R v Danson - [2005] NSWCCA 343

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Danson [2005] NSWCCA 343

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/973

HEARING DATE(S): 20/09/05

JUDGMENT DATE: 30/09/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Neil Matthew Danson

JUDGMENT OF: Windeyer J Hislop J Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0925

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: G D Woods DCJ

COUNSEL:
(A) S Kluss
(C) D G Staehli

SOLICITORS:
(A) Ross Hill & Associates
(C) Cth DPP

CATCHWORDS:
Aiding and abetting importation of cocaine - judge's assessment of role of applicant open on the evidence - sentence not excessive

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Customs Act 1901

DECISION:
Leave to appeal againsrt sentence granted - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2005/973CCAP

WINDEYER J
HISLOP J
SMART AJ

Friday, 30 September 2005
Regina (Cth) v Neil Matthew DANSON
Judgment
1.WINDEYER J: I agree with Smart AJ.
2.HISLOP J: I agree with Smart AJ
3.SMART AJ:
Introduction:

Neil Matthew Danson seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment of 12 years starting on 4 February 2004 with a non-parole period of 7 years 3 months for between about 1 December 2002 and 4 February 2003 at Sydney aiding and abetting the importation into Australia of a prohibited import, being not less than the commercial quantity of cocaine contrary to s 11.2(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and para 233(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901. There was a plea of guilty. The weight of the cocaine involved was 3.7131 kilograms. The commercial quantity of cocaine is 2.00 kilograms. The maximum penalty was life imprisonment and/or a fine of $750,000: s 235(2) of the Customs Act 1901. It was estimated that the drugs had an approximate street value of between $2.12 million and $4.24 million. The wholesale price range was $464,137 to $612,661.

4. The applicant also pleaded guilty to two State charges, first, on 4 February 2003 at Newtown supplying a prohibited drug, namely, 3,4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine in the amount of 294.8 grams being an amount not less than the commercial quantity for that drug. Secondly, he pleaded guilty, at the same time and place to supplying a prohibited drug, namely cocaine in the amount of 345.2 grams being an amount not less than the commercial quantity for that drug. For each of the offences he was sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 4 February 2003 and the balance of the term of the sentence of 1 year. These sentences were to be served concurrently. The applicant was effectively sentenced to head sentences of 13 years and a non-parole period of 8 years 3 months. The application for leave to appeal does not seek to challenge the sentences imposed for the State offences.
5.The District Court was provided with a very detailed and lengthy statement of facts, over 300 pages of telephone transcriptions and received oral evidence over three days. The judge also dealt with two co-offenders, Chee, the courier, and Baldwin, the…

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 Danson

Details

AGLC: R v Danson [2005] NSWCCA 343
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 343
Decision Date: 30 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Danson, was convicted of aiding and abetting the importation of cocaine. The dispute was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive and whether the judge erred in assessing the appellant's role in the offence. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial judge correctly assessed the appellant's role in the offence and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The court considered whether the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's role, and the resulting sentence, was open to the trial judge on the evidence presented.

The court found that the trial judge was entitled to assess the appellant's role based on the evidence provided. It was noted that the trial judge had considered the appellant's level of involvement and the seriousness of the offence. The court held that the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's role was open on the evidence and that the sentence imposed was not excessive. The court emphasised that it would not interfere with the trial judge's assessment unless there was a clear error in the process of sentencing. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in the assessment of the appellant's role or in imposing the sentence.

As a result of the court's decision, the conviction and sentence were upheld. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the correctness of the trial judge's assessment and the appropriateness of the sentence. The court's decision reinforces the principle that a trial judge's assessment of an offender's role and the corresponding sentence is to be given considerable deference, unless there is a clear error in the process.

Orders