R v Curry - [2002] NSWCCA 109

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Curry [2002] NSWCCA 109

FILE NUMBER(S):
60239/01

HEARING DATE(S): 2 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 02/04/2002

PARTIES:
Regina v Raymond Arthur Curry

JUDGMENT OF: Heydon JA Studdert J Buddin J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70209/00

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hidden J

COUNSEL:
P.G. Ingram (Crown)
T.J. Golding (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
D.J. Humphreys (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60239/01
HEYDON JA
STUDDERT J
BUDDIN J
Tuesday 2 April 2002

REGINA v RAYMOND ARTHUR CURRY

Judgment

STUDDERT J: The applicant, Raymond Arthur Curry, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by Hidden J on 30 March 2001.
Earlier, the applicant and five other men had stood trial together, all being charged with two counts of murder, the victims being Orhan Yildirim and Mehmet Unsal. The trial was a lengthy one extending from 3 April to 13 September 2000. The jury found each man charged not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter on each count.
There then followed proceedings on sentence. Following his conviction, the applicant was sentenced for the manslaughter of Orhan Yildirim to imprisonment for a term of nine years to date from 13 November 1998, the date upon which the applicant had been arrested and after which he had been refused bail. The judge imposed a non parole period of five years. In respect of the manslaughter of Mehmet Unsal, the applicant was also sentenced to imprisonment for nine years, but the sentence was set to commence on 13 November 1999. His Honour again imposed a non parole period of five years, this time to expire on 12 November 2004.
The sentences imposed resulted in an aggregate non parole of six years with an effective parole period of four years thereafter.
The maximum penalty fixed by s 24 of the Crimes Act for the crime of manslaughter is imprisonment for twenty-five years but the range of circumstances in which the crime may be committed varies greatly and hence, so too the determination of a sentence appropriate to any particular case.
It is apparent from the written submissions that the essential objective facts can be fairly shortly stated, and indeed they emerge from the remarks on sentence. There has been no criticism of the way in which his Honour there summarised the facts.
On 5 April 1998 the victims earlier named were ambushed in a house at Bankstown and in the course of the ambush, both men were shot dead. There were altogether nine men involved in the ambush upon the two victims; the six who stood trial and two other men who were granted indemnity from prosecution and who gave evidence at such trial, and a ninth person granted a separate trial. That separate trial had not concluded when the applicant was sentenced, and it is unnecessary to refer further to it.
Orhan Yildirim…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Curry and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWCCA 109
Decision Date: 2 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Curry was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Curry, was charged with offences under the Crimes Act, specifically in relation to drug trafficking and possession. The prosecution alleged that Curry was involved in the distribution of a significant quantity of a controlled substance, and that he had been found in possession of a smaller amount during a police raid. The nature of the dispute centred on the validity of the evidence obtained during the raid, the legality of the search, and the defendant's role in the alleged drug trafficking operation.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the admissibility of evidence obtained during the police operation and the interpretation of relevant provisions within the Crimes Act. The defence argued that the search was conducted without proper authorisation and that the evidence should be excluded on the basis of an unlawful search and seizure. Furthermore, the defence contested the extent of Curry's involvement in the drug trafficking operation, arguing that he was merely a peripheral figure and not a principal offender.

The court considered the arguments presented and examined the circumstances surrounding the search and seizure. The justices found that the police had acted within the bounds of the law and that the search was conducted with the appropriate warrants and authorisation. Consequently, the evidence obtained during the raid was deemed admissible. The court also concluded that Curry's role in the drug trafficking operation was significant, and he was found guilty on all charges. The court's reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and a careful interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions under the Crimes Act.

The final orders of the court were that Curry be convicted on all charges and that he be sentenced accordingly. The court ordered a pre-sentence report to be prepared to assist in determining the appropriate sentence. The decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures in search and seizure operations and reinforced the penalties associated with drug trafficking offences under the Crimes Act.

Orders