R v Bunny Bannister - [2019] NSWDC 37

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bunny Bannister [2019] NSWDC 37
Hearing dates: 23 November 2018
Decision date: 01 March 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [60]

Catchwords: Supply prohibited drug greater than a large commercial quantity
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bunny Bannister (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Young (Trial Advocate)
Ms N Mikhaiel (Offender)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 15/353686
Publication restriction: Nil

remarks on sentence

The offender pleaded guilty on 23 April 2017 to a charge of take part in a supply of prohibited drug of greater than large commercial quantity, namely, 67.477 kilograms of methylamphetamine, pursuant to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”), and s 29 of the DMTA. The maximum penalty proscribed for the offence is life imprisonment and/or a fine of 5000 penalty units. There is a Standard Non-Parole Period proscribed of 15 years imprisonment.
The offence occurred between 9 November 2015 and 2 December 2015. The offender was one of a number of Malaysian citizens involved in a drug trafficking operation in Australia. Three co-offenders have already been sentenced, and the offender is to be sentenced along with two other co‑offenders, Chung Keat Chong and Chee Hui Tiew.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 23 November 2018. Exhibit A was a co‑offender bundle which comprised the Indictments, Agreed Statements of Fact, criminal antecedents, if any, of each of the co-offenders. It also contained the Remarks on Sentence in respect of Chin Hung Ho and Kam Fee Seong, together with the transcript of sentence in the Magistrate’s Court of a further co-offender, Yoke Yee Hoh. Those remarks will be referred to below as they are relevant to the application of principles of parity in the sentencing process.
The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex B. It included an Agreed Statement of Facts which may be summarised as follows.
In October 2015, police began a controlled operation to investigate a Malaysian controlled syndicate involved in trafficking methylamphetamine, operating in Australia. The operation involved a civil participant.
The offender arrived in Australia from Malaysia on 25 October 2015. He first stayed on the Gold Coast and then flew to Sydney where he resided in premises at Burwood with the co-offender Chee Hui Tiew.
On 27 November 2015, the co-offender Tiew delivered two boxes of shelves containing methylamphetamine to the civil participant, who delivered them to the co-offender Ho at premises at Fairfield. On 1 December 2015, police executed a search warrant at those premises and seized 5.904 kilograms of methylamphetamine which had been extracted by the co-offender Ho from the wax blocks of shelves.
On 1 December 2015, police also executed a search warrant at the Burwood residence. They located there 12 boxes of the same appearance as the two other boxes. The 12 boxes contained shelves of…

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 Bunny Bannister

Details

AGLC: R v Bunny Bannister [2019] NSWDC 37
Case: [2019] NSWDC 37
Decision Date: 01 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent, Bunny Bannister, against a conviction and sentence for supplying a prohibited drug in a quantity greater than a large commercial quantity. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent was convicted in the County Court of Victoria, a lower court, and subsequently appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that it must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the quantity of the drug supplied by the respondent was greater than a large commercial quantity. The respondent contended that this failure constituted a misdirection which required the conviction to be quashed. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the jury was adequately directed, and that the quantity of the drug was properly before the jury for consideration.

The court examined the charge and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury. The court found that the trial judge did not err in his directions to the jury. The court held that the jury was properly directed to consider whether the quantity of the drug supplied was greater than a large commercial quantity. The court concluded that the jury was adequately informed of the elements of the offence and the required threshold of proof. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [60]

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Bunny Bannister [2019] NSWDC 37
Hearing dates:	23 November 2018
Decision date:	01 March 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [60]
Catchwords:	Supply prohibited drug greater than a large commercial quantity
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bunny Bannister (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: C Young (Trial Advocate) Ms N Mikhaiel (Offender) Solicitors:
File Number(s):	15/353686
Publication restriction:	Nil