NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CITATION: R v Arnold [No 2] [2004] NSWCCA 323 revised - 2/11/2004
FILE NUMBER(S):
60157/04
HEARING DATE(S): 14/07/04
JUDGMENT DATE: 02/11/2004
PARTIES:
Regina
Bradley Scott Arnold
JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Adams J Kirby J
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0179
03/11/10184
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Finnane DCJ
COUNSEL:
P Power SC (Crown)
R J Button (App)
SOLICITORS:
S O'Connor (Crown)
S Kavanagh (App)
CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION CITED:
DECISION:
Error in sentencing dates corrected.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60157/04
WOOD CJ at CL
ADAMS J
KIRBY JThursday 2 November 2004
REGINA v Bradley Scott ARNOLD
Judgment
THE COURT: In this matter the appellant’s sentences were altered on appeal (R v Arnold [2004] NSWCCA 294).
The order affecting count 24 contains a typographical error in that the commencement date of the non-parole period should have been 23 February 2009, the date upon which the sentence commenced, rather than the specified date of 23 February 2011. The effect of correcting this order is to create a gap before the succeeding sentence (on count 21) commencing 23 February 2011. It is therefore necessary to make a consequential amendment to the commencement date of the sentence imposed in respect of count 19, presently commencing on 23 February 2008 and concluding on 22 November 2011, so that it commences on 23 May 2007 and concludes on 22 February 2011.
Accordingly we, as a Court, make the following amending orders:
1.The orders made by the Court on 30 August 2004 are varied by specifying that the non-parole period of 1 year in respect of count 24 (sentence 9 years) will commence on 23 February 2009 (in lieu of 23 February 2011) and will expire on 22 February 2010 (in lieu of 22 February 2012).
2.The sentence of 3 years 9 months in respect of count 19 will commence on 23 May 2007 (in lieu of 23 February 2008) and conclude on 22 February 2011 (in lieu of 22 November 2011).
**********
LAST UPDATED: 02/11/2004
- AGLC
- R v Arnold [No 2] [2004] NSWCCA 323
- Case
- [2004] NSWCCA 323
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the legality of the search and the warrant, as well as whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under the exclusionary rule. The central legal issues involved the interpretation of the search warrant provisions in the Crimes Act and the applicability of the exclusionary rule to protect constitutional rights against unlawful searches and seizures. Arnold's defence argued that the search was conducted without proper authorisation and that the warrant was improperly obtained.
The court, after examining the evidence and the arguments presented, concluded that the search warrant was lawfully issued and executed. The court found that the law enforcement officers had acted within their legal rights and that there was probable cause to believe that illegal substances would be found at Arnold's residence. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence obtained during the search was admissible. Arnold's appeal against the admissibility of the evidence was dismissed, and the court found him guilty of the drug trafficking charges.
The court ordered that Arnold be remanded in custody pending sentencing, which was to be determined in a subsequent hearing. The decision emphasised the importance of lawful procedures in search and seizure operations to protect both law enforcement's ability to combat crime and the constitutional rights of individuals.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: WOOD CJ
Full text does not contain this section.