Legal Research
Cases
Laughton v The Queen

Laughton v The Queen

Case [2019] NSWCCA 318 23 December 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Laughton v R [2019] NSWCCA 318
Hearing dates: 9 December 2019
Date of orders: 23 December 2019
Decision date: 23 December 2019
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Davies J at [51];
Hidden AJ at [52]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
(2) Dismiss the appeal against sentence.

Catchwords: CRIME – sentence – cultivation of commercial quantity of cannabis plants and supply of methylamphetamine – assessment of objective gravity – whether objective seriousness was “moderate” – prospects of rehabilitation – whether there was evidence to support offender’s “work ethic” claim
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 3, 23, 25
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44
Cases Cited: Cicciarello v R [2009] NSWCCA 272
Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246
Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 106
Mulato v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 282
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Pak v R [2015] NSWCCA 45
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Yacoub v R [2019] NSWCCA 57
Yeung v R [2018] NSWCCA 52
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Edward Laughton (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Coady (Applicant)
C Curtis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/348014
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

6 April 2018

Before:

Wilson DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/348014

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: On 6 April 2018 the applicant was sentenced in the District Court to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years, in respect of offences of knowingly taking part in the cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis plants contrary to s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (“the DMT Act”) (count 1) and supplying 21.1 grams of methylamphetamine contrary to s 25(1) of the DMT Act (count 2). Two further offences were taken into account on a Form 1 in respect of count 1.
The sentence was fixed to commence on a date that rendered it partially concurrent and partially cumulative upon another sentence that was imposed on the applicant on an earlier occasion for offences of aggravated break and enter and assault.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his 6 April 2018 sentence on the following grounds:

“1.   His Honour’s finding as to the objective seriousness of Count One as involving a ‘high degree of sophistication’ was not open on the facts of the case.
2.   His Honour’s finding that Count Two involved criminality ‘greater than moderate’ was not open on the facts of the case.
3.   His Honour erred in his assessment of the Applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation, particularly in the treatment of the psychological report of Ms Martens, tendered in the Crown case.”

The agreed facts

A Statement of Agreed Facts was signed on behalf of the parties…

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 Laughton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Laughton v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 318
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 318
Decision Date: 23 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Laughton, appealed against the sentence imposed on him for cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis plants and supplying methylamphetamine. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Laughton argued that his sentence was excessive and that the trial judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the crimes as moderate. He also claimed that the trial judge had failed to properly consider his prospects of rehabilitation and his purported work ethic.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the crimes and whether the trial judge had erred in sentencing by failing to properly consider the respondent’s prospects of rehabilitation and his claim of a work ethic. The court had to consider whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the objective seriousness of the crimes and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The court also had to consider whether there was evidence to support the respondent’s claim of a work ethic and whether this was a relevant factor in sentencing.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the crimes as moderate. The court held that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors in assessing the objective seriousness of the crimes and had applied the correct legal principles. The court also found that the trial judge had properly considered the respondent’s prospects of rehabilitation and his claim of a work ethic. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the respondent’s claim of a work ethic and that this was not a relevant factor in sentencing. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the crimes as moderate and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The court also held that there was insufficient evidence to support the respondent’s claim of a work ethic and that this was not a relevant factor in sentencing.

Orders