R v Bayeh - [2000] NSWCCA 473

CITATION: R v Bayeh [2000] NSWCCA 473

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60301/99

HEARING DATE(S): 1 November 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 November 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Bill Bayeh

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; James J at 47; Whealy J at 48

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0303

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL : P Byrne SC - Applicant
L M B Lamprati - Respondent/Crown

SOLICITORS: J B Hajje & Associates - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING APPEAL - drugs offences - quantities of drugs - finding "well in excess" of minimum amounts for the charges - whether finding as to specific quantities necessary - sentencing on non-specific finding permissible in the circumstances - whether sufficient regard to certain subjective factors - whether sentences excessive in light of Judicial Commission statistics - no reason to vary sentences. D.

CASES CITED:
R v Chung [1999] NSWCCA 330;
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346;
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209;
R v Kalache [2000] NSWCCA 2;
R v S [2000] NSWCCA 13;
R v Thomson [2000] NSWCCA 309;
R v Wong (1999) 48 NSWLR 340.

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60301/99

DC 91/11/0662
DC 97/11/0303
DC 97/11/0763

GILES JA

JAMES J
WHEALY J
Tuesday 21 November 2000

R v Bill BAYEH

JUDGMENT
1    GILES JA: On 24 May 1999 the applicant was sentenced by Gibson DCJ on pleas of guilty to four charges, namely -

(a) knowingly taking part in the supply of not less than the trafficable quantity of cocaine: a fixed term of 2 years imprisonment to commence on 18 July 1996 and expire on 17 July 1998;

(b) perverting the course of justice: a fixed term of 2 years imprisonment to commence on 18 July 1996 and expire on 17 July 1998.

(c) conspiring to supply not less than the large commercial quantity of cocaine: a minimum term of 15 years imprisonment to commence on 18 July 1996 and expire on 17 July 2011 and an additional term of 3 years imprisonment to commence on 18 July 2011 and expire on 17 July 2014; and
(d) conspiring to supply not less than the commercial quantity of heroin; a fixed term of 9 years imprisonment to commence on 18 July 1996 and expire on 17 July 2005.

2    The applicant had been in custody since his arrest on 18 July 1996. The offence the subject of sentence (a) occurred on 7 November 1990 (“the 1990 offence”). The offence the subject of sentence (b) occurred between 1 October 1993 and 22 March 1994 (“the 1994 offence”). The offences the subject of sentences (c) and (d) occurred between 1 December 1995 and 24 July 1996 (“the 1996 offences”).
3    This application for leave to appeal and appeal are directed towards sentences (c) and (d). It is, however, necessary to…

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 Bayeh

Details

AGLC: R v Bayeh [2000] NSWCCA 473
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 473
Decision Date: 21 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bayeh, was convicted of multiple drug-related offences and sentenced by the County Court to imprisonment terms totalling 16 years and 3 months. The appeal focused on the adequacy of the sentences imposed by the County Court. The primary issue was whether the trial judge's findings regarding the quantities of drugs were necessary for sentencing and if the sentences were excessive considering the Judicial Commission statistics and subjective factors.

The court examined whether the trial judge needed to determine the exact quantities of drugs involved in the offences to impose a sentence. It was held that a non-specific finding about the quantities of drugs being "well in excess" of the minimum for the charges was sufficient for the purposes of sentencing. The court further considered whether the trial judge had given sufficient regard to certain subjective factors, including the appellant's age, lack of previous convictions, and the impact of incarceration on his family. It was determined that the trial judge had appropriately balanced these factors.

Upon reviewing the Judicial Commission statistics, the court found no basis to conclude that the sentences were excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentences were affirmed. The court held that there was no reason to vary the sentences imposed by the County Court.

Orders