Laurentiu v The Queen - [1993] HCATrans 296

•

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S3 of 1993
B e t w e e n -
DANIEL GIGEL LAURENTIU

Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave
to appeal

MASON CJ DAWSON J

TOOHEY J

Laurentiu

8/10/93

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 8 OCTOBER 1993, AT 9.34 AM

MR G.R. JAMES, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear with

my learned friend, MR S.J. ODGERS, for the
applicant. (instructed by Christopher Murphy)

MR T.L. BUDDIN:

May it please the Court, in that matter I

appear on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by
M. Rozenes, QC, the Commonwealth Director of Public
Prosecutions)

MASON CJ:	Mr James.
MR JAMES:	The summary of the applicant's argument is set

out at page 93 of the appeal book. The concepts
referred to in that argument, "parity",
"possession", "telling lies in Becheru's trial" and
"evidentiary basis for sentence", relate directly
to the recently introduced provisions of
section 16A of the Commonwealth Crimes Act relating
to sentencing. That section has not been referred
to expressly on the list of authorities,
Your Honours, so I should hand to Your Honours
copies of that section.

DAWSON J: Did it apply in this case?

MR JAMES: Yes, Your Honour, and indeed, it was applicable

and referred to in the Court of Criminal Appeal as
well as by the trial judge.

DAWSON J: When did it come into effect? It has been in

effect for several years, has it?

MR JAMES: Well prior to this, Your Honour, and indeed, as His Honour Mr Justice Kirby points out, the first

case in relation to section 16A designed to explore
its effect was El Karhani, which was in the New
South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal well prior to

this decision.

TOOHEY J:

What use do you make of section 16A?

MR JAMES: Section 16A(l), Your Honour, requires a court to

impose a sentence that is of the severity
appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence
and, amongst other matters to which a sentencing
court must have regard, section 16A(2) requires the
court to have regard to the:
nature and circumstances of the offence;

in (a), and in (k):
the need to ensure that the person is adequately punished for the offence -

Laurentiu

8/10/93

What happened in the present case was that one
accused, who had imported 1.5 kilograms of cocaine
of a very high amount in value and had pleaded
guilty to that charge under the Customs Act and co-
operated with the authorities, was resentenced by
the Court of Criminal Appeal, because these
provisions had come into effect, to a sentence
which was subject to a discount of roughly SO per
cent because of his co-operation.
When it came to sentencing the present

applicant in respect of whom the charge was simply
possession, not the importation or being party to
any massive conspiracy, and 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 Laurentiu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Laurentiu v The Queen [1993] HCATrans 296
Case: [1993] HCATrans 296
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Daniel Gigel Laurentiu against The Queen. The applicant sought to challenge his sentence, which had been reviewed and varied by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The core of the dispute revolved around the application of sentencing principles, particularly in light of recently introduced provisions.

The legal issues before the High Court included the proper application of section 16A of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, which mandates that courts impose sentences appropriate to all the circumstances of the offence. Specifically, the applicant argued that the sentencing court failed to adequately consider the nature and circumstances of his offence, the need for adequate punishment, and the discount for his guilty plea and cooperation with authorities, in contrast to the sentencing of a co-accused. The applicant contended that the sentencing judge had improperly used the sentence of a co-accused, who had imported a significantly larger quantity of drugs and cooperated extensively, as a benchmark for his own sentence, which involved a lesser quantity and a charge of possession.

The applicant's argument centred on the concept of "parity" in sentencing, suggesting that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in its approach to resentencing. He submitted that section 16A(2) requires consideration of factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offence and the need for adequate punishment. The applicant contended that the trial judge, and subsequently the Court of Criminal Appeal, had not properly applied these principles by taking the sentence of a co-accused, who had imported 1.5 kilograms of cocaine and received a significant discount for cooperation, as a starting point for sentencing the applicant, who possessed only 50 grams of cocaine. The applicant argued that while parity might be a relevant consideration, it should not lead to an unjust outcome, especially when the culpability and circumstances of the offenders differed significantly.

Orders