R v Casey - [2002] VSCA 117

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 292 of 2000

THE QUEEN

AARON ROBERT CASEY

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., PHILLIPS, J.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 July 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 July 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 117

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Importation of and attempting to possess trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine - Sentence of eight and a half years with minimum term of six years not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Dickie	DPP (Commonwealth)
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C.	Michael Coghlan

WINNEKE, P.:

The applicant, Aaron Casey, who is 32 years of age, was convicted in the County Court at Geelong on 19 September 2000 of one count of being knowingly concerned in the importation of not less than a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine contrary to s.233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cwlth) and one count of attempting to possess not less than a trafficable quantity of that drug contrary to (1)(c) of the aforesaid s.233B.

After hearing a plea in mitigation, the learned judge sentenced the applicant as follows on 28 September 2000: on count 1, seven years' imprisonment to commence 18 months from the date of the commencement of the sentence imposed upon count 2; and, on count 2, six years' imprisonment to commence immediately.

The method of sentencing adopted by the judge meant that the total effective sentence to be served was one of eight and a half years. His Honour ordered that the applicant serve a period of six years' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.

The applicant had been in custody for some 147 days with respect to these charges and that period was declared by his Honour pursuant to the relevant section of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cwlth).

The applicant admitted a number of previous convictions, including one for trafficking in cannabis. At the time of his sentence he was serving out a term of imprisonment of 12 months of which he had completed, at the time of sentence for these charges, nearly seven months. His Honour ordered that the sentences that he imposed for these charges should run concurrently with the uncompleted portion of the sentence then being undergone by the applicant.

The applicant initially applied for leave to appeal against both his convictions and the sentences imposed. The conviction application, however, has since been abandoned and the proceedings in this Court have been confined to the appeal against sentence.

The grounds of appeal relied upon in this respect are several in number although in the main they assert that the total effective sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive.

Before turning to the grounds, it is desirable to briefly describe the circumstances of the offending. On 11 August of 1998 federal customs officers had their attention drawn to a parcel at the Sydney Mail Exchange. It was apparently a bulky parcel and was addressed to one "Bradley Wood, care of the…

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 Casey

Details

AGLC: R v Casey [2002] VSCA 117
Case: [2002] VSCA 117
Decision Date: 31 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Casey arose from the defendant's attempt to import and possess a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine. The defendant was sentenced to eight and a half years' imprisonment with a minimum term of six years, which the defendant appealed as manifestly excessive. The matter was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which had to determine whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the defendant's background.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, given the principles of sentencing and the precedents set by previous cases. The appeal hinged on the assessment of the sentence in light of the defendant's criminal history, the seriousness of the offence, and the deterrent effect of the sentence. The court was required to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's culpability, the quantity of the drug involved, and the potential impact on the community.

In evaluating the sentence, the Court of Criminal Appeal held that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors. The court found that the sentence of eight and a half years with a minimum term of six years was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the gravity of the offence, which involved a significant quantity of a highly dangerous drug, and the defendant's previous criminal history. The sentence was deemed appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to serve as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar activities. The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant's appeal against sentence be dismissed, and the original sentence of eight and a half years' imprisonment with a minimum term of six years be upheld.

Orders