Jones v The Queen - [2016] NSWCCA 230

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v R [2016] NSWCCA 230
Hearing dates: 7 September 2016
Decision date: 21 October 2016
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Price J at [2];
Hidden AJ at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – supplying large commercial quantity of prohibited drug - knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime – possessing a prohibited weapon – aggregate sentence passed – indicative sentences of imprisonment for all three offences – whether aggregate sentence excessive – focus on whether custodial sentence warranted for possessing prohibited weapon
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
Cases Cited: Hili and Jones v The Queen 242 CLR 520, [2010] HCA 45
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Reginald Jones - Applicant
Regina - Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
M Smith (Applicant)
V Lydiard (Respondent Crown)
Solicitors:
McGirr Lawyers (Applicant)
C. Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/83999
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

10 July 2015

Before:

Hanley DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/83999

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Hidden AJ.
PRICE J: I agree with Hidden AJ.
HIDDEN AJ: The applicant, Peter Reginald Jones, was committed for sentence in the District Court after pleading guilty in the Local Court to the following charges:

supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, pseudoephedrine, an offence under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 which carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life and a standard non-parole period of 15 years;

knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, an offence under s 193B(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment; and

possessing a prohibited weapon, an offence under s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 3 years.

Two related charges of dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime and supplying a quantity of methylamphetamine were to be taken into account on the sentence in respect of the first count.
He was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 11 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years. The indicative sentences were as follows:

supplying the large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine, taking into account the Form 1 offences: 9 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 10 months;

knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime: 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 7 months; and

possess prohibited weapon: 12 months with a non-parole period of 8 months.

He seeks leave to appeal against that aggregate sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.
The focus of the application is a narrow one, and it is sufficient to summarise the facts and the subjective…

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 Jones v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jones v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 230
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 230
Decision Date: 21 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v The Queen, the defendant, Mr Jones, was appealing against the sentence imposed by the lower court for multiple criminal offences. Mr Jones was found guilty of supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, and possessing a prohibited weapon. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the aggregate sentence of imprisonment passed was excessive, with a particular focus on the appropriateness of a custodial sentence for the offence of possessing a prohibited weapon.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the aggregate sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive, taking into account the totality of the offending and the need to impose punishment and deterrence. The court was particularly concerned with the sentence for the possession of the prohibited weapon, as Mr Jones argued that this offence did not warrant a custodial sentence due to his limited involvement and the absence of any threat posed by the possession. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the aggregate sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offending and the need to ensure adequate punishment and deterrence.

The High Court considered the principles of sentencing in Australia, which emphasise the need for a sentence to be proportionate to the offence and the offender. The court acknowledged the severity of the offences committed by Mr Jones, including the supply of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and dealing with the proceeds of crime. However, the court also recognised that the possession of the prohibited weapon was a relatively minor aspect of the offending. The court ultimately determined that while the aggregate sentence was severe, it was not excessive, as it reflected the seriousness of the offending and served the purposes of punishment and deterrence. The court found that a custodial sentence was warranted for the possession of the prohibited weapon, given the context of the other offences committed by Mr Jones.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the aggregate sentence imposed by the lower court. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the offending and served the necessary purposes of punishment and deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the offending when determining an appropriate sentence and recognised that the possession of a prohibited weapon, while a relatively minor aspect of the offending, still warranted a custodial sentence in the context of the other offences committed by Mr Jones.

Orders