R v Cristol - [2002] SASC 288

R v CRISTOL
[2001] SASC 288
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Wicks and Besanko JJ (ex tempore)

DOYLE CJ I would dismiss the appeal and I agree with the reasons given by Wicks J.
WICKS J This is an appeal against sentence
The Charge
The appellant was charged on Information with possessing cannabis for sale contrary to s 32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. It was alleged that on 29 January 2001 at Ridgehaven, the appellant knowingly had cannabis in his possession for the purpose of selling it to another person. It was further alleged that the cannabis was in excess of two kilograms.
Proceedings in the District Court
The appellant pleaded guilty to this charge on 22 March 2002 before a Judge in the District Court although the plea was belatedly made. On 28 May 2002 the appellant was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months. In coming to this conclusion the learned sentencing Judge took into account the appellant’s plea of guilty and also the fact that a forfeiture pursuant to s 8 of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 1978 of the sum of $13,597.44 was no longer contested. This money was located in two bank accounts in the name of the appellant. Had it not been for these factors, the learned sentencing Judge indicated that he would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment of three years. The maximum penalty able to be imposed for this offence is a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment for ten years or both.
In relation to the question of whether the sentence should be suspended the learned sentencing Judge said:
" I turn to the issue of suspension. Your counsel drew attention to what he called your minimal role in this matter, your lack of a previous record and your plea, in his submissions, and so he submitted that it was appropriate to suspend the sentence. I have had regard to all that was put to me on your behalf in this regard. However, I am not to overlook that couriers are an integral part of the trade in cannabis, even though an individual financial return might not be great, as here. The offence is serious and is at the very upper end of this penalty scale. It is prevalent and there is a need for a deterrent sentence. I decline to suspend the sentence."
I agree with His Honour’s remarks.
Grounds of Appeal
On 8 July 2002 the appellant sought leave to appeal to this Court on the following grounds:
1The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive having regard to the applicant’s (now appellant’s) minimal role in the circumstances of the offence.
2The Learned Sentencing Judge erred in failing to suspend the applicant’s (now appellant’s) sentence of imprisonment.
Leave to appeal was granted on both grounds.
Circumstances of the offence
The circumstances of the offence are as follows. The appellant was involved with a man by the name of Franco. Franco was under police…

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 Cristol

Details

AGLC: R v Cristol [2002] SASC 288
Case: [2002] SASC 288
Decision Date: 20 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cristol, the appellant was convicted in the District Court for possessing cannabis for sale in excess of two kilograms, contrary to the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the sentence should have been suspended. The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to decide whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's role in it.

The court considered the nature of the offence, which involved the appellant knowingly possessing cannabis for sale, and the significant quantity of drugs involved. The court also took into account the appellant's plea of guilty, the forfeiture of money located in his bank accounts, and the absence of prior convictions for illicit drugs. The court further considered the precedents set by previous cases, such as R v Mangelsdorf and R v Harris, which emphasised the importance of imposing severe penalties for commercial activity in relation to drugs to deter such activities.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the District Court was within the sentencing Judge's discretion and was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's role in it. The court also held that a suspended sentence should only be granted in very exceptional circumstances, and this case did not warrant such an exception. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the District Court.

The final order of the court was that the appeal be dismissed, and the sentence of 21 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months be upheld. The court emphasised the need for serious penalties to be imposed for offences involving illicit drugs to deter such activities and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders