Legal Research
Cases
Pleasance v R

Pleasance v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 113 10 June 2016

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: Pleasance v R [2016] NSWCCA 113
Hearing dates: 13 May 2016
Date of orders: 10 June 2016
Decision date: 10 June 2016
Before: Beazley P at [1]
Schmidt J at [2]
Wilson J at [3]
Decision:
1. Extension of time in which to file an application for leave to appeal is refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – whether an extension of time to seek leave to appeal should be granted – supply of prohibited drug - challenge to sentencing judge’s assessment of objective seriousness – whether sentencing judge unduly interfered in the sentencing proceedings – whether sentencing judge ought to have admitted a letter from the applicant’s mother on sentencing – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – extension of time refused
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 19865 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35
Ellis v R [2015] NSWCCA 262
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
R v Carter [2003] NSWCCA 243
R v Collin [2000] NSWCCA 236
R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335
R v Ha [2004] NSWCCA 386
R v Sciberras [2006] NSWCCA 268; (2006) 165 A Crim R 532
Yuill v Yuill [1945] P 15
Zammit v R [2010] NSWCCA 29
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Melissa Pleasance (Appellant)
Regina
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Austin (Appellant)
Mr N Adams (Crown)
Solicitors:
R.F. Bergagnin & Co Solicitors (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2012/231979
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

24 October 2014

Before:

Colefax SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/00231979

Judgment

BEAZLEY P: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Wilson J. I agree with her Honour's reasons and proposed order.
SCHMIDT J: I agree with Wilson J.
WILSON J: On 24 October 2014 sentence was imposed upon the applicant in the District Court of New South Wales for an offence of supplying a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The drug supplied was heroin, in an amount of 28.80 grams. The maximum penalty specified for such an offence is a term of imprisonment for 15 years, or a fine of 2,000 penalty units, or both. When sentence was imposed for that offence the Court took into account, pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) two further offences, being one count of participating in a criminal group contrary to s 93T(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and one count of concealing a serious indictable offence pursuant to s 316 of the same Act.
The sentence imposed was one of imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months, to date from 21 October 2013 and expiring on 20 July 2017, 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 Pleasance v R

Details

AGLC: Pleasance v R [2016] NSWCCA 113
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 113
Decision Date: 10 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Pleasance, was convicted of an offence related to the supply of a prohibited drug and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Pleasance sought leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence. The application for leave to appeal was filed after the expiry of the 28-day statutory period. The applicant sought an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal. The High Court was asked to determine whether an extension of time should be granted, and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The legal issues included whether the sentencing judge unduly interfered in the proceedings, whether the sentencing judge ought to have admitted a letter from the applicant’s mother, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The High Court held that the application for an extension of time should be refused. The Court found that the sentencing judge did not unduly interfere in the sentencing proceedings. The sentencing judge was within their discretion to decide whether to admit the letter from the applicant’s mother. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that the sentencing judge appropriately considered the relevant sentencing principles and did not make any errors in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence. The Court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed.

The application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was refused.

Orders