Christie-Gilbert v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 9

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Christie-Gilbert v R [2019] NSWCCA 9
Hearing dates: 30 January 2019
Decision date: 13 February 2019
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Wright J at [64];
Fagan J at [65]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – plea of guilty to knowingly take part in the supply of not less than a commercial quantity of MDMA – offence of knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (10kg of cannabis) included on a Form 1 – applicant and co-offender driving to Adelaide and back to collect drugs – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive – whether parity principle properly applied as between applicant and co-offender – leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – s 10A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) – s 166
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) – s 25(1), s 25(2)
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) – s 16(1)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) – s 112(1)(a)
Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Burrows v R [2017] NSWCCA 45
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; 154 CLR 606
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Nguyen, Kathy v R [2015] NSWCCA 209
Wat v R [2017] NSWCCA 62
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Aaron Christie-Gilbert – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
D McCallum – Applicant
M England – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Matouk Joyner Lawyers – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2016/128235
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

16 October 2017

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/128235

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offences and sentence

The applicant seeks leave to appeal pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against the sentence imposed on him by his Honour Judge King SC on 16 October 2017 in the District Court at Broken Hill.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to knowingly take part in the supply of not less than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, being 218.5 grams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy), contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years and/or a 3500 penalty unit fine and a 10 year standard non-parole period.
At sentence two further offences were taken into account on a Form…

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 Christie-Gilbert v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Christie-Gilbert v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 9
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 9
Decision Date: 13 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Christie-Gilbert v The Queen involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to engaging in the supply of a commercial quantity of MDMA. The offence included an additional charge of being involved in the supply of 10kg of cannabis, as documented on a Form 1. The appellant, along with a co-offender, undertook a journey to Adelaide and back to collect these drugs. The central issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive and whether the principle of parity was appropriately applied in relation to the sentence given to the co-offender.

The court considered the criteria for determining whether a sentence was manifestly excessive, including the principles of proportionality and parity. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessively harsh and that there was a significant disparity between the sentences handed to him and his co-offender. The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the circumstances of the case, including the roles of the appellant and his co-offender, the gravity of the offences, and the appropriate range of penalties. After thorough consideration, the court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not so excessive as to warrant intervention. The court also determined that the parity principle was correctly applied, as the differences in the sentences reflected the different roles and culpability of the appellant and his co-offender.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed. The original sentence was upheld as appropriate and proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. The court found that the lower court had adequately balanced the severity of the crimes with the need for a just punishment, and had appropriately differentiated between the appellant's and his co-offender's roles in the criminal activity. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was maintained.

Orders