Garaty v R

Case [2024] NSWCCA 53


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Garaty v R [2024] NSWCCA 53
Hearing dates: 5 February 2024
Decision date: 19 April 2024
Before: Kirk JA at [1];
Wilson J at [2];
Ierace J at [3]
Decision:

(1)      Grant leave to appeal;

(2)      Allow the appeal;

(3)      Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 15 December 2022;

(4)      In lieu thereof, sentence the applicant to a term of imprisonment for 7 years, backdated to commence on 5 September 2022 and expiring on 4 September 2029, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months, expiring on 4 June 2026.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence — Application for leave to appeal — Importation of border-controlled drug — Where the co-accused was the applicant’s abusive partner — Where the applicant was subordinate to her co-accused in the importations— Evidence of a non-financial motive — Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account that the applicant was acting at the direction of an abusive partner in committing the offences in regard to general deterrence and denunciation — failure to make a finding as to moral culpability

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5(1)(c)

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(1)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2)

Cases Cited:

DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200

DPP(Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194

Kentwellv The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37

R v Walker [2023] NSWCCA 219

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Nicole Garaty (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
E Kerkyasharian (Applicant)
A Williams (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Jassy Lawyers (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/260826
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Citation:

[2022] NSWDC 654

Date of Decision:
15 December 2022
Before:
Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2021/00260826

JUDGMENT

  1. KIRK JA: I agree with Ierace J.

  2. WILSON J: I also agree with Ierace J.

  3. IERACE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against an aggregate sentence that was imposed on her on 15 December 2022 by Fitzsimmons SC DCJ for the following two offences, of which she was convicted at trial:

Count 1: That between about 4 August and 29 November 2020 she imported a border controlled drug (namely methamphetamine), contrary to s 307.3(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (count 1), and

Count 2: That between about 18 November and 28 November 2020, she imported of a border controlled drug (a commercial quantity of methamphetamine) contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code (count 2).

  1. The maximum penalties were 10 years imprisonment (and/or 2,000 penalty units) and life imprisonment (and/or 7,500 penalty units) respectively. The applicant received an aggregate term of imprisonment for 8 years and 6 months, commencing on 5 September 2022 and expiring on 4 March 2031, with a non-parole period of 4 years and…

Continue reading Garaty v R

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Garaty v R [2024] NSWCCA 53
Case
[2024] NSWCCA 53
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Garaty v R involved an appeal against sentence by the applicant, who was convicted of the importation of a border-controlled drug. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant's appeal against sentence was based on the argument that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the applicant's subordinate role in the importations and the non-financial motive of acting under the direction of an abusive partner. The central legal issues revolved around whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the general deterrence and denunciation aspects of the sentence, and whether the judge made a proper finding regarding the applicant's moral culpability.

The High Court examined the sentencing judge's approach to the principles of general deterrence and denunciation, particularly in light of the applicant's subordinate role and the influence of her abusive partner. The Court noted that while the sentencing judge had considered the applicant's subordinate position, the extent to which this affected the applicant's culpability was not sufficiently explored. The Court also found that the sentencing judge did not make a specific finding regarding the applicant's moral culpability, which was a critical factor in determining the appropriate sentence. These oversights led the Court to conclude that the appeal against sentence should be allowed.

The High Court's decision resulted in the appeal against sentence being allowed, and the case was remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing. The Court emphasised the importance of thoroughly examining the factors that influence an offender's culpability, particularly in cases where the offender is acting under the direction of another person. The Court also highlighted the necessity of making a clear finding on moral culpability to ensure that the sentence appropriately reflects the offender's role and motives in the commission of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.