Bond v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 277 28 October 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bond v R [2020] NSWCCA 277
Hearing dates: 7 September 2020
Date of orders: 28 October 2020
Decision date: 28 October 2020
Before: McCallum JA at [1]
Campbell J at [2]
N Adams J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – supply not less than commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – parity with sentence of co-offender – whether applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance – relevance of co-offender’s rehabilitation efforts – relevance of additional Form 1 offences and standard non-parole period – subjective circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 32
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 10(1), s 25(2), s 25A(1)

Cases Cited:
Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
Gaggioli v R [2014] NSWCCA 246
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Huckstadt v R [2016] NSWCCA 22
Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
R v Newport [2020] NSWDC 245
R v Rutter [2003] NSWCCA 306
Usher v R [2016] NSWCCA 276

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Hugh Bond (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms S Kluss ( Applicant)
Ms K Jeffreys (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/00199519
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

20 June 2019

Before:

Yehia SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/00199519

Judgment

MCCALLUM JA: I agree with N Adams J.
CAMPBELL J: I agree with N Adams J.
N ADAMS J: The applicant, Mr Hugh Bond, seeks leave under s 5(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act1912 (NSW) to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by Judge Yehia SC in the District Court sitting in Sydney on 20 June 2019.
The applicant pleaded guilty on 14 February 2019 to the supply of not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (361.22 grams), contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (“DMTA”). That offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period (“SNPP”) of 10 years imprisonment. Two further offences were taken into account on a Form 1 under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing Act”): agreeing to supply not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (481.9 grams) (s 25(2) DMTA), and possessing methylamphetamine (s 10(1) DMTA).
The applicant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months. He is eligible for release on parole on 26 March 2021.
On 8 May 2020, nearly a year after the applicant was sentenced, his co-offender, Mr John Newport, was…

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 Bond v R

Details

AGLC: Bond v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 277
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 277
Decision Date: 28 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Bond, appealed against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Queensland for supplying a quantity of methylamphetamine. The Crown had accepted the appeal in relation to the sentence and the matter was before the Court of Appeal. Bond argued that the primary judge had failed to adequately consider several factors in assessing his sentence, including his justifiable sense of grievance, the rehabilitation efforts of his co-offender, the relevance of additional offences, and the standard non-parole period. The Crown submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in his assessment of Bond's sentence by failing to adequately consider the factors put forward by Bond. The court also had to consider the appropriate weight to be given to the co-offender's rehabilitation efforts, the relevance of additional offences, and the standard non-parole period. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the sentence was proportionate to the offence and whether it was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in his assessment of Bond's sentence. The court held that the primary judge had failed to adequately consider Bond's justifiable sense of grievance and the co-offender's rehabilitation efforts. The court also found that the relevance of additional offences and the standard non-parole period had not been given sufficient weight. The court held that the sentence was excessive and ordered that Bond's sentence be reduced to a term of imprisonment of seven years, with a non-parole period of five years.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in his assessment of Bond's sentence and reduced the sentence to a term of imprisonment of seven years, with a non-parole period of five years. The court held that the primary judge had failed to adequately consider several factors in assessing Bond's sentence, including his justifiable sense of grievance, the rehabilitation efforts of his co-offender, the relevance of additional offences, and the standard non-parole period. The court found that the sentence was excessive and ordered a reduction in the sentence.

Orders