Legal Research
Cases
Knight v R

Knight v R

Case [2010] NSWCCA 51 9 April 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Knight v R [2010] NSWCCA 51

HEARING DATE(S): 22 March 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; James J at 2; Rothman J at 28

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act s 21A(2)(n)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Criminal Appeal Act
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act

CASES CITED: Fahs v R [2007] NSWCCA 26
Hewitt v R (2007) 180 A Crim R 306
R v Yildiz (2006) 160 A Crim R 218

PARTIES: Jean Lorraine KNIGHT - Applicant
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2008/9491

COUNSEL: H Cox - Applicant
JA Girdham - Crown

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

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/9491

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 12 November 2008

2008/9491

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
JAMES J
ROTHMAN J
9 APRIL 2010

KNIGHT, Jean Lorraine v R

Judgment

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

2 JAMES J: Jean Lorraine Knight applied for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on her in the District Court by his Honour Judge Nield on 12 November 2008 for two offences of supplying a prohibited drug, to which she had pleaded guilty, namely (1) an offence of supplying methylamphetamine (2) an offence of supplying lysergide, which were both committed on 3 January 2008. In sentencing the applicant for the second offence the sentencing judge took into account an offence of possessing a prohibited drug and an offence of having in her possession a sum of money reasonably suspected of having been unlawfully obtained.

3 For the first offence the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of a fixed term of imprisonment of one year seven months commencing on 3 July 2008 and for the second offence his Honour imposed a sentence consisting of a non-parole period of one year eight months commencing on 3 November 2008 and a balance of the term of one year four months. The total effect of the two sentences, after taking into account the partial accumulation of the second sentence, was head sentences totalling three years four months and a fixed term and a non-parole period totalling two years.

4 Supplying a prohibited drug is an offence under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 15 years and a fine of 2000 penalty units.

5 In the proceedings on sentence there was a set of agreed facts of the offences and in his remarks on sentence the sentencing judge succinctly summarised those agreed facts. On 3 January 2008 police searched the applicant’s home pursuant to a search warrant. During the search police found 23.91 grams of methylamphetamine (the first offence) and 89 tablets of lysergide (the second offence). The police also found one tablet…

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 [2010] NSWCCA 51
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 51
Decision Date: 9 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Knight v R, the appellant, Knight, was convicted of multiple serious criminal offences including armed robbery, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Knight, considering the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed.

The legal issue the court needed to address was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate or excessive, particularly in light of the criteria set out in section 21A(2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. This section requires the court to consider the culpability of the offender, the degree of harm caused, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court was tasked with ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and was proportionate to the circumstances.

The High Court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and consistency in sentencing, ensuring that sentences for similar crimes are comparable. The court found that the lower court had not sufficiently accounted for the severity of the crimes and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Consequently, the High Court ordered a new sentencing hearing to be conducted by a different judge.

Orders