R v Handley - [2001] NSWCCA 311

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Handley [2001] NSWCCA 311 revised - 13/09/2001

FILE NUMBER(S):
60018/01

HEARING DATE(S): 15 August 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 15/08/2001

PARTIES:
Regina
Brendan Handley

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Sperling J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/21/1147

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bellear DCJ

COUNSEL:
In Person
W G Dawe QC

SOLICITORS:

S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeals - appeal against sentence - one count supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis - whether sentence manifestly excessive - appellant submitted drugs were for personal use only - earlier admissions of dealing - no basis to submission - whether sentence was one occasioning undue hardship to appellant's family - it is only in circumstances of exceptional hardship to an appellant's family that the court will take into account hardship in mitigatio of sentence - submission not made good

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

- 4 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60018/01
WOOD CJ AT CL
SPERLING J
WEDNESDAY 15 AUGUST 2001
REGINA v BRENDAN MICHAEL HANDLEY
JUDGMENT

WOOD CJ at CL: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment of three years and one month, with a non parole period of eighteen months, imposed by Bellear DCJ in the District Court following the applicant’s plea of guilty to one count of supply a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis.
The maximum available sentence for such an offence, which is regarded as a particularly serious offence, is imprisonment for twenty years (see s25A Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985).
The applicant was arrested following execution of a search warrant at his home on 29 April 1999. During the search, which was made that day, two bags containing amphetamines were found along with various accoutrements of the drug trade, including a number of resealable plastic bags, a set of electronic scales, a number of syringes, a diary containing names and details of amounts paid or payable and some “tick” list. By that latter expression I understand the documents to refer to drugs supplied “on tick” for which payment was to be supplied at some later date.
When interviewed, the applicant freely admitted that he had been selling amphetamine from the home and around the Blacktown area for approximately eighteen months, earning somewhere between $200 and $400 per week, after subtracting from his sales such amphetamines as he needed for his own use. He agreed that $100 in bank notes found in the premises represented the proceeds of a sale of three half weights made earlier that day.
The amphetamine which he sold, he acknowledged, had been purchased by him in two gram lots and cut with glucose. He also acknowledged that he had ten to twelve regular customers. His own use of amphetamines was accepted as having been significant and that he was in the habit of injecting speed three to four times per day.
Additionally,…

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 Handley

Details

AGLC: R v Handley [2001] NSWCCA 311
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 311
Decision Date: 15 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Handley involved the appellant, Handley, appealing against the sentence imposed by the court for supplying a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessively harsh and that the drugs were intended solely for personal use. Handley also contended that the sentence would cause undue hardship to his family. The appeal was heard by the court of appeal.

The court needed to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the appellant's family would experience undue hardship as a result. The court also needed to assess the credibility of the appellant's claim that the drugs were for personal use only, despite previous admissions of dealing.

The court found that the appellant's submissions about the sentence being manifestly excessive were not substantiated. The appellant had previously admitted to dealing drugs, which undermined his claim that the drugs were for personal use only. Furthermore, the court held that it would only consider the hardship to the appellant's family in exceptional circumstances, and the appellant had not demonstrated such exceptional hardship. The court rejected the appeal and upheld the original sentence. The court did not make any specific orders regarding the sentence.

Orders