Gooch & Pierce v The Queen

[2002] NTCCA 3

Gooch & Pierce v The Queen [2002] NTCCA 3

PARTIES:MARC LAWRENCE GOOCH

AND

JANET HILDA PIERCE

v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:CA9 & CA10 of 2001

DELIVERED:  1 May 2002

HEARING DATE:  14 March 2002

JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ, BAILEY & RILEY JJ

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

First Applicant:  I. Read

Second Applicant:  C. Rozencwajg

Respondent:  G. Fisher

Solicitors:

ApplicantsNorthern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Respondent:  Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification:     B

Judgment ID Number:  ril0206

Number of pages:  16

ril0206

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Gooch & Pierce v The Queen [2002] NTCCA 3

No. CA9 & CA10 of 2001

BETWEEN:

MARC LAWRENCE GOOCH

First Applicant

AND

JANET HILDA PIERCE

Second Applicant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM:    MARTIN CJ, BAILEY & RILEY JJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 1 May 2002)

THE COURT

1. The first applicant pleaded guilty to having, on or about 15 August 2000, imported into Australia not less than a traffickable quantity of heroin contrary to s 233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901.

2. The second applicant pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in that importation contrary to s 233(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901. On 23 April 2001 they were each convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years with a non-parole period of four years. The sentences and non-parole periods were backdated to 17 October 2000 to take into account time in custody. The applicants sought leave to appeal against the sentences and, on 17 July 2001, those applications were refused. They now seek to have the applications for leave to appeal determined by this Court pursuant to the provisions of s 429(1) of the Criminal Code.  The Court heard full argument from the applicants on the merits of the proposed appeals before determining that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of leave.  These are the reasons for the orders refusing those applications which were made on 13 March 2002.

3. The grounds which the applicants sought to agitate in the event that the applications were successful were: (1) that the learned sentencing Judge erred in law in failing to take into account the provisions of s 16G of the Crimes Act; (2) that he erred in imposing a sentence which was manifestly excessive; (3) that he imposed a non-parole period which in all the circumstances was manifestly excessive; and (4) that he failed to take appropriate account of all the factors mentioned in Part 1B of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.  In addition the applicant Marc Lawrence Gooch wished to argue that his Honour erred in failing to impose disparate sentences for the applicants and that he should have imposed a more lenient sentence upon the applicant Gooch. 

Applications for Leave

1. A person may only appeal to this Court against sentence with the leave of the Court: s 410 Criminal Code.  By virtue…