Legal Research
Cases
R v Dujeu

R v Dujeu

Case [2004] NSWCCA 237 3 August 2004

Sentencing

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
146 A Crim R 121

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Dujeu [2004] NSWCCA 237 revised - 04/08/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 11 June 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J at 1; Hislop J at 28; Smart AJ at 29

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Severity appeal - reasons given for sentence - no reasons specifically given for non-parole period - effect of repeal of ss16G and 19AG Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 - no error

LEGISLATION CITED: Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED: Bernier v R (1998) 102 A Crim R 44
Bugmy v R (1990) 169 CLR 525
Deakin v R (1984) 58 ALJR 367
Griffiths v R (1977) 137 CLR 293
Norton v R [2003] WASCA 86
Power v R (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Maclay (1990) 19 NSWLR 112
R v Nai Poon (2003) 56 NSWLR 284
R v Oliver (NSWCCA, 20/03/80, unreported)
R v Pawa [1978] 2 NZLR 190
R v Robinson (1979) 22 SASR 367
R v Studenikin [2004] NSWCCA 164
R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104

PARTIES :
Anthony Daniel Dujeu
Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60063/04

COUNSEL: Crown: Mr M Wigney
Appellant: Mr S Odgers SC

SOLICITORS:

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0335

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Bell DCJ

- 15 -

60063/04

DOWD J
HISLOP J
SMART AJ

Tuesday, 3 August 2004

R v Anthony Daniel DUJEU

Judgment

1 DOWD J: This is an application for leave to appeal by Anthony Dujeu against the sentence imposed by Bell DCJ after a plea of guilty to importing a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine (242.5g pure) on 22 January 2003.

2 The applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of seven years from the date of arrest with a non-parole period of four and a half years, which is calculated to be 64.3 per cent of the head sentence. It is conceded by the applicant that although the head sentence is high, it is within the appropriate range of sentences, and that the non-parole period is also within the appropriate range, and that therefore neither the head sentence nor the non-parole period are suggested to be in error on that count.

3 The applicant was sentenced after the repeal of s16G of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 (the “Act”), which provided for the imposition of a sentence which took into account State and Territory sentences not being subject to remission or reduction. This was also after the repeal of s19AG of the Act, which dealt with the application of that same factor concerning remissions to non-parole periods.

4 Sections 16G and 19AG of the Act are in the following terms:

Section 16G (repealed) Federal sentence to be adjusted if no State or Territory remission laws apply

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 Dujeu

Details

AGLC: R v Dujeu [2004] NSWCCA 237
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 237
Decision Date: 3 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the appellant, Dujeu, who was convicted of serious criminal offences and sentenced to imprisonment with a specified non-parole period. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant sought to appeal the severity of his sentence. The central issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the non-parole period set by the trial judge. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to provide specific reasons for the non-parole period, which was a significant factor in his appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the absence of specific reasons for the non-parole period constituted an error that warranted an appeal. Additionally, the court had to consider the effect of the repeal of sections 16G and 19AG of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 on the sentencing process and its implications for the appellant’s case. The High Court was required to determine if these legislative changes necessitated a re-evaluation of the sentence and non-parole period.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the appellant's appeal against the severity of the sentence failed. The High Court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence and non-parole period, and that the absence of specific reasons for the non-parole period did not constitute a significant error. Furthermore, the court determined that the repeal of sections 16G and 19AG of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 did not impact the validity of the sentence imposed. The High Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and thus dismissed the appeal.

Orders