Hedgecock v The Queen - [2008] NTCCA 1

Hedgecock v The Queen [2008] NTCCA 1

PARTIES: HEDGECOCK, WILLIAM

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:20707172
DELIVERED:  18 February 2008
HEARING DATES:  18 February 2008
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL AND RILEY JJ
APPEAL FROM:  SOUTHWOOD J, 13 August 2007
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Offences against Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 (NT) – whether sentence manifestly excessive – comparative sentencing – Appeal dismissed
Sentencing Act (NT): s 40(6)
Misuse of Drugs Act (NT): s 7(1), s 7(2)(a), s 37, 3 37(2)
Police Administration Act (NT): s 120B

Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509; Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98, applied

Allinson (1987) 49 NTR 38; Damaso (2002) 130 A Crim R 206; Ireland (1987) 49 NTR 10; R vJabaltjari (1989) 64 NTR 1; Mununggurr v R [2006] NTCCA 16, followed
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:I Read
Respondent:  J Karczewski QC
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Ril0803
Number of pages:  11

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Hedgecock v The Queen [2008] NTCCA 1

No. 20707172
BETWEEN:

WILLIAM HEDGECOCK

Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL AND RILEY JJ
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 18 February 2008)
Martin (BR) CJ

I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Riley J. I add the following observations.
Offences of this type are committed in an infinite variety of circumstances and necessarily this leads to a wide range of penalties. There is no tariff. Nor is there a particular range for identified categories. It is important to recognise that on each occasion imprisonment is an appropriate disposition, a range of sentence is properly available to the court within which the sentence will be neither manifestly inadequate nor manifestly excessive.
In addition, as was noted during submissions, in recent years through sentences, this court has reflected growing community concern about the prevalence of offences involving cannabis and the harm caused by this drug to many within our community. Attitudes to this type of crime have hardened over a significant period. Offenders cannot hold a legitimate sense of grievance if sentences, even for first offenders who grow for their own use, are now heavier than many imposed a few years ago.
Angel J:
This is an appeal by leave against a fully suspended nine month sentence of imprisonment with an operative period under s 40(6) Sentencing Act NT of 2 years imposed upon the appellant in respect of his conviction for unlawfully cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, namely 22 plants, contrary to s 7(1) and (2)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act NT for which a maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment.
The admitted Crown facts were that during February 2007 the appellant prepared and planted 22 cannabis…

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 Hedgecock v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hedgecock v The Queen [2008] NTCCA 1
Case: [2008] NTCCA 1
Decision Date: 18 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hedgecock appealed against his sentence for offences under the *Misuse of Drugs Act 1990* (NT). The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed upon Hedgecock was manifestly excessive, requiring consideration of principles of comparative sentencing.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's determination. The Court applied established principles of sentencing, including those derived from cases such as *Cranssen v The King* and *Morse*, and considered relevant provisions of the *Sentencing Act (NT)* and the *Misuse of Drugs Act (NT)*. The Court found that the sentence reflected an appropriate consideration of the gravity of the offences and the circumstances of the offender, and was not outside the bounds of a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion.

Orders