Legal Research
Cases
Leffley v The Queen

Leffley v The Queen

Case [2016] NSWCCA 243 4 November 2016

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: Leffley v R [2016] NSWCCA 243
Hearing dates: 24 August 2016
Decision date: 04 November 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Hall J at [2];
Davies J at [80]
Decision:
1. Applicant granted leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed s 5(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 – applicant entered guilty pleas to two counts of supplying a prohibited drug in an amount not less than the commercial quantity (Count 1 – amphetamine and Count 2 – methylamphetamine) contrary to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and offences of possess cannabis, cocaine and oxymetholone contained in certificate under s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 – on sentence 25% discount for early guilty pleas – sentence of 6 years with non-parole period of 3 years in respect of Count 1 and sentence of 8 years and 6 months with non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months in respect of Count 2 – both sentences fully concurrent – finding of special circumstances – sentences imposed were not discordant with findings of facts – sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive – findings of sentencing judge included that applicant was a courier but his level of participation well above that of a street courier – leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Briouzguine v R [2014] NSWCCA 264
Hill v R [2012] NSWCCA 265
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504-5; [1936] HCA 40
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez-Rios [2016] NSWCCA 147
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Shaun Neil Leffley (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Rowe (Applicant)
B Baker (Crown)
Solicitors:
Baker Ryrie Rickards Titmarsh (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/297696
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Common Law – Criminal

Date of Decision:

9 June 2015

Before:

English DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/297696

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Hall J.
HALL J: By Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal filed 14 April 2016, the applicant, Shaun Neil Leffley, sought leave to appeal pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against the sentences imposed upon him in the District Court sitting at Penrith (English DCJ) on 9 June 2015.
The applicant plead guilty to two counts of supplying a prohibited drug in an amount of not less than 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 Leffley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Leffley v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 243
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 243
Decision Date: 04 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Leffley v The Queen, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on him by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant had pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity, as well as possessing cannabis, cocaine, and oxymetholone. The Supreme Court of Victoria imposed a sentence of six years with a non-parole period of three years for the first count and a sentence of eight years and six months with a non-parole period of four years and six months for the second count. Both sentences were to run concurrently. The applicant argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive and discordant with the findings of fact.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly excessive or discordant with the findings of fact, and whether special circumstances existed that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. The court also needed to assess whether the sentences were appropriate in light of the applicant's early guilty pleas.

The court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or discordant with the findings of fact. The sentencing judge had considered the applicant's level of participation in the supply of the prohibited drugs, which was well above that of a street courier. The court also noted that the applicant had received a 25% discount on his sentence for entering early guilty pleas. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were appropriate and that special circumstances existed that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal against the sentences imposed. The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive or discordant with the findings of fact and that special circumstances existed that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. However, the court ultimately concluded that the sentences imposed were appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

Orders