Lawson v R - [2012] NSWCCA 56

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lawson v R [2012] NSWCCA 56
Hearing dates: 30 March 2012
Decision date: 05 April 2012
Before: Beazley JA
Harrison J
McCallum J
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to take into consideration statistics from the Judicial Commission - whether the judge erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences - whether the judge failed to take into account relevant mitigating factors - appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Weapons Prohibition Act 1988
Cases Cited: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Louizos v R, R v Louizos [2009] NSWCCA 71
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
MLP v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 93
R v MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Randy Charles Lawson (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
L Rowan (Applicant)
P G Ingram SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
John Anthony Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/62839
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2010-09-23 00:00:00

Before:

Coolahan DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/62839

Judgment

BEAZLEY JA: I agree with McCallum J.

HARRISON J: I agree with McCallum J.

McCALLUM J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed upon him in the District Court after he pleaded guilty to two offences of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985. The charges related to a quantity of methylamphetamine (907.5 grams) and a quantity of ecstasy (128 grams) respectively. The maximum penalty for each offence was imprisonment for 20 years. The offences carried a standard non-parole period of ten years under division 1A of part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

On 23 September 2010 Coolahan DCJ sentenced the applicant as follows:

On count one (supply of methylamphetamine) to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of five and a half years and a balance of term of three and a half years.

On count two (supply of ecstasy) to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of three and a half years and a balance of term of one and a half years.

In passing sentence on count one, the judge took two additional offences into account, which were the subject of a Form 1, pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. They were an offence of possession of a prohibited weapon (a butterfly knife) contrary to s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1988 and an offence of dealing with property ($8,020 in cash) reasonably suspected as being the proceeds of crime contrary to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The sentences were backdated to the date of the applicant's arrest and were wholly concurrent.

At the time 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 Lawson v R

Details

AGLC: Lawson v R [2012] NSWCCA 56
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 56
Decision Date: 05 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by the defendant, Lawson, against his conviction and sentence for various criminal offences. The respondent, the Crown, sought to uphold the sentence handed down by the sentencing judge. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentencing judge had erred in several respects, including by not considering statistics from the Judicial Commission, in assessing the seriousness of the offences, and in failing to take into account relevant mitigating factors. The central issue for the court was to examine the extent to which the sentencing judge had properly exercised their discretion in determining the appropriate sentence for Lawson, and whether any errors made were significant enough to warrant an appeal.

The court first considered whether the sentencing judge erred by not taking into account statistics from the Judicial Commission. The court noted that while such statistics could be a useful reference point, they were not determinative of the sentence to be imposed. The court held that the sentencing judge was not obligated to rely on these statistics, and had appropriately exercised their discretion in reaching a decision that was suitable for the particular circumstances of the case. The court further examined whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences, and found that the judge had appropriately considered the gravity of the crimes committed and the impact on the victims. The court also assessed whether the sentencing judge had failed to take into account relevant mitigating factors, and concluded that the judge had given appropriate weight to these factors in arriving at the sentence.

Having considered the arguments presented, the court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in any significant way in determining the appropriate sentence for Lawson. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and within the range of possible outcomes for the offences committed. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence upheld. The court made no further orders in relation to the matter.

Orders