Beal v The Queen - [2020] NSWCCA 357

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Beal v R [2020] NSWCCA 357
Hearing dates: 29 July 2020
Decision date: 22 December 2020
Before: Johnson J at [1];
N Adams J at [2];
Ierace J at [3]
Decision:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The sentence imposed by Judge Mottley on 23 August 2019 is quashed.
3. In lieu thereof, the appellant is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment, commencing on 3 March 2019 and expiring on 2 March 2022 with a non-parole period of 1 year, 9 months and 3 weeks, expiring on 23 December 2020.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – appeal from the Drug Court – s 5AF of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – where submitted the Drug Court did not determine the initial sentence and final sentence in accordance with the manner required by statute – where submitted that appellant’s background of social deprivation was not properly accounted for in sentencing – appeal allowed – appellant re-sentenced

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
R v Speechley (2012) 221 A Crim R 175; [2012] NSWCCA 130
Yeung v R [2018] NSWCCA 52

Texts Cited:
Macquarie Dictionary (7th ed, 2017)
New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 27 October 1998 at 9030

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Megan Beal (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Lawrence; Mr A Wilson (Appellant)
Ms M Millward (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/356465
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Drug Court

Date of Decision:

23 August 2019

Before:

Judge Mottley

File Number(s):

2018/0282

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with the reasons and proposed orders of Ierace J..
N ADAMS J: I agree with Ierace J.
IERACE J: This is an appeal pursuant to s 5AF of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against the severity of a sentence imposed upon the appellant in the Drug Court, sitting at Parramatta, on 23 August 2019.
On 25 October 2018, the appellant was referred by the Local Court to the Drug Court, pursuant to s 6 of the Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW) (“the Act”). She pleaded guilty to 14 offences and, on 21 January 2019, she received an initial sentence from the Senior Judge of the Drug Court, his Honour Senior Judge Dive. This was an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 3 years, for eight of those offences. For another five offences she was convicted with no further penalty pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the CSP Act”) and for the remaining offence she was remanded for a period of 12 months, pursuant to s 11 of the CSP Act, conditional upon her being of good behaviour and complying with the Drug…

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 Beal v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Beal v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 357
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 357
Decision Date: 22 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beal appealed against his sentence which was imposed by the Drug Court. The dispute involved the legality of the sentence that was imposed by the Drug Court and whether it was determined in accordance with the statutory requirements. The appeal was heard in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal.

The court was required to decide whether the Drug Court had erred in its sentencing process and whether the appellant's background of social deprivation was properly accounted for. The primary issue was whether the sentence was determined in a manner required by statute and whether the appellant's background was appropriately considered.

The court found that the Drug Court did not determine the initial and final sentences in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court held that the Drug Court failed to properly account for the appellant's background of social deprivation. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced. The court emphasised the importance of considering the appellant's background and ensuring that the sentencing process adhered to the statutory requirements.

Orders