R v Hilder & Sandhu (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gullaci, 20 August 2010)
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Parity – Whether sentencing differential between co-offenders reasonably open – Crown submission on range – Legal effect of – Whether judge required to notify parties of departure from Crown range – Appeal dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellant
Mr T Kassimatis
Valos Black and Associates
For the Respondent
Mr R Elston SC with Mr M Roper
Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
MAXWELL ACJ:
Lasry AJA will deliver the first judgment.
LASRY AJA:
On 20 August 2010 the appellant was sentenced in the County Court to one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence, the drug being methylamphetamine. The sentence imposed was three years and six months and it was ordered that the appellant serve two years’ imprisonment before being eligible to apply for parole. The appellant’s pre‑sentence detention at the time of being sentenced was declared at 382 days. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the single count in the presentment and the sentencing judge recorded that but for the plea of guilty, the sentence he would have imposed would have been five years’ imprisonment with a minimum term before eligibility for parole of three years and six months.
Also sentenced on that day was Simranjit Singh Sandhu who was an accomplice of the appellant. Their respective roles are important in this appeal and I will deal with the detail of that shortly. Sandhu was sentenced for the more serious offence of trafficking in methylamphetamine in not less than a large commercial quantity, and for a second count of possessing an unregistered handgun. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment and the Court ordered that he serve a minimum period of two years and ten months before being eligible to apply for parole.
The appellant was granted leave to appeal against his sentence on 10 December 2010 by Bongiorno JA.
The circumstances
The appellant and Sandhu were involved in a drug manufacturing and trafficking operation managed and directed by a man named Samuel James. In August 2009 police executed a search warrant at a factory in Dandenong that had been rented by Sandhu on behalf of James since June 2009. Those premises were
used for the purposes of manufacturing illegal drugs and a clandestine drug laboratory had been established. Apart from apparently being at the head of the operation, James had also provided the illegal pill press to be used in the manufacture of tablets.
When police arrived at the Dandenong factory on 2 August 2009, the appellant was present. He was arrested and…
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 Hilder v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hilder v The Queen [2011] VSCA 192
Case
[2011] VSCA 192
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Hilder, appealed against his sentence in the High Court of Australia, following a conviction for multiple criminal offences. The nature of the dispute centred around the fairness and legality of the sentencing disparity between the appellant and his co-offenders. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentencing differential was reasonably open to the trial judge and whether the judge was required to notify the parties of any departure from the Crown’s suggested sentencing range.
The central legal issues before the Court involved the principles of parity in sentencing and the procedural obligations of the trial judge when considering the Crown's submission on the appropriate sentencing range. Specifically, the Court had to examine whether the sentencing differential was justifiable under the circumstances and whether there was a legal requirement for the trial judge to inform the parties when deviating from the Crown's proposed range. The appellant argued that the disparity was unjust and that the judge failed to adequately notify the parties of any departure from the Crown's range.
The Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the sentencing differential was reasonably open to the trial judge given the differing roles and culpability of the co-offenders. The Court further determined that there was no legal obligation for the judge to notify the parties of any departure from the Crown’s suggested range. The reasoning was based on the broad discretion afforded to the trial judge in sentencing matters and the absence of any statutory requirement mandating such notification. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed on the appellant.