Legal Research
Cases
Jackson v The Queen

Jackson v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 230 11 September 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Jackson v R [2020] NSWCCA 230
Hearing dates: 14 August 2020
Decision date: 11 September 2020
Before: Bell P at [1];
Johnson J at [2];
Rothman J at [8]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted;
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE APPEAL – importation of commercial quantity of cocaine – characterisation of offender’s role in syndicate – manifest excess – offender was principal in Australia – “middle manager” – no error in characterisation – no manifest excess – if “crushing” sentence, then due to seriousness of offence at offender’s age – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 307.1(1), 400.5(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 16AC

Cases Cited:
Barbaro v the Queen; Zirilli v the Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Barton v R [2009] NSWCCA 164
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; [1990] HCA 18
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22
Goebel-McGregor v R [2006] NSWCCA 390
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Paxton v R (2011) 219 A Crim R 104; [2011] NSWCCA 242
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Jackson [2019] NSWDC 1
R v Kassir [2020] NSWCCA 88
R v McLean (2001) 121 A Crim R 484; [2001] NSWCCA 58
R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106; [2010] NSWCCA 238
Ta’ala v R [2008] NSWCCA 132
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365; [2011] NSWCCA 215
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
ZA v R (2017) 267 A Crim R 105; [2017] NSWCCA 132

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kent Anthony Jackson (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
F Coyne (Applicant)
J Single SC / A Brown(Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/346206
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Citation:

[2019] NSWDC 1

Date of Decision:

29 January 2019

Before:

Berman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/346206

Judgment

BELL P: I agree with the reasons of Rothman J and the orders proposed by him. I also agree with the separate reasons of Johnson J.
JOHNSON J: I have had the advantage of considering in draft the judgment of Rothman J. I agree with the orders proposed by his Honour and generally with his Honour’s reasons subject to the following additional observations.
As the sentencing Judge found, the principal motivation of the Applicant to commit these serious crimes was financial gain with any element of threat being limited and with the effect of those threats on sentence being “relatively…

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 Jackson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jackson v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 230
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 230
Decision Date: 11 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jackson appealed against his conviction and sentence for importing a commercial quantity of cocaine. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in characterising Jackson’s role in the drug importation syndicate. The court was also required to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that the trial judge did not err in characterising Jackson as a principal in Australia and a "middle manager" within the syndicate. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court reasoned that if the sentence appeared "crushing", it was due to the seriousness of the offence committed at Jackson's age. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge’s assessment of Jackson's role or in the sentence imposed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders