Marracos v The Queen - [2008] NSWCCA 267

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Marracos v R [2008] NSWCCA 267

HEARING DATE(S): 21 August 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 November 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1; Hislop J at 2; Price J at 29

DECISION: (1) Grant leave to appeal in respect of the sentences imposed with respect to counts 3 and 4; (2) In respect of each of those sentences, allow the appeal and quash the sentence; (3) In lieu thereof, sentence the applicant: (a) in respect of Count 3 to a period of imprisonment of 12 months to date from 16 September 2008 and expire on 15 September 2009; (b) in respect of Count 4 to imprisonment for a non parole period of 18 months to date from 16 January 2009 and expire on 15 July 2010, with a balance of term of 18 months commencing on 16 July 2010 and expiring on 15 January 2012; (4) The earliest date upon which the applicant will be eligible for parole will be 15 July 2010.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code Act, 1995 (Cth)
Weapons Prohibition Act, 1998
Firearms Act, 1996
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

CASES CITED: R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131, (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Davies [2004] NSWCCA 319
Vu v R [2006] NSWCCA 188
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
R v Tobar [2004] NSWCCA 391
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
R v El Masri [2005] NSWCCA 167

PARTIES: Frank Marracos v R

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/4390

COUNSEL: H. Dhanji (Applicant)
J. Girdham (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Martin Ricci Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0577

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hock DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 28 September 2007

2007/4390

BASTEN JA
HISLOP J
PRICE J
Wednesday 19 November 2008

Frank MARRACOS v R

Judgment

1 BASTEN JA: I agree with Hislop J.

2 HISLOP J: On 19 July 2007 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to the following counts:

(1) On 3 May 2006 he did possess a substance, being a controlled drug, namely MDMA, contrary to s 308.1(1) of the Criminal Code Act , 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for such an offence is two years imprisonment (Count 1).

(2) Between 7 April 2006 and 3 May 2006 he did possess equipment and instructions for the commercial manufacture of controlled drugs, in breach of s 308.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for such an offence is seven years imprisonment (Count 2).

(3) On 3 May 2006 he did possess a prohibited weapon, namely an extendable baton, without a permit, contrary to the Weapons Prohibition Act , 1998, s 7(1). The maximum penalty for such an offence is 14 years imprisonment (Count 3).

Firearms Act

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 Marracos v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Marracos v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 267
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 267
Decision Date: 19 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marracos v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Marracos, was convicted of a serious criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment. The central issue in this case was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing in imposing the sentence on Marracos. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence and whether it was excessive or manifestly inadequate.

The legal issues before the court were the principles of sentencing, specifically the balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court needed to determine if the trial judge had properly considered these principles and whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised discretion in imposing the sentence.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing. The High Court upheld the sentence, ruling that it was neither excessive nor manifestly inadequate. The court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the various sentencing objectives and exercised proper discretion in imposing the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The High Court's decision reinforces the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders