Legal Research
Cases
Cappis v R

Cappis v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 138 12 June 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Cappis v R [2015] NSWCCA 138
Hearing dates: 1 June 2015
Date of orders: 12 June 2015
Decision date: 12 June 2015
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Garling J at [3]
Decision:
(1)Application for leave to appeal granted.
(2)Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – self represented appellant – whether error in discount for early plea – no offender has an entitlement to a particular discount – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – whether Judge erred in concluding a conviction was inevitable – Crown case compelling – open for sentencing Judge to conclude conviction inevitable – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – whether bad legal advice – no bad legal advice – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – whether error that no further discount for compassionate grounds – appellant a Canadian national – that appellant a foreigner of strictly limited significance – intentionally visited Australia to commit crime
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code 1995
Cases Cited: Danial v R [2008] NSWCCA 15
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231
Trujillo-Mesa v R [2010] NSWCCA 201
Tyler v R; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247; 173 A Crim R 458
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Shawn Jason Cappis (Applicant)
Regina
Representation:
Counsel:
Self Represented (Applicant)
T Anderson (Crown)
Solicitors:
Self Represented (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/228673
Publication restriction: Not Applicable
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

29 May 2014

Before:

Phegan ADCJ

File Number(s):

2013/228673

Judgment

GLEESON JA: I agree with Garling J.
JOHNSON J: I agree with Garling J
GARLING J: This is an application for leave to appeal in respect of a sentence imposed in the District Court of NSW by his Honour, Acting Judge Phegan on 30 May 2014.
The applicant, Shawn Jason Cappis, pleaded guilty before Phegan ADCJ to a single offence contrary to ss 11.1 and 307.6(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), namely that:

“Between 15 March 2013 and 27 July 2013, at Sydney, in the State of NSW, [he] attempted to possess a substance, the substance having been unlawfully imported and the substance being a border controlled drug, namely, methamphetamine, and the quantity possessed being a marketable quantity.”

This offence involved 679.7gms of pure methamphetamine.
The offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, and/or in addition a fine of $850,000.
Phegan ADCJ imposed a sentence of 6 years and 9 months imprisonment commencing on 27 July 2013 with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on that day, and expiring on 26 July 2017.

Facts

The following summary of facts is taken from the Agreed Statement of Facts tendered to the sentencing Judge, and from his Honour’s summary.
The applicant was friendly with a Canadian male, Mr Danny Quart. They shared a…

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 Cappis v R

Details

AGLC: Cappis v R [2015] NSWCCA 138
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 138
Decision Date: 12 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Cappis, appealed against his sentence in the High Court of Australia. The case involved a criminal appeal against a sentence imposed after the appellant was found guilty of several offences, including drug trafficking and possession of a dangerous drug. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with the appellant arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant, who represented himself during the appeal, raised several grounds of appeal, including the trial judge's approach to the discount for an early plea, the error in concluding that a conviction was inevitable, and the failure to provide a further discount for compassionate grounds.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in the discount for an early plea, whether the judge was correct in concluding that a conviction was inevitable, whether the appellant received bad legal advice, and whether the trial judge erred in not applying a further discount for compassionate grounds. The court had to determine if the trial judge's approach to sentencing was appropriate and whether there were any errors in the sentencing process that warranted a reduction in the sentence.

In examining the appeal, the court held that the trial judge did not err in the discount for an early plea, as no offender has an entitlement to a particular discount. The court found that the Crown case was compelling, and it was open to the trial judge to conclude that a conviction was inevitable. The court also determined that there was no bad legal advice given to the appellant and that his status as a Canadian national was of limited significance in the sentencing process. The court held that the appellant intentionally visited Australia to commit the crime, which was a significant factor in the sentencing. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was affirmed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found that the trial judge's approach to sentencing was appropriate, and there were no errors in the sentencing process that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court held that the appellant's status as a Canadian national was of limited significance in the sentencing process and that the appellant intentionally visited Australia to commit the crime. The original sentence was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders