Griffiths v The Queen - [2021] NSWCCA 226

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Griffiths v R [2021] NSWCCA 226
Hearing dates: 23 August 2021
Date of orders: 24 September 2021
Decision date: 24 September 2021
Before: Payne JA; Garling J; Wright J
Decision:
(1)   The applicant is granted leave to appeal on ground 1;
(2)   The appeal is allowed;
(3)   The orders made by Ellis DCJ on 31 October 2018 are quashed and in lieu thereof the offender is sentenced as follows:
(a) an aggregate sentence of 10 years and 8 months is imposed, to date from 21 December 2016, expiring on 20 August 2027;
(b) a non parole period of 5 years and 8 months is imposed, expiring on 20 August 2022;
(c)   the following indicative sentences are identified:
(i) count 1: 3 years 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years 3 months;
(ii)    count 2: 6 years 9 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years;
(iii) count 3: 7 years 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years;
(iv) count 4: 9 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 4 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — application for leave to appeal — whether irrelevant consideration taken into account — whether sentence was erroneously determined by reference to co-offender’s sentence
CRIME — drug offences — supply prohibited drug — commercial quantity

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 53A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 10, 24, 25, 25A, 36Z

Cases Cited:
Baladjam v R [2018] NSWCCA 304; (2018) 341 FLR 162
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
DL v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 215; [2018] HCA 32
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633; [2017] NSWCCA 284
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
Robinson v R [2012] NSWCCA 26

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kirt Wayne Griffiths (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
I Nash (Applicant)
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/00382515
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

31 October 2018

Before:

Ellis DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/00382515

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant pleaded guilty to four drug supply charges. On 31 October 2018, the sentencing judge imposed individual sentences amounting to a total effective sentence of imprisonment for 11 years and 9 months, with an effective non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months as follows:

Count 1: supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis – 3 years and 9 months from 21 December…

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 Griffiths v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Griffiths v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 226
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 226
Decision Date: 24 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Griffiths against his sentence for drug supply in a commercial quantity was considered by the High Court of Australia. Griffiths was found guilty of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and was sentenced to imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had taken into account irrelevant considerations and had erroneously determined his sentence by reference to the sentence of his co-offender. The central issue was whether the sentence imposed was affected by improper factors and whether it was determined by comparing it to the co-offender's sentence.

The High Court examined whether the sentencing judge had taken into account irrelevant considerations and whether the comparison to the co-offender's sentence was appropriate. The Court held that the sentence was not affected by any irrelevant considerations, and the comparison to the co-offender's sentence did not constitute an error of law. The Court found that the sentence was proportionate and appropriately reflected the seriousness of Griffiths' offence.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The Court confirmed that the sentencing judge had not erred in taking into account the co-offender's sentence as a relevant factor in determining the appropriate punishment for Griffiths. The Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the role of a co-offender's sentence in ensuring consistency and fairness in the criminal justice system.

Orders