R v Craciun - [2006] SASC 57

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v CRACIUN
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Besanko and The Honourable Justice Anderson)
24 February 2006
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE
The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to nine offences – six counts of selling heroin contrary to s 32(1)(c) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 – two counts of possessing heroin for sale contrary to s 31(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 – one count of unlawful possession of money contrary to s 41 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 – convictions were entered on the basis of those pleas – single sentence of imprisonment imposed pursuant to s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 – head sentence of eight years – non-parole period of six years – on appeal the appellant claims that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – discussion of “manifestly excessive” – appeal dismissed.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s 18A, referred to.
R v Mangelsdorf (1995) 66 SASR 60, applied.
R v Gjoka (Unreported, 1 July 1997, No. S6211), discussed.

R v CRACIUN
[2006] SASC 57
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Besanko and Anderson JJ

DOYLE CJ: This is an appeal against sentence.
The appellant pleaded guilty to nine offences.
First, six counts of selling heroin. The maximum punishment for each of these offences is a sentence of imprisonment for 25 years or a fine of $200,000 or both.
Second, two counts of possessing heroin for sale. The maximum punishment for the first count is imprisonment for 25 years or a fine of $200,000 or both. The maximum punishment for the second count is imprisonment for life or a fine of $500,000 or both.
Third, one count of unlawful possession of money, namely $15,770 in cash. The maximum punishment for this offence is imprisonment for two years or a fine of $10,000 or both.
The Judge exercised the power under s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, and imposed a single sentence of imprisonment for eight years. But for the plea of guilty he would have imposed a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment. He fixed a non-parole period of six years. The head sentence and non-parole period were backdated to the date when Mr Craciun was taken into custody.
The appeal is on the ground that the sentence is manifestly excessive.
The first six counts involved sales of a relatively small amount of heroin to undercover police officers. On no occasion did the value of the sale exceed $200. The sales took place between 3 September 2004 and 20 September 2004.
When the police apprehended Mr Craciun on 20 September…

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 Craciun

Details

AGLC: R v Craciun [2006] SASC 57
Case: [2006] SASC 57
Decision Date: 24 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Craciun involved the appellant who had pleaded guilty to multiple drug-related offences, including selling and possessing heroin for sale, as well as unlawful possession of money. The District Court entered convictions based on these pleas and imposed a single sentence of imprisonment. The sentence comprised an eight-year head sentence and a six-year non-parole period. The appellant, dissatisfied with the sentence, lodged an appeal, asserting that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the higher court which had to determine whether the original sentence was indeed excessively severe and warranted reduction.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. This required an assessment of whether the sentence was so disproportionate to the crimes committed that it could be deemed an error in principle. The court had to consider the severity of the crimes, the appellant's culpability, and the principles of sentencing. It was also necessary to weigh the arguments for and against the appellant's claim of excessiveness and to determine whether the sentence should be altered on appeal.

The court, in dismissing the appeal, found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It considered the gravity of the appellant's criminal conduct, which involved multiple drug offences and significant quantities of heroin. The court also evaluated the appellant's culpability, noting his persistent involvement in drug trafficking. Furthermore, the court took into account the statutory framework and the need for sentences to reflect deterrence and community protection. In light of these considerations, the court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute an error in principle warranting a reduction.

The court's decision upheld the original sentence imposed by the District Court, and no further orders were made. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's sentence remained unchanged.

Orders