Jayde Farrell v The Queen - [2012] NSWCCA 245

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jayde FARRELL v R [2012] NSWCCA 245
Hearing dates: 17 May 2012
Decision date: 23 November 2012
Before: Hoeben JA at [1]
Hidden J at [2]
Beech-Jones J at [24]
Decision:
Leave granted, appeal allowed. Sentence passed in District Court quashed. Applicant re-sentenced to imprisonment for 6 ½ years, comprising a NPP period of 4 years, commencing 1 May 2010 and expiring 30 April 2014, and a balance of term of 2 ½ years, commencing 1 May 2014 and expiring 31 October 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against sentence - applicant and co-offender involved in same drug dealing enterprise - charged with different offences - co-offender sentenced by different judge - issue of parity.
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: - Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60, 77 NSWLR 540
- Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49, 244 CLR 462
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39, 244 CLR 120
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jayde Farrell (applicant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
J Hickleton (applicant)
J Girdham (respondent)
Solicitors:
George Sten & Co (applicant)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2008/1652
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2010-12-13 00:00:00

Before:

Bennett DCJ

File Number(s):

2008/1652

Judgment

HOEBEN JA: I agree with Hidden J and the orders which he proposes.

HIDDEN J: At a trial in the District Court the applicant, Jayde Farrell, was found guilty of supplying a commercial quantity of ecstasy, an offence under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 10 years. The trial judge, Bennett DCJ, sentenced him to imprisonment for 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months, to date from 1 May 2010. The sentence was backdated to that day to take account of a discrete period of pre-sentence custody. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

Facts

The offence was committed in the course of a criminal enterprise in which the applicant was involved with Blake William Turner. Mr Turner sold ecstasy to an undercover police operative on four occasions between February and March 2007. On three occasions in February 100 tablets were supplied, on each occasion for $2,000. On 1 March, 500 tablets were supplied for $8,500. In all, 229.44 grams of the drug were supplied, the prescribed commercial quantity being 125 grams.

It was the Crown case at the trial that the applicant was the source of the drugs which Mr Turner supplied to the undercover officer, and that he was involved in the enterprise for profit. It is unnecessary to detail the body of evidence against him, except to note that it included a number of intercepted telephone conversations and text messages, and the finding of more than half of the money paid by the undercover officer in his possession…

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 Jayde Farrell v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jayde Farrell v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 245
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 245
Decision Date: 23 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jayde Farrell versus The Queen involved the applicant appealing against her sentence for her involvement in a drug dealing enterprise. Farrell, along with a co-offender, participated in a drug dealing operation but were charged with different offences. The co-offender was sentenced by a different judge, which raised the issue of parity between their sentences. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentencing disparity warranted an appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the difference in sentences between Farrell and her co-offender constituted a significant enough error to merit a departure from the general rule against appeals against sentence. The court needed to consider the principles of parity in sentencing and the discretion of the original sentencing judge.

The High Court held that while the principle of parity in sentencing is important, it is not an absolute rule and must be balanced against other factors. The court found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the circumstances of the case and the roles of the offenders in the drug dealing enterprise. The differences in the charges and the nature of the involvement meant that the sentences were not necessarily meant to be identical. The court emphasised that the discretion of the sentencing judge should not be lightly interfered with, and there was no clear and substantial error in the sentence imposed on Farrell. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

In its decision, the court highlighted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the disparity in sentences was unjust or that it resulted from an error of law. The court affirmed that appeals against sentence are generally not favoured and that the original sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion. The principles of parity and fairness in sentencing were considered, but the court concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range given the circumstances of the case. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders