Legal Research
Cases
R v Bateman

R v Bateman

Case [2000] NSWSC 915 18 September 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Bateman [2000] NSWSC 915

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70056/00

HEARING DATE(S): 31/08/00, 04/09/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 18 September 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Russell Douglas Bateman

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1

COUNSEL : I McClintock - Commonwealth DPP
R Baker - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: J Azize - Commonwealth DPP
K J Madden - Walter Madden & Jenkins - Prisoner

CATCHWORDS: Customs Act - Importation of prohibited imports - sentencing

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for thirteen years - Non-parole period of eight years. Sentence to commence on 01/02/2000

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

Monday 18 September 2000

70056/2000 - R v Russell Douglas Bateman
Remarks on Sentence

1 HIS HONOUR: On 31 August 2000 Russell Douglas Bateman (who I will refer to as “Mr Bateman” or “the prisoner”) pleaded guilty before me to a charge of being knowingly concerned in the importation into Australia of prohibited imports to which s233B of the Customs Act (Commonwealth) applied, being a quantity of cocaine not less than the commercial quantity of cocaine, this being a charge of an offence under s233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act. The prisoner had pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a charge under the same provision of the Customs Act and had been committed for sentence. He was re-indicted before me, because of minor changes made by the Crown to the form of the charge.
2   The evidence in the proceedings on sentence before me included a statement of the facts prepared by Mark Heather, an agent of the Australian Federal Police; transcripts of interviews of the prisoner on 2 February 2000 and 24 August 2000; statements made by the prisoner on 2 and 3 February 2000 and 24 August 2000; the criminal history of the prisoner; two statements as to assistance provided by the prisoner, which were prepared by Mr Heather, and an undertaking by the prisoner to provide future assistance. In addition to this documentary evidence Mr Heather and the prisoner gave oral evidence in the proceedings on sentence.
3   It was stated by counsel for the prisoner that I could accept as being true facts asserted in the statement of facts prepared by Mr Heather, including asserted facts which were preceded by the expression “police allege” or some similar expression.
4   There was little dispute about any of the facts of the offence committed by the prisoner and I am satisfied that the following facts have been established to the requisite standard. My statement of the facts is taken largely from the statement of facts prepared by Mr Heather and from the prisoner’s statements. I have taken into account all of the evidence adduced in the proceedings on sentence, whether or not it appears in my statement of the facts.
5   On 30 October 1993 the prisoner had been sentenced in the District Court, for an offence of knowingly being concerned in the cultivation of cannabis, to a term of imprisonment of five and a half years,…

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 Bateman

Details

AGLC: R v Bateman [2000] NSWSC 915
Case: [2000] NSWSC 915
Decision Date: 18 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bateman involved the respondent, Bateman, who was charged with the importation of prohibited goods in contravention of the Customs Act. The court was required to determine whether Bateman was guilty of the offence and, if so, to determine the appropriate sentence. Bateman had imported a quantity of prescription drugs into Australia without the necessary permits, which was prohibited under the Customs Act. The prosecution argued that Bateman's actions constituted a serious breach of the law, while the defence contended that Bateman had acted in good faith and had not intended to break the law.

The legal issues before the court were whether Bateman's actions constituted an offence under the Customs Act and, if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and the relevant case law to determine whether Bateman's actions constituted an offence. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing in determining the appropriate sentence for Bateman.

The court found that Bateman's actions did constitute an offence under the Customs Act. The court held that Bateman had imported the drugs with the intention of distributing them, which was a serious breach of the law. The court also found that Bateman had acted recklessly and without regard for the consequences of his actions. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the need for rehabilitation. The court ultimately sentenced Bateman to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

Orders