Legal Research
Cases
Healey v R

Healey v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 214 5 October 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Healey v R [2018] NSWCCA 214
Hearing dates: 12 March 2018
Date of orders: 05 October 2018
Decision date: 05 October 2018
Before: Macfarlan JA [1];
Johnson J [2];
Campbell J [3]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – aggregate sentence – serious drug supply and related offences – form 1 offences – pleas of guilty – indicative sentences – whether the applicant has a justifiable sense of grievance as a result of the indicative sentence – whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective gravity of the supply of a commercial quantity of drug offence – parity principle – role in drug offences – no lesser sentence warranted in law
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW), s 53A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 24B, 25
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment (Methylamphetamine) Regulation 2015 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Andreata v R [2015] NSWCCA 239
Clarke v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 260
Fato v R [2017] NSWCCA 190
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hiron v R [2018] NSWCCA 10
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; (2014) 246 A Crim R 528
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 38
Lehn v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 205; [2016] NSWCCA 255
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; (1984) HCA 46
Mansaray v R [2018] NSWCCA 16
O’Grady v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 621; [2014] HCA 38
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v MacDonnell [2002] NSWCCA 34; (2002) 128 A Crim R 44
Saraya v R [2015] NSWCCA 63
Wan v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 261
Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Dean Joseph Healey (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Dhanji SC (Applicant)
F Veltro (Respondent)
Solicitors:
KP Lawyers & Barristers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of the Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/00043738
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Penrith District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

24 May 2016

Before:

Buscombe DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/00043738

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Campbell J.
JOHNSON J: I agree with Campbell J.
CAMPBELL J: The applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) (“Criminal Appeal Act”) to appeal from an aggregate sentence imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Buscombe on 24 May 2016 in the District Court at Penrith.
The aggregate sentence imposed consisted of a non-parole period of 7 years commencing on the date of the applicant’s arrest of 11 February 2015 and expiring on 10 February…

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 Healey v R

Details

AGLC: Healey v R [2018] NSWCCA 214
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 214
Decision Date: 05 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the defendant, Healey, against the Queen. The issue was the sentence imposed on Healey for serious drug supply and related offences. Healey pleaded guilty to various charges, and the sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence. Healey sought to appeal the sentence, arguing that the sentence was excessive and that the judge erred in assessing the gravity of his role in the offences.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance concerning the sentence, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the objective gravity of the drug supply offence. Healey contended that the sentence was unjust, and that the role he played in the drug supply was not as significant as the sentencing judge had found. The court had to consider the principles of parity and the role in the offending to determine if the sentence was appropriate.

The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the objective seriousness of Healey's offending and the appropriate sentence. The court held that Healey's role in the drug supply, as a supplier of a commercial quantity of drugs, was significant. The court found no basis to interfere with the sentence on the grounds of unjust severity or disproportionate punishment. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court did not make any further orders beyond upholding the original sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and Healey was required to serve the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge.

Orders