R v Bassie - [2009] VSCA 120

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 671 of 2007

THE QUEEN
	v
TROY BASSIE

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT, NETTLE and NEAVE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 May 2009
DATE OF ORDERS	13 May 2009
DATE OF REASONS:	5 June 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSCA 120
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Bassie (County Court of Victoria, Judge Duckett, 5 June 2007)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Trafficking heroin – Trafficking methylamphetamine – Parity – R v Koumis and Ors (2008) 18 VR 434 – Appeal allowed – Appellant re-sentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr J J Lavery	Brugman Mellas

VINCENT JA
NETTLE JA
NEAVE JA:

The Court, on 12 May 2009, allowed the appeal brought by the appellant against sentences imposed upon him in the County Court on 5 June 2007. We indicated at the time that a statement of our reasons for so doing would be delivered at a later date.

The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking heroin (count 1) and one of trafficking methylamphetamine (count 2) admitting also 58 prior convictions arising from 15 court appearances between January 1994 and March 2005. These other appearances related to offences of dishonesty and violence for the most part, but they included one for a drug offence, that is, using a drug of dependence (heroin) in 2004 for which he was sentenced to pay a fine of $100.

After hearing a plea in mitigation of penalty, the judge imposed upon the appellant –

On count 1 - 4 years’ imprisonment

On count 2 - 2 years’ imprisonment

His Honour directed that one year of the sentence on count 2 be served cumulatively upon that imposed on the other count, thereby creating a total effective sentence of 5 years in respect of which he fixed a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.

The appellant then sought and was granted leave to appeal. There is no need to set out the grounds upon which he proposed to rely as the Crown appropriately conceded that, in the light of the judgment of the Court in R v Koumis and Ors,[1] a question of treatment of co-offenders has arisen which compels parity re-examination of the sentence in any event. Specifically the re-sentencing of a co-offender Barry Jones by this Court, to a total effective sentence of four years and six months with a non-parole period of three years necessitated reconsideration of the sentence imposed upon the appellant.
[1](2008) 18 VR 434.

The background

In January 2006, police commenced an investigation into heroin and amphetamine trafficking in the western suburbs of Melbourne by a man named Theodosis Koumis. As a result of the use of telephone intercepts, covert surveillance and the execution of search warrants, a number of persons, including the appellant and Jones, were charged with drug offences.

Jones and the appellant, were in…

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 R v Bassie

Details

AGLC: R v Bassie [2009] VSCA 120
Case: [2009] VSCA 120
Decision Date: 5 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns the case of the appellant, Mr. Bassie, against the Crown. Mr. Bassie was convicted for trafficking in heroin and methylamphetamine. The dispute pertains to the sentencing of Mr. Bassie, which the Court of Appeal found to be manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal for the State of Victoria presided over the case. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate and, if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court examined whether the original sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes committed and if it was commensurate with sentences handed down in similar cases.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, considering the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar criminal activities. The Court of Appeal relied on the decision in R v Koumis and Ors to determine that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes. The court also considered the principles of parity, ensuring that similar offences were punished similarly. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced, reflecting the gravity of the offences committed. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing serious drug trafficking offences.

The court determined that the original sentence did not adequately address the seriousness of the crimes or provide sufficient deterrence. The appellant was re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which the court deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The court highlighted the necessity for sentences to reflect the gravity of drug trafficking offences and to ensure consistency with similar cases. The final orders included the re-sentencing of the appellant to a term of imprisonment, with specific details provided in the judgment.

Orders