Jacobs v The Queen

[2001] FCA 1192

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jacobs v The Queen [2001] FCA 1192

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – severity appeal – challenge to “facts” found by sentencing judge not made out –further evidence of sentencing statistics from another jurisdiction not received on appeal – sentences not manifestly excessive.

ROYCE ALFRED JACOBS v THE QUEEN
A 13 of 2001

HIGGINS, WHITLAM & GYLES JJ
29 AUGUST 2001
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 13 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	ROYCE ALFRED JACOBS APPELLANT
AND:	THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	HIGGINS, WHITLAM & GYLES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	29 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 13 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	ROYCE ALFRED JACOBS APPELLANT
AND:	THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	HIGGINS, WHITLAM & GYLES JJ
DATE:	29 AUGUST 2001
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

1. This is an appeal by an offender against sentences imposed in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

2. The appellant was convicted on an indictment containing three counts for offences against the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT). The offences were: (1) possession of a traffickable quantity of a prohibited substance for the purpose of sale or supply, (2) possession of a drug of dependence for the purpose of sale or supply, and (3) supply of a drug of dependence. The prohibited substance was lysergide (LSD) and the drug was methamphetamine. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for four and a half years on the first count, one year on the second count and two years on the third count. The sentencing judge (Miles CJ) directed that all terms be served concurrently and fixed a non-parole period of 18 months.

3. The essential facts of the offences were summarized in his Honour’s sentencing remarks as follows:

   “The offences all occurred on 18 February 1999.  A man whom I shall identify as ‘A’ telephoned the offender on his mobile telephone at about 1.30pm.  In accordance with arrangements made in that conversation, the offender was driven by a third man, immediately, so it would appear, to a car park in Civic, where A was waiting.  The offender handed the man A a container.  Police moved in and arrested the offender and the man A.  The container was found to have within it 30 blue tablets, each impressed with a ‘Batman’ symbol.  The offender was found to have on his person $1,800 in cash, as well as a notebook containing entries about amounts owed.  In the car in which the offender arrived, there were found 10 film canisters containing 192 tablets.  Inside each tablet was a paper tab. 

   Upon analysis, the tablets handed by…