Hudson v Regina - [2009] NSWCCA 59

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Hudson v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 59

HEARING DATE(S): 5 March, 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 March 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Blanch J at 2; Howie J at 31

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - manufacture of prohibited drugs - parity of sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s24(1)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Postiglione v The Queen (1996-1997) 189 CLR 295

PARTIES: Thomas William Hudson (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/14728

COUNSEL: M Ramage QC (Applicant)
J Dwyer (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Jeffreys and Associates (Applicant)
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0371

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Finnane QC DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 9 February, 2007

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Regina v Thomas William Hudson

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 2006/14728

BEAZLEY JA
BLANCH J
HOWIE J

11 March, 2009

Thomas William HUDSON v Regina

JUDGMENT

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Blanch J.

2 BLANCH J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed on the applicant in the District Court on 9 February, 2007. After a trial which commenced on 11 September and concluded on 26 October, 2006 the applicant was convicted as follows:

1. of an offence contrary to s24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985 that on or about 7 September, 2004 at Coopernook in the State of New South Wales did attempt to manufacture a prohibited drug, namely ephedrine;

2. not guilty of an offence contrary to s24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985 that between 7 September, 2004 and 30 September, 2004 at Whiporie in the State of New South Wales to manufacture a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, but guilty of an attempt to do so;

3. of an offence contrary to s24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985 that between 1 September, 2003 and 5 August, 2005 at Kanwal and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales did conspire with John Henry Griffiths and others to manufacture a prohibited drug, namely ephedrine.

3 Each of the offences carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and on 9 February, 2007 the applicant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years with a balance of term of 2 years on each of the offences to be served concurrently. The sentences are to date from 17 August, 2006.

4 In summarising the facts of the case the sentencing judge said that during the relevant years the co-offender Griffiths lived in Dulwich Hill. Bangs and Campbell lived in northern New South Wales and the applicant lived near Wyong. Griffiths knew how to manufacture illegal drugs and the role of the other offenders was to assist him. The applicant provided his house as a place for the chemicals to be sent, he allowed the name of a company to be…

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 Hudson v Regina

Details

AGLC: Hudson v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 59
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 59
Decision Date: 11 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal by the appellant, Hudson, against his conviction for manufacturing a prohibited drug. Hudson was found guilty of manufacturing methylamphetamine and was sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed on the grounds that his sentence was manifestly excessive, arguing that the trial judge had failed to consider the principle of parity in sentencing, which requires that similar crimes be punished similarly. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to apply the principle of parity in sentencing when determining Hudson's punishment.

The court examined the principle of parity in sentencing and the role of the trial judge in ensuring that sentences are proportionate and consistent with sentences for similar offences. The court considered whether the trial judge had adequately exercised the discretion to impose a sentence within the range of penalties that would be appropriate for the offence. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately considered the principle of parity, as the judge had not sufficiently compared Hudson's case with other cases involving similar offences. The court found that the trial judge's failure to consider the principle of parity amounted to a significant error in the sentencing process.

As a result of the error in sentencing, the court quashed Hudson's sentence and remitted the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of the principle of parity in sentencing and the need for trial judges to carefully consider comparable cases when determining an appropriate sentence. The court did not address the merits of Hudson's conviction but focused solely on the sentencing error. The matter was to be returned to the trial court for a re-sentencing hearing, ensuring that the principle of parity was properly applied.

Orders