Eckersley v The Queen - [2013] NSWCCA 219

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Eckersley v R [2013] NSWCCA 219
Hearing dates: 27 September 2013
Decision date: 27 September 2013
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Latham J at [2]
Bellew J at [22]
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal sentence - plea of guilty - knowingly take part in manufacture of not less than commercial quantity of MDMA, knowingly take part in manufacture of not less than large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, supply not less than large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine - Three offences of supply prohibited drug and offence of knowingly take part in manufacture of not less than large commercial quantity of MDMA dealt with on Form 1 - whether trial judge made a finding in relation to existence of an aggravating feature - whether trial judge erred in extent of accumulation - whether sentence manifestly excessive - leave refused.
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Shannon Eckersley - (Applicant)
Regina - (Crown Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
P Lange - (Applicant)
H Wilson SC - (Crown Respondent)
Solicitors
William Whitby Lawyers - (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - (Crown Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/131601
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2011-03-22 00:00:00

Before:

Sides QC DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/131601

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL : I agree with Latham J.

LATHAM J : The applicant, Shannon Eckersley, applies for leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him on 22 March 2011 by Sides QC DCJ, following pleas of guilty to the following offences :-

(1) Knowingly take part in the manufacture of not less than a large commercial quantity of MDMA (count one)

(2) Knowingly take part in the manufacture of not less than a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (count two)

(3) Supplying not less than a large commercial quantity of methyl amphetamine. (count three)

Each of those offences carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years.

When sentencing the applicant in respect of count one, four further offences were taken into account on a Form 1. Those further offences were knowingly take part in the manufacture of not less than the large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, supplying a prohibited drug, namely 11 tablets of MDMA, supplying a prohibited drug, namely 5.8 g of cocaine, and supplying a prohibited drug, namely 2.78 g of MDMA.

On count one, the sentencing judge imposed a term of imprisonment of 18 years, commencing 30 October 2011, with a non-parole period of 11 years. On each of counts two and three, the sentencing judge imposed term of imprisonment of 12 years, commencing 30 October 2008, with a non-parole period of eight years.

The sentences for counts two and three (which were entirely concurrent) were accumulated upon the sentence imposed on count 1 to the extent of three years. The overall sentence was one of 21 years with an aggregate non-parole period of 14 years.

The grounds of the…

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 Eckersley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Eckersley v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 219
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 219
Decision Date: 27 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Eckersley v The Queen involved the defendant, Eckersley, who had pleaded guilty to multiple drug manufacturing and supply offences. The offences included knowingly participating in the manufacture of significant quantities of MDMA and methylamphetamine, as well as supplying large commercial quantities of methylamphetamine. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where Eckersley sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The primary legal issues centred on whether the trial judge had properly identified an aggravating feature in relation to the offences, whether the trial judge erred in the extent of the accumulation of offences, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the trial judge's findings and concluded that there was no error in the identification of the aggravating feature. The court found that the trial judge had correctly identified the presence of an aggravating feature, which was the defendant's significant involvement in the manufacture and supply of large quantities of prohibited drugs. The court also determined that the trial judge did not err in the extent of the accumulation of offences. The court found that the trial judge's approach to the accumulation of offences was appropriate and that there was no basis for finding that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court's reasoning and conclusion led to the refusal of leave to appeal. The court held that the trial judge's findings and the sentence imposed were appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The appeal court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and that there were no errors that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. As a result, the defendant's application for leave to appeal the sentence was dismissed.

Orders