Legal Research
Cases
Melville v The Queen

Melville v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 210 21 August 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Melville v R [2020] NSWCCA 210
Hearing dates: 15 July 2020
Date of orders: 21 August 2020
Decision date: 21 August 2020
Before: Johnson J at [1];
Price J at [2];
Wright J at [3]
Decision:
(1) The applicant has leave to appeal.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Appeal against sentence – Self-represented litigant – Whether sentence imposed was “unreasonably long” or manifestly excessive – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Other grounds not made out

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Sutton [2013] QCA 151
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46
Tyn v R [2009] NSWCCA 146
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4
Yi Hong Puan v R [2009] NSWCCA 194

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew Melville (Applicant – self represented)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Anniwell (Crown)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/00032918
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

13 June 2019

Before:

Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/00032918

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with Wright J.
PRICE J: I agree with Wright J.
WRIGHT J: By a notice of application for leave to appeal filed on 17 March 2020, the applicant, Mr Melville, seeks leave pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by Huggett DCJ in the District Court at Sydney on 13 June 2019.

Background

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one offence of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely 274.9 g of cocaine, contrary to s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units. He was committed for sentence to the District Court.
On 13 June 2019, Huggett DCJ imposed on the applicant a sentence of imprisonment for 5 years, commencing on 13 May 2019 and expiring on 12 May 2024, with a non-parole period of 3 years, commencing on 13 May 2019 and to expire on 12 May 2022.

Grounds of appeal

In his notice of application for leave to appeal, the applicant seeks to rely on eight grounds of appeal, which he formulated as follows:

“1. The trial Judge, Judge Sarah Huggett handed down, under the prevailing circumstances, an unreasonably long sentence.
2. It was the first offence committed by…

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 Melville v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Melville v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 210
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 210
Decision Date: 21 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Melville, who was self-represented, appealing against the sentence imposed by a lower court. The nature of the dispute was whether the sentence was "unreasonably long" or manifestly excessive. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal. The central legal issue was to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or otherwise unjust. The court considered whether the sentence deviated significantly from the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge would impose.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. It evaluated whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was outside the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge would impose, considering the seriousness of the offence and the offender's circumstances. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and other grounds of appeal were not substantiated. The reasoning was based on the severity of the crime and the appropriate punishment within the legal framework.

The High Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the lower court had adequately considered the relevant factors and that the sentence was within the appropriate range. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court did not find any other grounds of appeal to be valid. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original sentence.

Orders