Gibbins v The King - [2025] SASCA 58

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
GIBBINS v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 58
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, the Honourable Justice David and the Honourable Justice Stanley)
30 May 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS - TOTALITY - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
This is an appeal against sentence.

The appellant was sentenced to five years and twenty-nine days, with a non-parole period of three years, eleven months and nine days, for the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine contrary to s 32(2) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) (the ‘trafficking offence’). In separate proceedings, the appellant was charged with driving under disqualification contrary to s 91(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) and driving dangerously to escape police pursuit contrary to s 19AC(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the ‘dangerous driving offences’).
The appellant’s offending was detected during a broader investigation into a drug trafficking syndicate operating through an encrypted communication network commonly known as ‘AN0M’.
On 17 May 2021, messages between persons involved in the syndicate revealed a plan to supply one kilogram of methylamphetamine. The physical handover of those drugs was arranged to take place in the car park of the Bunnings hardware store in Mile End. On 18 May 2021, the appellant was equipped with a mobile phone, which contained the AN0M application, to communicate with the other persons involved in the exchange.
Australian Federal Police were monitoring several AN0M communications and provided intelligence to SA Police of the ‘drop’. Surveillance officers observed the appellant meeting up with a man and receiving a cardboard box. After being followed by Police, the appellant stopped in a car park. As the appellant got out of the car and ran from police, he dropped a brown paper bag which contained 993 grams of a crystalline substance, of which 680 grams was pure methylamphetamine.
When the appellant was apprehended, he told police officers that he attempted to evade them because he was disqualified from driving. During a subsequent police interview, the appellant stated that he was addicted to methylamphetamine and had a substantial drug debt. He explained that his participation in the supply of methylamphetamine was undertaken with the expectation that it would result in a reduction of the debt he owed.
The Judge accepted that the appellants offending was restricted to the single occasion charged and that the trafficking offence was committed to reduce his drug debt by $5,000.00. The Judge noted that couriers, by acting as the agents of more senior members of high-level drug syndicates, play an important role in maintaining the effectiveness of drug distribution systems and emphasised the social harm arising from the sale of illicit drugs.
By reason of his previous criminal history, the appellant fell…

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 Gibbins v The King

Details

AGLC: Gibbins v The King [2025] SASCA 58
Case: [2025] SASCA 58
Decision Date: 30 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the applicant, Gibbins, by the District Court of South Australia. Gibbins pleaded guilty to a number of offences, including aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The Crown cross-appealed against this sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a sentence that was manifestly inadequate, thereby justifying intervention on the Crown's cross-appeal. This required the Court to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the totality principle when multiple offences are involved, and to assess whether the sentence reflected the objective seriousness of the offending conduct and adequately accounted for all relevant sentencing factors.

The Court applied the established principles of sentencing, noting that an appellate court will only interfere with a sentence if it is demonstrably wrong or unjust. In this instance, the Court found that the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the totality of the offending conduct and the need for general deterrence. The Court determined that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and the need to impose a sentence that would adequately punish the offender and deter others. Consequently, the Court allowed the Crown's cross-appeal and imposed a significantly increased sentence.

Orders