Legal Research
Cases
Edmonds v The Queen

Edmonds v The Queen

Case [2019] NTCCA 1 4 January 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:Edmonds v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 1

PARTIES: EDMONDS, Jarrad Keith

v
THE QUEEN

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 2018 (21733520)
DELIVERED:  4 January 2019
HEARING DATES:  30 May and 31 July 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ, Blokland and Barr JJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG OFFENCES – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT

Appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – commercial quantity of Schedule 1 drug – assessment of gravity of offending – inferences that may be drawn from Agreed Facts – extension of time and leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed and applicant resentenced.
Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) s 37(6)

Filippou v The Queen (2015) 89 ALJR 776, House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, Lawrence v The Queen (2007) 171 A Crim R 286, Leach v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 1, Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566, R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152, The Queen v Carey [1998] 4 VR 13, The Queen v Indrikson [2014] NTCCA 10, The Queen v Koumis (2008) 184 A Crim R 421, The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270, The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550, The Queen v Roe [2017] NTCCA 7, Truong v The Queen (2015) 35 NTLR 186; Whitehurst v The Queen [2011] NTCCA 11, Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:JCA Tippett QC
Respondent:  D Morters SC
Solicitors:
Applicant:Maleys Barristers and Solicitors
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Number of pages:  22

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Edmonds v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 1

No. CA 1 of 2018 (21733520)
BETWEEN:

JARRAD KEITH EDMONDS

Applicant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ, BLOKLAND and BARR JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 4 January 2019)
THE COURT:
[1]On 20 October 2017 the applicant pleaded guilty to two offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) and was sentenced to a total term of 6 years’ imprisonment. Count 1 charged that between 2 April 2017 and 14 July 2017 he supplied a commercial quantity of methamphetamine, which is classified as a Schedule 1 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Count 2 charged that he supplied less than a commercial quantity of cannabis plant material, which is a Schedule 2 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
[2]The sentencing judge adopted a starting point of imprisonment for eight years for the offence involving the methamphetamine, and a starting point of imprisonment for three years for the offence involving the cannabis. It was ordered that the second sentence be served concurrently with the first sentence, and then a discount of 25 per cent was applied to arrive at…

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 Edmonds v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Edmonds v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 1
Case: [2019] NTCCA 1
Decision Date: 4 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Edmonds v The Queen* was heard by Grant CJ, Blokland and Barr JJ. The applicant, Edmonds, appealed against the sentence imposed upon him following a conviction for possessing a commercial quantity of a Schedule 1 drug. The central question before the Court was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court was required to determine the appropriate assessment of the gravity of the offending, considering the inferences that could be drawn from the agreed facts presented in the case. This involved evaluating the applicant's level of involvement and the circumstances surrounding the possession of the prohibited substance.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. In reaching this conclusion, their Honours applied principles relating to the sentencing of drug offences, particularly concerning the weight to be given to agreed facts and the proper characterisation of the applicant's role in the offending. Consequently, the applicant was granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, and was resentenced by the Court.

Orders