Legal Research
Cases
Knight v R

Knight v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 222 19 August 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Knight v R [2015] NSWCCA 222
Hearing dates: 11 August 2015
Date of orders: 19 August 2015
Decision date: 19 August 2015
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
R A Hulme J at [2]
Garling J at [13]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – knowingly take part in supply of prohibited drug – single ground of appeal – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Fogg v R [2011] NSWCCA 1
Furia v R [2010] NSWCCA 362
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Sinkovich v R [2011] NSWCCA 90
Skocic v R [2014] NSWCCA 225
Tweedie v R [2015] NSWCCA 71
Wong v R [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584
Texts Cited: Criminal Law News, LexisNexis Butterworths
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brian Thomas Knight (Applicant)
The Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
R Mathur (Applicant)
P Ingram SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
S E O’Connor – Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
C Hyland – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/219423
Publication restriction: Not Applicable
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

22 September 2014

Before:

Robison DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/219423

___________________________________________________________________

Judgment

MACFARLAN J: I agree with Garling J and also with the additional observations of R A Hulme J.
R A HULME J: I agree with the orders proposed by Garling J for the reasons his Honour has provided.
I wish to emphasise my agreement with what his Honour has written in relation to the lack of utility of relying upon sentencing statistics in a case such as this.
One of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant illustrates a major premise underlying the case he presented in this Court:

"A review of the relevant judicial statistics, which although not determinative can act as a guide, demonstrate that the applicant's sentence is greater than the majority of cases dealing with a plea of guilty for multiple offences pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)." (AWS [27])

The Court was provided with statistics maintained by the Judicial Commission of New South Wales of sentences imposed in the "higher courts" for the offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of amphetamines in less than the commercial quantity. The above submission is based upon a selection of the variables "multiple offences" and "plea of guilty".
Selection of the variable "plea of guilty" does not refine the statistics in any useful way; there are 123 cases presently in the database for sentences imposed for this offence out of which pleas of guilty were entered in 120.
Selection of the variable "multiple offences" is of no real utility in this context either. It does not confine the…

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 Knight v R

Details

AGLC: Knight v R [2015] NSWCCA 222
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 222
Decision Date: 19 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Knight, was convicted of knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug. The appeal to the High Court of Australia focused on the sentence imposed, which the appellant argued was manifestly excessive. The Court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court. The legal issue before the Court was whether the punishment was so excessive as to render the sentence unlawful.

The Court examined the principles guiding sentencing in criminal cases, particularly in relation to the supply of prohibited drugs. The Court considered the severity of the crime, the appellant's criminal history, and the deterrent effect of the sentence. The Court found that the sentence was within the range of what could reasonably be expected for such a serious offence and did not shock the conscience. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the gravity of the crime and did not constitute an abuse of the court's discretion.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The Court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not exceed the bounds of what could be considered a just punishment for the offence committed. The appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive was rejected, and the conviction and sentence remained in place.

Orders