Oxford v Tasmania - [2006] TASSC 41

[2006] TASSC 41

CITATION: Oxford v Tasmania [2006] TASSC 41

PARTIES: OXFORD, Julian Sam
v

TASMANIA, STATE OF

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 81/2005
DELIVERED ON:  2 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  31 May 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford, Blow and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Appeal by convicted persons – Applications to reduce sentence – When refused – Particular offences – Other offences – Drug offences – Trafficking – Whether circumstances warrant appellate interference.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [1018]
Criminal Law – Particular offences – Drug offences – Penalties – Trafficking, trading, selling, supplying or distribution – Other substances – Trafficking in methylamphetamine – Whether sentence manifestly excessive.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [375.5]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  In person
           Respondent:  M P Shirley
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  In person
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2006] TASSC 41
Number of paragraphs: 28

Serial No 41/2006
File No CCA 81/2005

JULIAN SAM OXFORD v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD J
  BLOW J
  TENNENT J
  2 June 2006

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 41/2006
File No CCA 81/2005

JULIAN SAM OXFORD v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD J
  BLOW J
  TENNENT J
  2 June 2006

The appellant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment on the ground that it was manifestly excessive. He had pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, s12(1), and on 23 November 2005, he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. It was ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served two years of that sentence. To take into account the fact that he had spent time in custody prior to the imposition of the sentence, it was ordered that the imprisonment commence on 24 April 2005.

The first count charged him with trafficking in methylamphetamine between 1 October and 19 November 2004. The second count charged him with trafficking in methylamphetamine between 6 March and 3 June 2005. The material facts were the following.

On 18 November 2004 he rented a Mitsubishi Magna sedan for three days paying $370 in cash for the rent. Shortly after 1am the following day, he was spoken to by police officers in the course of a random traffic check and was requested to follow the officers to the Bridgewater Police Station for questioning in relation to an unrelated matter. On the way to the police station he stopped, locked the car and ran away across a paddock. He was soon apprehended and taken to the police station. He claimed to have lost the keys to the car. As a result of a search of it, police seized bundles of cash totalling $16,617.85 in various places in the car, zip-lock bags containing methylamphetamine along with a…

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 Oxford v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Oxford v Tasmania [2006] TASSC 41
Case: [2006] TASSC 41
Decision Date: 2 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Oxford v Tasmania involved the appellant who was convicted of drug trafficking offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appellant, dissatisfied with the sentence, appealed to the court. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's circumstances warranted appellate interference with the sentence imposed. The court was tasked with determining if the sentence was manifestly excessive or inappropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence.

The court examined the appellant's criminal history, the nature of the drug trafficking offences, and the impact of these offences on the community. The appellant argued that the sentence was too harsh and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors presented. However, the court found that the sentence was within the range of penalties that could reasonably be imposed for such offences and did not constitute an error warranting appellate interference. The court emphasised the need to balance the seriousness of the offences with the appellant's personal circumstances, but ultimately upheld the original sentence.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal against the sentence, finding no grounds for interference. The original sentence was considered appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the drug trafficking offences. The court's decision reaffirmed the importance of adhering to established sentencing principles while also recognising the need for individualised assessments in each case. The appellant's appeal was thus refused, and the original sentence remained in place.

Orders