Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Trafficking in controlled substances – Major interstate commercial business of trafficking in methylamphetamine and other drugs – Sentence of 9 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years for one of the men in charge – Sentence of 5 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 2½ years for "junior partner".

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant Billinghurst:                  J Crotty
             Appellant Leaman: K Baumeler
             Respondent:  A Shand, A Norton

Solicitors:

Appellants: Crotty Legal
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASCCA 16
Number of paragraphs: 59

Serial No 16/2018
File Nos CCA 3626/2017
CCA 3673/2017

GARRY MAXWELL BILLINGHURST v STATE OF TASMANIA
CHRISTOPHER ADAM LEAMAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
PEARCE J
MARSHALL AJ
10 October 2018

Order of the Court

Appeals dismissed.

Serial No 16/2018
File Nos CCA 3626/2017
CCA 3673/2017

GARRY MAXWELL BILLINGHURST v STATE OF TASMANIA
CHRISTOPHER ADAM LEAMAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
10 October 2018

There are two sentencing appeals before the Court. The appellants, Garry Billinghurst and Christopher Leaman, were jointly charged with a third man, Adam Jones, with trafficking in controlled substances. The three men were tried together before Estcourt J on a single charge, and all found guilty. They were sentenced on the basis that they had trafficked in methylamphetamine, amphetamine, oxycodone, morphine and cannabis. The learned trial judge sentenced Mr Billinghurst and Mr Jones to 9 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years for each of them. He sentenced Mr Leaman to 5 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2½ years. Mr Jones has not appealed.
Both appellants contend that their sentences were manifestly excessive. Mr Billinghurst also contends that the learned trial judge erred in "failing to state reasons" for imposing a 6-year non-parole period. Mr Leaman contends that the learned trial judge erred in refusing an application at the end of the trial for an adjournment to obtain medical reports.
The indictment alleged that the three accused trafficked in the various drugs at various places in Tasmania between about 1 July 2012 and 4 September 2013, a period of just over 14 months. The Crown contended at the trial that they were engaged over that period in a continuous and systematic commercial business of trafficking in drugs, relying on R v Giretti (1986) 24 A Crim R 112. The learned trial judge was satisfied…

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 Billinghurst v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Billinghurst v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 16
Case: [2018] TASCCA 16
Decision Date: 10 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Billinghurst appealed against his sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years, imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. He had been convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and other controlled substances as part of a major interstate commercial business. The appeal concerned whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years on Billinghurst, considering his role in the trafficking operation and the sentences imposed on his co-offenders.

The Court considered the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking offences, particularly in the context of commercial operations. It noted that the sentencing judge had taken into account Billinghurst's significant role in the enterprise, his prior convictions, and the need for general deterrence. The Court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not demonstrably outside the range of appropriate sentences for a person in Billinghurst's position, especially given the scale and nature of the trafficking. The Court distinguished Billinghurst's role from that of a "junior partner" who received a lesser sentence, highlighting the differences in responsibility and involvement.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania was upheld.

Orders