CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - appeal against sentence for drug offences - whether manifestly escessive - whether sufficient allowance made for fact that case could have been prosecuted in Local Court
DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed, and in lieu of sentence imposed, the applicant be sentenced, to take into account the matters on the Form 1, to a minimum term of penal servitude for one and a half years from 15 September 1998 and to expire on 15 March 2000, and to an additional term of one year to commence on 15 March 2000 and expire on 14 March 20101. In those circumstances, it is necessary in addition to make an order that he should be rleased on parole at the expiry of the minimum term.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60851/98
WOOD CJ AT CL SIMPSON J
WEDNESDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 1999
REGINA v JOHN WILLIAM CROMBIE
JUDGMENT
1 WOOD CJ AT CL: The applicant was originally committed for trial in respect of an offence charged under s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, that being an offence of supplying drugs on an on-going basis, in this instance on three or more separate occasions between 8 September 1998 and 15 September 1998. 2 On arrest he was also charged, presumably in the alternative, with an offence of supply under s 25 (1) of the Act between those dates, and with three separate offences of supply, presumably as back up charges for individual acts of supply on 12 September 1998, 14 September 1998 and 15 September 1998. It was these acts of supply that provided the basis for the on-going supply charge as well as for the alternative supply charge. 3 The applicant was arrested in the course of a police operation using an undercover officer. That officer approached the applicant, initially on 12 September 1998, in Allsop Park Nimbin, a known venue for drug supply. On that occasion he purchased a single $50 street deal. When the applicant was asked whether he was normally in this location he replied, "Mate, I am here everyday, rain, hail or shine." The undercover operative returned on 14 September 1998 when a further purchase of one $50 deal was made, and on 15 September when two $50 street deals were effected. 4 The undercover operative noticed, at the time of the second of these deals, that the applicant had in his possession seven or so packages of what appeared to be heroin. At the time of his arrest he was found to be in possession of four packets of white powder. In his ERISP…
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 Crombie
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Crombie [1999] NSWCCA 297
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 297
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Crombie, the respondent appealed against a sentence imposed for drug-related offences, contending that it was manifestly excessive. The respondent was convicted of drug possession and supply charges, and was sentenced to imprisonment terms by the Local Court. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether sufficient consideration was given to the fact that the case could have been prosecuted in the Local Court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Local Court was manifestly excessive, taking into account the possibility that the case could have been prosecuted in that court. The court was also required to assess whether the trial judge had adequately considered the fact that the case could have been prosecuted in the Local Court, and whether this influenced the sentencing decision.
The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the requirement to ensure that sentences are not manifestly excessive. It considered the appropriate range of sentences for the offences committed, and whether the sentence imposed fell outside that range. The court also assessed whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised discretion in imposing the sentence, and whether there was a failure to adequately consider the possibility of Local Court prosecution. The court concluded that while the sentence was at the higher end of the appropriate range, it was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the possibility of Local Court prosecution, and that this factor had been appropriately weighed in the sentencing decision. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Supreme Court upheld the sentence imposed by the Local Court, finding it to be within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive. The court confirmed that the trial judge had appropriately exercised discretion in imposing the sentence and had adequately considered the possibility of Local Court prosecution. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.