which asserts that the sentence imposed was, in all the circumstances, manifestly excessive.

Facts of Offence

It is not necessary to set out in fine detail the facts of the offence for the purpose of determining this application. The events which comprised the offence occurred in July-August 2013, when the…

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 B v R

Details

AGLC: B v R [2015] NSWCCA 314
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 314
Decision Date: 11 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of B v R involved an applicant who had pleaded guilty to one count of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, methylamphetamine. The quantity of the drug involved was just below the threshold for a large commercial quantity. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years. This sentence was determined after a 60% discount was applied for the applicant’s guilty plea and assistance provided to authorities. The applicant subsequently appealed, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and if there was any demonstrated error in the application of the law by the sentencing judge. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing in the context of drug supply offences and the factors that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate penalty. The court also needed to evaluate whether the discount for the guilty plea and assistance rendered was appropriately applied and if the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's culpability, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that there was no demonstrated error in the sentencing process. The sentence was deemed to be within the range of penalties that could be considered appropriate for the offence, taking into account the discount for the guilty plea and assistance. Consequently, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders