C v R

Case [2022] NSWCCA 285 16 December 2022

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: C v R [2022] NSWCCA 285
Hearing dates: 11 July 2022
Date of orders: 16 December 2022
Decision date: 16 December 2022
Before: Bell CJ at [1]
Mitchelmore JA at [2]
Yehia J at [80]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 1 December 2020 (as corrected on 2 December 2020).
(4) In lieu thereof, sentence the applicant to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, backdated to commence from 18 March 2020, with a balance of term of 2 years.
(5) The effect is that the earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible for release to parole is 17 September 2023, with the balance of term expiring on 17 September 2025.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – parity – criminal drug syndicate – manufacture large commercial quantity of prohibited drug, 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine, contrary to Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW), s 24(2) – reckless dealing with proceeds of crime on Form 1 – motivation for offending to repair financial damage caused by others – whether justifiable sense of grievance in light of the sentence imposed on co-offenders

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 93T
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5(1), 54A, 54D
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ss 24(2), 33(3)(a)

Cases Cited:
DS v R [2014] NSWCCA 267
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Huckstadt v R [2016] NSWCCA 22
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Lewis v R [2021] NSWCCA 108
Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46
Miles v R [2017] NSWCCA 266
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
Rodriego (a Pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 237
SF v R [2022] NSWCCA 216
SY v R [2020] NSWCCA 320
Young (pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 163
Z v R [2022] NSWCCA 286

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: C (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms G Bashir SC and Ms R McMahon (Applicant)
Ms M Kumar and Mr M Clark (Crown)
Solicitors:
William O’Brien & Ross Hudson Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2018/91934
Publication restriction:
(1) Pursuant to s 10 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (“the Act”), there be no publication of the reasons for judgment on or before 20 February 2023, other than to:

(a) the parties and their legal representatives; and

(b) the Commissioner of the NSW Police Force and her legal representatives.

This order is to apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.

(2) On or before 10 February 2023, the parties and the Commissioner of Police are to notify the Court of any redactions sought to be made to the reasons for judgment for the purpose of…

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 C v R

Details

AGLC: C v R [2022] NSWCCA 285
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 285
Decision Date: 16 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an individual, referred to as C, who was appealing against the sentence imposed for manufacturing and dealing in a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine, in contravention of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW). The appeal was heard in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The case presented a significant legal issue regarding the proportionality of the sentence imposed, particularly in light of the appellant's claim that his actions were driven by a sense of grievance and a desire to repair financial damage caused by others.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was just and appropriate, considering the appellant's motivation and the circumstances of the offending. The appellant argued that his actions were driven by a justifiable sense of grievance due to financial hardships caused by others, particularly when compared to the sentences received by his co-offenders. The court needed to assess the appellant's personal circumstances, the nature of his offending, and the principle of parity in sentencing.

The court acknowledged the appellant's claims but ultimately found that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offending. The court recognised that the appellant's motivation, while considered, did not sufficiently mitigate the seriousness of the drug manufacturing and dealing activities. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to maintain consistent sentencing standards within the framework of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW).

Orders