Price v The Queen - [2016] NSWCCA 29

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Price v R [2016] NSWCCA 29
Hearing dates: 2 February 2016
Decision date: 07 March 2016
Before: Simpson JA at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
McCallum J at [32]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW –offence of deemed drug supply – Form 1 offences – plea of guilty – unrepresented applicant raises issue on appeal concerning basis for guilty plea - integrity of plea – no miscarriage of justice established
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – offence of deemed drug supply – Form 1 offences –where applicant’s criminal history includes prior supply offence – importance of general and specific deterrence – sentence not manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Court Act 1998
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Loury v R [2010] NSWCCA 158
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Masri [2005] NSWCCA 330
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christian Andrew Price (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant in Person
Mr H Baker (Respondent)
Solicitor:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/176776
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Newcastle District Court

Date of Decision:

28 August 2013

Before:

Judge Maiden SC

File Number(s):

2012/176776

Judgment

SIMPSON JA: I agree with Johnson J.
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Christian Price, seeks leave to appeal with respect to a sentence imposed at the Newcastle District Court on 28 August 2013.

Offence and Sentence

The Applicant pleaded guilty to a charge that, on 4 June 2012 at Charlestown, he did supply a prohibited drug, methylamphetamine, contrary to s.25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 15 years.
The Applicant requested the sentencing Judge take into account, on a Form 1, offences of possession of a prohibited drug (cannabis) and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime ($2,450.00 in cash).
The Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of two years and eight months commencing on 28 August 2013 and expiring on 27 April 2016, with a balance of term of 11 months commencing on 28 April 2016 and expiring on 27 March 2017.

The Applicant’s Grounds

The Applicant, who appeared unrepresented in this Court, identified two grounds of appeal expressed as follows:

Ground 1 - “Severity of sentence for the amount”.

Ground 2 - “Traversed plea to guilty to be eligible for Drug Court”.

Although the second ground is framed in terms which suggest an intention to challenge conviction, the form of the application brought by the Applicant remained one directed to sentence only.

Factual Background

On 4 June 2012, a search warrant was executed on the Applicant’s home at Charlestown. Inside the premises, police located quantities of methylamphetamine and cannabis. The sum of $2,450.00 in cash, digital scales and…

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 Price v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Price v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 29
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 29
Decision Date: 07 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Price v The Queen, the applicant, Price, appealed against his conviction and sentence for an offence of deemed drug supply under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (Cth). Price had pleaded guilty to the charge of possessing a prohibited drug with the intent to supply it. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Price's appeal challenged the integrity of his guilty plea and the severity of the sentence imposed.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the integrity of the guilty plea, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive considering Price's prior criminal history, which included a previous supply offence. The court examined whether the plea was voluntarily and understandingly entered and whether there was a basis in fact for the plea. Additionally, the court assessed the appropriateness of the sentence, taking into account the principles of general and specific deterrence.

The High Court found that the plea was properly entered and there was no miscarriage of justice. The court held that Price's plea was informed and voluntary, and there was a factual basis for the plea. Regarding the sentence, the court emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases involving drug supply offences, especially when the offender has a prior history of similar offences. The sentence imposed was deemed not to be manifestly excessive, as it was appropriate given the circumstances and the need to deter both the applicant and the community from engaging in such criminal activities.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence.

Orders