Jackson v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 101

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jackson v R [2019] NSWCCA 101
Hearing dates: 15 April 2019
Date of orders: 22 May 2019
Decision date: 22 May 2019
Before: Johnson J
R A Hulme J
Wright J
Decision:
(1) The applicant is granted leave to appeal.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – whether offences aggravated within pars (m), (n) or (o) of s 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – sentencing judge did not hold offences so aggravated – alternatively, if offences were held to be aggravated within s 21A(2)(m), (n) or (o), error in exercise of discretion – no lesser sentence warranted
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW)
Cases Cited: DBW v R [2007] NSWCCA 236
DL v The Queen [2018] HCA 32
Mansour v R [2011] NSWCCA 28; 209 A Crim R 275
R v Yildiz [2006] NSWCCA 97; (2006) 160 A Crim R 218
Stokes v R [2008] NSWCCA 123; 185 A Crim R 74
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Matthu Razack Jackson (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Lange (Applicant)
Ms K Jeffreys (Crown)
Solicitors:
Hanna Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2015/376441
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

28 September 2017

Before:

Scotting DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/376441

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with Wright J.
R A HULME J: I agree with Wright J.
WRIGHT J: Mr Matthu Razack Jackson, the applicant, seeks leave under s 5(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal in respect of sentences imposed by Scotting DCJ in the District Court.
On 14 February 2017 in the Local Court at Manly, the applicant pleaded guilty to supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, offering for supply a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. He was committed to the District Court at Sydney and appeared for sentence on 1 September 2017. On that day, Scotting DCJ adjourned the matter part-heard to 28 September 2017. The applicant sought that eight further matters, contained on a Form 1, be taken into account, in accordance with s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (Sentencing Procedure Act).
When sentenced on 28 September 2017, the applicant had been in custody, bail refused, since 22 December 2015. Scotting DCJ found there were special circumstances and imposed sentences in respect of three offences as set out in the following table:

1

Supply a prohibited drug in a large commercial quantity (539.6g of MDMA), contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (DMT Act) (the supply offence) – maximum penalty life imprisonment, standard non-parole period 15 years.

Form 1:

1 x supply…

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 [2019] NSWCCA 101
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 101
Decision Date: 22 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jackson, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales, following his conviction for various offences including robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appeal focused on whether the sentencing judge erred in not considering the offences to be aggravated under specific provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the aggravation of the offences under sections 21A(2)(m), (n), or (o) of the Act, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the severity of the crimes.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge should have held that the offences were aggravated, and if so, whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court found that there was no clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of aggravation under any of the relevant subsections. The court also examined whether, in the event that the offences were considered to be aggravated, there was an error in the exercise of sentencing discretion. The court held that even if the offences were considered to be aggravated, the sentence imposed was not excessive or manifestly inadequate. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the factors relevant to the imposition of sentence and had not erred in the exercise of discretion.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the District Court. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the facts and circumstances of the case and had exercised their discretion appropriately in imposing sentence. The court held that the sentence was just and appropriate in all the circumstances and that no lesser sentence was warranted. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders