Bidgood v R - [2016] NSWCCA 138

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Bidgood v R [2016] NSWCCA 138
Hearing dates: 15 June 2016
Decision date: 15 July 2016
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]
Davies J at [2]
R S Hulme AJ at [72]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal – appeal against sentence – cultivate and supply prohibited drugs – ongoing supply – whether engaging in supply for financial reward is aggravating factor – whether applicant disentitled to the benefit of prior good character by reference to present offending – whether error in considering sentences of offenders connected to applicant but not co-offenders – re-sentence – no lesser sentence warranted
Legislation Cited: Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 252 CLR 601
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adrian Paul Bidgood (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
I McLachlan (Applicant)
P Ingram SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
P Blaxell (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/37125
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

10 April 2015

Before:

English DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/37125

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by Davies J and with his Honour’s reasons.
DAVIES J: On 18 August 2014 in the Local Court the Applicant pleaded guilty to three offences as follows:

Sequence 6: Supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis. The drug was MDMA both in powder and tablet form. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years’ imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units.

Sequence 12: Cultivate prohibited plant being a commercial quantity – 303 cannabis sativa. The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years’ imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units.

Sequence 15: Supply prohibited drug being 3.2kg of cannabis. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units.

In relation to sequence 15 the Applicant asked that six offences on a Form 1 be taken into account. Those offences were:

(a) Supply prohibited drug being ecstasy tablets;

(b) Possess prohibited drug being LSD;

(d) Supply prohibited drug being ecstasy powder;

(e) Having goods in possession reasonably suspected of being stolen being $5,630 in cash;

(f) Supply prohibited drug being cannabis.

He came for sentence before her Honour Judge English in the District Court on 10 April 2015. Her Honour imposed an aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of two years commencing 14 January 2015 and expiring 13 January 2017 with a balance of term of two years expiring 13 January 2019. The indicative sentences were these:

Sequence 6 - ongoing supply taking into account the Form 1: Three years and six months.

Sequence 12 – cultivate cannabis: One year and six months.

Sequence 15 – supply cannabis: 12 months.

The Applicant sought leave to appeal on three grounds as…

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 Bidgood v R

Details

AGLC: Bidgood v R [2016] NSWCCA 138
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 138
Decision Date: 15 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bidgood v R involved an appeal by the respondent against his sentence. The respondent had been found guilty of cultivating and supplying prohibited drugs, with the court determining that his offending was ongoing. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction to hear the matter following an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether engaging in the supply of drugs for financial reward constituted an aggravating factor, whether the respondent was disentitled to the benefit of his prior good character, and whether there was an error in considering the sentences of offenders connected to the respondent but not co-offenders.

The court considered that engaging in the supply of drugs for financial reward was indeed an aggravating factor, as it demonstrated a higher level of culpability and the potential for significant harm to the community. The court also found that the respondent's prior good character was not a mitigating factor, as his present offending was of a serious nature and demonstrated a clear departure from his previous behaviour. The court further determined that there was no error in considering the sentences of offenders connected to the respondent but not co-offenders, as their offending was relevant to the overall assessment of the respondent's culpability and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that no lesser sentence was warranted, as the respondent's offending was of a serious nature and required a significant punishment to adequately reflect its gravity.

In light of the above findings, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence imposed on the respondent. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in cases involving the cultivation and supply of prohibited drugs, and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offending and the potential harm to the community. The court also noted that the respondent's prior good character was not a mitigating factor in this case, as his present offending demonstrated a clear departure from his previous behaviour. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the original sentence upheld.

Orders