Legal Research
Cases
Chapman v The King

Chapman v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 259 13 October 2023

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: Chapman v R [2023] NSWCCA 259
Hearing dates: 20 September 2023
Date of orders: 13 October 2023
Decision date: 13 October 2023
Before: Adamson JA at [1];
Price J at [2];
Davies J at [73]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal;
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to find special circumstances – whether the applicant was a co-offender in the same criminal enterprise as an offender who had been sentenced by a judge other than the sentencing judge – whether parity principle applied

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 51(1A)(a)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 54(4)(a)

Cases Cited:
Baladjam v R (2018) 341 FLR 162; [2018] NSWCCA 304
Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120
Elias v The Queen; Issa v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Jiang v R [2010] NSWCCA 277
Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540; [2010] NSWCCA 60
Kiraz v R [2023] NSWCCA 177
R v Araya (2005) 155 A Crim R 555; [2005] NSWCCA 283
R v Carter [2003] NSWCCA 243
R v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
R v Tuuta [2014] NSWCCA 40

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher Chapman (Applicant) (Unrepresented)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/203343
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

01 September 2022

Before:

English DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/203343

JUDGMENT

ADAMSON JA: I agree with Price J.
PRICE J: On 1 September 2022, Christopher Jetson Chapman, also known as Christopher Rooskie, (‘the applicant’) was sentenced by English DCJ (‘the Judge’) in the District Court at Campbelltown for two offences to which he had entered pleas of guilty. The first offence was a charge of supplying on 9 July 2020 a large commercial quantity of the prohibited drug 1,4-Butanediol. The amount supplied was 5,508.6g. The maximum penalty for the offence which is contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (‘the DMT Act’) is life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years’ imprisonment.
As to the second offence, the applicant was driving a motor vehicle on 9 July 2020, whilst his license was cancelled. The maximum penalty for the offence which is contrary to s 54(4)(a) of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) is 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of 50 penalty units. An automatic period of 12 months disqualification applies with a statutory minimum period of disqualification of 6 months.
For the first offence, the applicant was sentenced to 5 years’…

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 Chapman v The King

Details

AGLC: Chapman v The King [2023] NSWCCA 259
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 259
Decision Date: 13 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the High Court involved Chapman, who had been convicted of a crime and sentenced by a judge. Chapman appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had erred in not finding special circumstances that would have warranted a reduced sentence. The appeal raised questions about the application of the parity principle, which requires that co-offenders in the same criminal enterprise be treated equally in terms of sentencing. Specifically, Chapman contended that the sentencing judge should have considered the sentence imposed by another judge on a co-offender who was part of the same criminal enterprise.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the law in not finding special circumstances and whether the parity principle mandated that Chapman's sentence be aligned with that of his co-offender, who had been sentenced by a different judge. The court had to consider the scope and application of the parity principle in the sentencing process and whether it applied to cases where the co-offender had been sentenced by a different judge.

In its decision, the court examined the principles of sentencing and the role of the parity principle in ensuring consistency in the treatment of co-offenders. The court found that the parity principle required a comparison of sentences imposed on co-offenders in the same criminal enterprise, but it did not mandate that the sentences be identical unless there were compelling reasons to do so. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had not erred in not finding special circumstances or in not aligning Chapman's sentence with that of his co-offender, as the circumstances of the case did not warrant such a comparison under the parity principle. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The court made no further orders beyond dismissing the appeal. The decision confirmed that while the parity principle is an important consideration in sentencing, it does not automatically require identical sentences for co-offenders, particularly when they have been sentenced by different judges.

Orders