Duncan v The Queen - [2010] VSCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 645 of 2008

PAUL GORDON DUNCAN
	v
THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN AND MANDIE JJA and HABERSBERGER AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 March 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 April 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSCA 92
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Duncan (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Nixon, 28 April 2008)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Drug offences – Manifest excess on drug possession count – Re-sentence without consequent alteration to total effective sentence or non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr O P Holdenson QC	Valos Black & Associates
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

I agree with Mandie JA.

MANDIE JA:

The appellant pleaded guilty to two drug offences and two other offences and was sentenced in the County Court on 28 April 2008 as follows:

·Count 1: Trafficking in a drug of dependence on 8 June 2005 – not less than a large commercial quantity (MDMA or ecstasy) (under s 71 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) for which the maximum penalty was life imprisonment) – 6 years’ imprisonment;
·Count 2: Possession of a drug of dependence on 8 June 2005 (methylamphetamine) (under s 71(b) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) for which the maximum penalty was 1 year imprisonment) – 6 months’ imprisonment;
·Count 3: Using false documents to open a bank account on 13 February 2004 (under s 81A(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 for which the maximum penalty was 10 years’ imprisonment) – 12 months’ imprisonment;
·Count 4: Obtaining financial advantage by deception between 13 February 2004 and June 2005 by using a banking facility under a false name (under s 82(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 for which the maximum penalty was 10 years’ imprisonment) – 12 months’ imprisonment.

It was ordered that six months of the sentence imposed on count 3 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on count 1, resulting in a total effective sentence of six years and six months and the Court fixed a non-parole period of three years’ imprisonment.

The appellant appeals against the sentence on three grounds:

1.The individual sentence imposed on count 1 is, in all the circumstances of the case, manifestly excessive.
2.The individual sentence imposed on count 2 is, in all the circumstances of the case, manifestly excessive.
3.The total effective sentence imposed is, in all the circumstances of the case, manifestly excessive.

The appellant did not challenge the sentences imposed on counts 3 and 4[1] or the cumulation ordered in relation to the sentence imposed on count 3.
[1]It is unnecessary to refer to the facts supporting counts 3 and 4 but they are summarised in the reasons of the sentencing judge.

Circumstances

On 7 June 2005 the appellant contacted one George Cancer and ordered 4,000 ecstasy tablets which he arranged to collect from Cancer on the following day.…

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 Duncan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Duncan v The Queen [2010] VSCA 92
Case: [2010] VSCA 92
Decision Date: 23 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Duncan v The Queen involved the appellant, Duncan, who was appealing against his sentence for drug offences. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the original sentencing was manifestly excessive on the drug possession count and if the re-sentencing by the Court of Appeal was appropriate. The respondent, The Queen, argued that the original sentence was fair and just, and that any re-sentencing should not alter the total effective sentence or non-parole period.

The primary legal issue the Court had to address was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive, which would justify a re-sentencing by the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the Court needed to consider whether the re-sentencing was correctly carried out without altering the total effective sentence or non-parole period. The Court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to drug offences, and the discretion of the Court of Appeal in re-sentencing matters.

In delivering the judgment, the Court found that the original sentence on the drug possession count was indeed manifestly excessive. However, the Court of Appeal had correctly exercised its discretion by re-sentencing Duncan without altering the total effective sentence or non-parole period. The Court affirmed that such re-sentencing was permissible under the law, provided that it did not change the overall punishment imposed on the appellant. The Court held that the re-sentencing was appropriate and did not constitute an error of law.

As a result of the Court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the re-sentencing by the Court of Appeal was upheld. The total effective sentence and non-parole period remained unchanged, ensuring that the overall punishment imposed on Duncan was consistent with the original sentence. This decision reaffirmed the principles of sentencing in drug offences and the limited scope of the Court of Appeal's discretion in re-sentencing matters.

Orders