Jamie Peter Dolman v The Queen - [2010] NSWCCA 137

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Jamie Peter DOLMAN v R [2010] NSWCCA 137

HEARING DATE(S): 11 December 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 July 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Hidden J at 2; Johnson J at 27

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed. Sentence for ongoing supply of prohibited drug quashed. In lieu, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, applicant sentenced to a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, to commence on 16 September 2009 and to expire on 15 June 2011, and a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months, to commence on 16 June 2011 and to expire on 15 September 2012.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against sentence - ongoing supply of methylamphetamine - Form 1 matters - sentence accumulated upon sentence following revocation of s 12 bond - error in manner in which head sentence arrived at - special circumstances arising from accumulation

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Tobar [2004] NSWCCA 391, 150 A Crim R 104
R v Suaalii [2005] NSWCCA 206
R v Mauai [2005] NSWCCA 207
R v Clarke [2009] NSWCCA 49

PARTIES: Jamie Peter DOLMAN (Applicant)
REGINA (Respondent Crown)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2008/12740

COUNSEL: M Johnston (Applicant)
V Lydiard (Respondent Crown)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission) (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) (Resondent Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/12740

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Toner DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 12 September 2008

2008/12740

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HIDDEN J
JOHNSON J
Friday 30 July 2010

Jamie Peter DOLMAN v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hidden J.

2 HIDDEN J: The applicant, Jamie Peter Dolman, seeks leave to appeal against sentence, having been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for drug offences at Taree District Court on 12 September 2008. To understand the sentencing order it is necessary to sketch a little of his criminal history.

3 In May 2006, he was sentenced in the Local Court to short terms of imprisonment for a number of charges of possessing a prohibited drug and a charge of attempting to use such a drug. He appealed against those sentences to the District Court, and on 23 October 2006 another judge quashed those sentences and gave him the benefit of a bond for 18 months, pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, on each charge. He was called up for breaches of those bonds by the commission of further offences, and on 27 November 2007 the present sentencing judge imposed a suspended sentence of imprisonment for 2 years, pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, directing that he enter into a good behaviour bond for the same period.

4 In March 2008, while subject to those bonds, he committed the offences the subject of this…

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 Jamie Peter Dolman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jamie Peter Dolman v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 137
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 137
Decision Date: 30 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamie Peter Dolman brought an application for leave to appeal against his sentence in the High Court. Dolman had been convicted of multiple offences, including the ongoing supply of methylamphetamine. The appeal focused on the manner in which his sentence was calculated, particularly the aggregation of his sentence upon the revocation of a s 12 bond. The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in the way he determined the head sentence and the impact of the accumulation of sentences.

The court considered whether there was a significant error in the trial judge's calculation of the head sentence. It was argued that the trial judge's approach to the accumulation of sentences led to an unjust outcome, given that Dolman's overall sentence was excessive. The court had to decide if the error was substantial enough to warrant an appeal and if there were any special circumstances that justified the grant of leave to appeal.

In its reasoning, the court held that there was indeed a significant error in the manner in which the head sentence was determined. The trial judge's approach to the accumulation of sentences was flawed, leading to an unjust outcome. The court recognised the special circumstances arising from the accumulation, which exacerbated the error. Consequently, the High Court granted Dolman leave to appeal against his sentence. The final orders included leave to appeal, with specific directions for the conduct of the appeal.

Orders