R v Collins - [2004] NSWCCA 30

CITATION: R v Collins [2004] NSWCCA 30

HEARING DATE(S): 24/02/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; Simpson J at 2; Barr J at 3

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CASES CITED: R v Lansdell, Court of Criminal Appeal 23 May 1996 unreported
R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561

PARTIES :
Regina
Tania Lee Collins

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60373/03

COUNSEL: Crown: D U Arnott
Respondent: B P Hancock

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Respondent: P A Wiggins

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/21/3103

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Maguire QC, DCJ

60373/03

LEVINE J
SIMPSON J
BARR J
Monday, 1 March 2004

REGINA v Tania Lee COLLINS

Judgment

1 LEVINE J: I agree with Barr J.

2 SIMPSON J: I agree with Barr J.

3 BARR J: This is an appeal by the Crown against what is said to be the inadequacy of a sentence imposed upon the respondent in the District Court. Having previously pleaded guilty to the ongoing supply of a prohibited drug, namely cocaine, the respondent came before Judge Maguire of Queen’s Counsel for sentence. His Honour sentenced her to imprisonment for three years to be served by way of periodic detention and fixed a non-parole period of two years three months.

4 At the time of the events giving rise to the charge the respondent was living with a man called Anthony Mucenski. Both were involved in the supplies which constituted the offence and both pleaded guilty to identical charges. Mucenski pleaded guilty to another charge as well. Supplies were made to an undercover police officer. That officer arranged for another person to telephone Mucenski to inform him that the officer wished to buy drugs. On each occasion there would be the telephone call followed by the attendance of the respondent and Mucenski at the agreed place, supply and payment. Altogether there were four discrete supplies and the total amount of cocaine so supplied was slightly less than one gram. When the respondent and Mucenski were arrested there were found concealed in the respondent’s underclothing a number of bags containing 2.6 grams of cocaine. The total weight involved was therefore about three and one half grams.

5 The respondent was nineteen years old at the time of the offence. She gave evidence before his Honour. She said that during the period of their relationship Mucenski began to argue with her about money. He wanted money for gambling and the respondent would be forced to ask her grandmother for money to supply him. He gradually became, as she said, very agro. He never hit or kicked her but threatened to hit her if she did not comply with his wishes. He was using drugs and increased his drug use at about that time. He lost his driving licence and the respondent had to drive him. She became involved in the supply of the drugs. She knew that she was doing wrong and had a choice not to become involved.…

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 Collins

Details

AGLC: R v Collins [2004] NSWCCA 30
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 30
Decision Date: 1 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appeal was brought by the Crown against the sentence imposed on Tania Lee Collins by the District Court. Collins had pleaded guilty to the ongoing supply of cocaine, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The Crown argued that the sentence was inadequate, and that exceptional circumstances did not exist to justify a sentence less than full-time custody. The primary legal issue was whether the District Court judge had erred in concluding that there were exceptional circumstances justifying a sentence less than full-time custody. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the submissions made by the Crown and determined that the District Court judge was entitled to accept the evidence presented by Collins and the expert report, and to conclude that exceptional circumstances existed. The Court found that the judge's assessment of the respondent was available on the evidence and that the sentence imposed was not so low as to demonstrate error.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence imposed by the District Court. The Court found that the District Court judge was entitled to accept the evidence presented by Collins and the expert report, and to conclude that exceptional circumstances existed. The Court held that the judge's assessment of the respondent was available on the evidence and that the sentence imposed was not so low as to demonstrate error. The Court observed that it was not possible to rigidly define the cases which were to be regarded as out of the ordinary, and that the discretion of sentencing judges to impose a sentence less than one of full-time custody should be preserved. The Court concluded that the District Court judge was entitled to come to the view that he did, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Orders