Brodie Jeet SINGH v R - [2009] NSWCCA 129

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Brodie Jeet SINGH v R [2009] NSWCCA 129

HEARING DATE(S): 23/04/2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 April 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Howie J at 2; RA Hulme J at 26

DECISION: Leave to appeal is granted. The sentence in respect of the supply of cannabis is quashed and in lieu the applicant is sentenced to a fixed term of 2 years from 16 November 2006 and expired on 15 November 2008. The sentence for the s 25A matter is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentence appeal - ongoing supply of MDMA - whether sentence excessive - supply cannabis - statement of wrong maximum penalty - Parity.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 - ss 25(1), 25A,

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Mirza v R [2007] NSWCCA 248

PARTIES: Brodie Jeet Singh v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/5920

COUNSEL: P A Leask - Crown
E Ozen - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
Brett William Galloway - Applicant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/51/0191

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Black DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14/12/2007

2007/5920

GROVE J
HOWIE J
R A HULME J
WEDNESDAY 29 APRIL 2009

Brodie Jeet SINGH v R

Judgment

1 GROVE J: I agree with Howie J.

2 HOWIE J: The applicant was sentenced in the District Court for offences in relation to the supply of prohibited drugs over a period from 22 September 2005 to 16 November 2005. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court to two offences. The first was an offence of ongoing supply of MDMA, also known as ecstasy, contrary to s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986. That is an offence for which a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment is prescribed. The second offence was the supply of cannabis contrary to s 25(1) of that Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 10 years, although the Judge erroneously stated that it was 15 years.

3 The applicant was committed for sentence to the District Court where he maintained his pleas of guilty. He also asked the Judge, Black DCJ, to take into account on a Form 1 an offence of supply MDMA, an offence of goods in custody in respect of a sum of money, and the possession of a prohibited drug. On 14 December 2007 he was sentenced to an overall sentence of 7 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years. The applicant is eligible to be released to parole on 15 November 2010.

4 There are two grounds of appeal relied upon:

1. That the applicant has a justifiable sense of grievance in light of the sentence imposed upon his co-offender.

5 There was an agreed statement of facts tendered and it can be summarised very briefly. The police commenced an operation in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brodie Jeet SINGH v R and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] NSWCCA 129
Decision Date: 29 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brodie Jeet Singh appealed against his conviction for supplying MDMA and possessing a prohibited drug, specifically cannabis. The appeal centred on whether the original sentence was excessive and whether the statement of the maximum penalty for the cannabis supply offence was incorrect. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine if the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge erred in stating the maximum penalty for the cannabis supply offence. The court considered whether the trial judge had appropriately weighed the relevant factors and whether the sentence was proportionate to the offending. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's statement of the maximum penalty for the cannabis supply offence was incorrect and if it affected the fairness of the proceedings.

The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the trial judge had correctly identified and considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The court further held that the trial judge's statement of the maximum penalty for the cannabis supply offence was incorrect, but this did not affect the fairness of the trial or the outcome of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court's decision emphasised the importance of correctly applying the principles of sentencing and ensuring that the maximum penalties for offences are accurately stated in court.

Orders