Legal Research
Cases
Purdie v The Queen

Purdie v The Queen

Case [2019] NSWCCA 22 15 February 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Purdie v R [2019] NSWCCA 22
Hearing dates: 17 October 2018
Date of orders: 15 February 2019
Decision date: 15 February 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Hoeben CJ at CL at [2];
Price J at [3]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
(2)   The sentence imposed on Lecx Purdie on 17 November 2017 is quashed.
(3)   Remit Lecx Purdie to the District Court at Sydney for re-sentence.
(4)   List the matter for mention at the District Court at Sydney on 1 March 2019 to fix a date for sentence.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against sentence – supply of not less than an indictable quantity of cocaine – knowingly deal with the proceeds of crime – procedural fairness –adverse findings made by the judge beyond the agreed facts – adverse findings not raised with the parties – denial of procedural fairness – sentence quashed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193B
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25
Cases Cited: Assam v R [2019] NSWCCA 12
Chow v DPP (1992) 28 NSWLR 593
DL v The Queen [2018] HCA 32; (2018) 92 ALJR 764
GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22
Nguyen v R [2015] NSWCCA 268
R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335
R v Uzabeaga [2000] NSWCCA 381; (2000) 119 A Crim R 452
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Another ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57; [2001] HCA 22
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Weir v R [2011] NSWCCA 123
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lecx Purdie (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Turnbull SC and R Khalilizadeh (Applicant)
B Hatfield (Respondent)
Solicitors:
McNally Jones Staff Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/161105
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

17 November 2017

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/161105

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by Price J and with his Honour’s reasons.
HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Price J and the orders which he proposes.
PRICE J: Lecx Purdie (“Purdie”) pleaded guilty to the following offences:

Supply an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, namely, 87.32g of cocaine on 22 March 2016, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (“the DMTA”). The maximum penalty for the offence of supplying an indictable quantity of cocaine is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 2000 penalty units.

Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime, namely, $39,450 on 25 May 2016 contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment.

His Honour imposed an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 6 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years, commencing 4 September 2017 and expiring 3 September…

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 Purdie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Purdie v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 22
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 22
Decision Date: 15 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Purdie, was convicted of supplying a quantity of cocaine and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. He appealed against the sentence imposed by the court, arguing that the trial judge made adverse findings beyond the agreed facts without providing him with an opportunity to respond. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue in this case was whether the appellant's right to procedural fairness was breached when the trial judge made adverse findings that went beyond the agreed facts and without raising these findings with the parties. The court needed to determine if such actions by the trial judge constituted a denial of procedural fairness and, if so, whether this warranted the quashing of the sentence.

The High Court found that the trial judge's failure to raise the adverse findings with the parties did indeed breach the appellant's right to procedural fairness. The court held that a defendant is entitled to be informed of any adverse findings that the judge intends to rely on, and to have an opportunity to address those findings. In this instance, the appellant was not given such an opportunity, which meant he could not effectively respond to the findings that impacted his sentence. The court concluded that this breach of procedural fairness was significant enough to warrant the quashing of the sentence. The reasoning underscored the importance of procedural fairness in criminal sentencing and highlighted the necessity for judges to ensure that all parties are aware of and can address any adverse findings that may influence the outcome of the trial.

Orders