Legal Research
Cases
R v Bugeja

R v Bugeja

Case [2001] NSWCCA 196 11 May 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R. v. BUGEJA [2001] NSWCCA 196

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60721/00

HEARING DATE(S): 11 May 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 May 2001

PARTIES :

R (Commonwealth) v. BUGEJA, Saviour

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1-34, 46; Greg James J at 33; Adams J at 35

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0721

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Williams, DCJ

COUNSEL : D.A. Buchanan for appellant
D.G. Staehli for Crown

SOLICITORS: John Bettens & Co. for appellant
Commonwealth DPP for Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against sentence - Serious drug offence by repeat offender - Early plea of guilty - Utilitarian discount - Application to Commonwealth offence - Relevant considerations - Whether 10% discount appropriate - Whether appropriate to increase non parole period for repeat offence, when this already taken into account in setting head sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cwlth) ss.16A, 16G.
Customs Act 1901 (Cwlth) ss.233B, 235.
Dugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW) s.25(1)

CASES CITED:
Wong & Leung (1999) 108 A Crim R 532
Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 395
R. v. Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: See par.46 of judgment

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60721/00

HODGSON, JA
GREG JAMES J
ADAMS J
Friday 11 May 2001

REGINA (COMMONWEALTH) V. Saviour BUGEJA

JUDGMENT

1 HODGSON JA: On 6 October 2000, the applicant in this matter pleaded guilty before a magistrate to two charges.

2 The first was a charge pursuant to s.233B(1)(c) of the Customs Act 1901 that he, on the 11th day of August 2000, at Penrith in the State of New South Wales, did without reasonable excuse have in his possession prohibited imports to which s.233B of the Customs Act applied, to wit narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of heroin being not less than the trafficable quantity applicable to heroin.

3 The second was a charge brought pursuant to s.25(1) of the Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW) that he, on about 11 August 2000, did supply a prohibited drug, to wit methylamphetamine.

4 The applicant adhered to those guilty pleas on 27 October 2000 in the District Court before Judge Williams, and on 31 October 2000 the applicant was sentenced by his Honour.

5 On the first charge, relating to the Commonwealth offence, his Honour sentenced the applicant to nine years imprisonment, with a non parole period of six and a half years, both to date from 11 August 2000, the date of the applicant's arrest.

6 On the second charge, relating to the State offence, his Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a fixed term of three years, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the Commonwealth offence. His Honour declined to set a non parole period, having regard to the non parole period already set for the Commonwealth charge.

7 We are dealing with an application for leave to appeal from those sentences. The facts can be briefly stated.

8 On the evening of 10 August…

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 Bugeja

Details

AGLC: R v Bugeja [2001] NSWCCA 196
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 196
Decision Date: 11 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Bugeja, the appellant, a repeat offender, sought to appeal against his sentence for a serious drug offence. The appellant had entered an early guilty plea, which was one of the factors the sentencing court considered in imposing the sentence. The case came before the court of appeal where the appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and should be reduced. The appellant also contested the application of a 10% discount for his early guilty plea to a Commonwealth offence, as well as the increase in the non-parole period for his repeat offence.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the 10% discount for an early guilty plea was appropriately applied to a Commonwealth offence, and if the increase in the non-parole period for the repeat offence was justified, given that the repeat nature of the offence had already been taken into account in setting the head sentence. The court considered the relevant considerations for such cases, including the principles of sentencing for Commonwealth offences and the role of repeat offending in determining the severity of the sentence.

The court determined that the 10% discount for the early guilty plea was appropriately applied to the Commonwealth offence, taking into account the statutory provisions and the precedents set by previous cases. The court also found that the increase in the non-parole period for the repeat offence was justified, as the repeat nature of the offence had been factored into the head sentence, but it warranted a harsher penalty to reflect the gravity of the offence and to deter future criminal conduct. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the offender's criminal history, the seriousness of the offence, and the need for deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the offender's criminal history, the seriousness of the offence, and the need for deterrence. The court also noted that the sentencing court had carefully considered the principles of sentencing and had imposed a sentence that was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community.

Orders