TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 1 of 2007 (20627198, 20616174)
DELIVERED: 16 AUGUST 2007
HEARING DATES: 8 AUGUST 2007
JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL AND RILEY JJ
APPEAL FROM: OLSSON AJ, 18 DECEMBER 2006
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW
Appeal against sentences – offences against Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 (NT) – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether sufficient weight given to question of totality – commercial drug activities in Aboriginal communities as an aggravating factor – total sentence manifestly excessive – appeal allowed in part – sentence reduced.
Appellant:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification: A
Judgment ID Number: Mar0710
Number of pages: 18
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN
Daniels v The Queen [2007] NTCCA 9
No. CA1 of 2007 (20627198, 20616174)
BETWEEN:
RONALD NADITCH DANIELS
Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN
Respondent
CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL AND RILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 16 August 2007)
Martin (BR) CJ and Riley J:
Introduction
This is an appeal against sentences imposed for crimes against the Misuse of Drugs Act (“the Act”). Coupled with the restoration of previously suspended sentences, the total period to be served by the appellant is seven years and 58 days imprisonment in respect of which a non-parole period of four years was fixed.
The crimes were charged in two Indictments. After allowing a reduction of 25 percent in recognition of the appellant’s timely pleas, the learned sentencing Judge imposed the following sentences:
1.Aggravated Unlawful Possession of Cannabis (14 June 2006): two years and three months imprisonment to commence at the expiration of the restored sentences of 58 days.
2.Possession of Property Obtained from the Commission of an Offence (14 June 2006): three years imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the first offence.
3.Aggravated Unlawful Possession of Cannabis (26 October 2006): four years imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed for the second offence.
Leave to appeal was granted in respect of six grounds of appeal, but on the hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellant abandoned all but two grounds. In substance counsel submitted that the individual sentences and total period to be served are manifestly excessive and that the learned…
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 Daniels v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Daniels v The Queen [2007] NTCCA 9
Case
[2007] NTCCA 9
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned the sentencing of the appellant, Daniels, for offences under the *Misuse of Drugs Act 1990* (NT). The appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, comprising Martin (BR) CJ, Angel and Riley JJ. The central dispute revolved around whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the totality principle and the aggravating factor of commercial drug activities within Aboriginal communities.
The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the aggregate sentence imposed on Daniels was demonstrably excessive, failing to adequately reflect the principle of totality. Secondly, the court considered whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the aggravating circumstance of the commercial drug activities occurring within Aboriginal communities when imposing the sentence.
In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the seriousness of commercial drug trafficking, especially in vulnerable communities. However, it also applied the principle of totality, which requires that the total sentence for multiple offences should not be excessive and should reflect the overall criminality of the offender. The court referred to established authorities on sentencing, including *R v King* and *Markarian v The Queen*, to guide its assessment. Ultimately, the court found that while the individual sentences might have been justifiable, the cumulative effect of the sentences was excessive.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and the total sentence imposed on Daniels was reduced.