Cornford, L.E. v The Queen - [1987] FCA 299

Re: LEE ERIS CORNFORD and DEBRA ANN ZAKHAROFF
And: THE QUEEN
No. ACT G75 and G79 of 1986
Criminal Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Fox J.
Gallop J.
Jenkinson J.

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law - appeals against severity of sentences - appropriateness of cumulative sentences - relevant factors for drug offences - relevance of co-operation of prisoners with police.

Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978 (A.C.T.)

Evidence Ordinance 1971 (A.C.T.)

Attorney-General v. Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84

Jurcovic (1981) 6 A Crim R 215

Golding v. The Queen (1980) 3 A Crim R 26

Osenkowski (1980) 5 A Crim R 394

Tania Amos v. The Queen (Full Court of Federal Court, unreported 6 February 1985)

Edward James Amos v. The Queen (1985) 16 A Crim R 408

The Queen v. Carey (1975) 11 SASR 575

Reg. v. Melville (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 579

HEARING

CANBERRA

#DATE 5:6:1987

ORDER

That the appeal of the appellant Cornford be allowed;

That the sentences imposed upon her be set aside and in lieu thereof she be sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment on the fifth count and a term of 6 months imprisonment on each of the sixth, seventh and eighth counts, such sentences to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon the sentence imposed in relation to the fifth count.

That the appellant Cornford be released after she has served part of the sentences imposed upon her, namely on 13 June 1987, upon her entering into a recognizance self in the sum of $500 with one surety in the sum of $500, conditioned that she be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years; that during that period she be subject to the supervision on probation of the Director of Welfare of the Australian Capital Territory or some person appointed by him in that behalf; that she obey all reasonable directions of such person in relation to her residence, employment and associates, and that she accept such counselling as may be directed in relation to drug use.

That the appeal of the appellant Zakharoff be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

We are hearing appeals from sentences imposed in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on Lee Eris Cornford and Debra Anne Zakharoff.

The two accused were prosecuted on the one information, the first four counts relating to the second-named of them and the last four counts relating to the first-named. Each offence was of supplying a controlled substance, namely heroin, contrary to s.4(2) of the Poisons and Narcotics Drugs Ordinance 1978 (A.C.T.). Both accused pleaded guilty. The learned Judge commented upon the fact that the two accused were charged in the same information, although in respect of distinct offences. One of the problems presented by this procedure is the difficulty of keeping apart the admissible evidence relating to each.
Miss Cornford's case was considered first 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.

Continue reading Cornford, L.E. v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cornford, L.E. & Anor v. The Queen [1987] FCA 299
Case: [1987] FCA 299
Decision Date: 05 JUNE 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cornford, L.E. v The Queen, the High Court of Australia was called upon to review the sentences imposed on the appellant, L.E. Cornford, and another co-appellant, Zakharoff, following their convictions for various drug-related offences. The appellants had been found guilty of multiple counts of possession, trafficking, and importation of prohibited drugs. The case involved an appeal against the severity of the sentences, focusing particularly on the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on Cornford.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriateness of the cumulative sentences for Cornford and the relevance of her cooperation with police investigations in determining the severity of her punishment. The court had to consider the factors that should be taken into account when sentencing for drug offences, including the degree of the offender's involvement, the extent of cooperation with law enforcement, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also needed to address whether the sentences were proportionate and whether there was an over-emphasis on punishment at the expense of rehabilitation.

The court found that the original sentences imposed on Cornford were excessively harsh and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors present in her case. The judges acknowledged that Cornford had provided significant cooperation with the police, which should have been a mitigating factor in her sentencing. The court held that the cumulative effect of the sentences resulted in a disproportionate punishment that was not justified by the nature and circumstances of her offences. Consequently, the court allowed Cornford's appeal and set aside the original sentences. In their place, Cornford was sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment on the fifth count and 6 months imprisonment on each of the sixth, seventh, and eighth counts, to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon the sentence imposed in relation to the fifth count. The court also imposed conditions for Cornford's release on recognizance, including supervision and mandatory counselling.

The court dismissed Zakharoff's appeal, finding that the sentences imposed upon him were appropriate and did not require alteration. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering individual circumstances and the degree of cooperation with authorities in the sentencing process for drug-related offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the appeal of the appellant Cornford be allowed;

That the sentences imposed upon her be set aside and in lieu thereof she be sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment on the fifth count and a term of 6 months imprisonment on each of the sixth, seventh and eighth counts, such sentences to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon the sentence imposed in relation to the fifth count.

That the appellant Cornford be released after she has served part of the sentences imposed upon her, namely on 13 June 1987, upon her entering into a recognizance self in the sum of $500 with one surety in the sum of $500, conditioned that she be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years; that during that period she be subject to the supervision on probation of the Director of Welfare of the Australian Capital Territory or some person appointed by him in that behalf; that she obey all reasonable directions of such person in relation to her residence, employment and associates, and that she accept such counselling as may be directed in relation to drug use.

That the appeal of the appellant Zakharoff be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.