Legal Research
Cases
R v Harris

R v Harris

Case [2001] NSWCCA 322 5 September 2001

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
125 A Crim R 27

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Harris [2001] NSWCCA 322

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60113/2001

HEARING DATE(S): 6 August 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 September 2001

PARTIES :

Crown - Appellant
Richard John HARRIS - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Simpson J at 2; Einfeld AJ at 48

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0588

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Dodd DCJ

COUNSEL : P G Berman SC - Crown
T A Game SC - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown
Jeffreys Associates - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Crown appeal against leniency of sentence - supply of not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and pseudoephadrine - conspiracy to supply not less than a commercial quantity of cannabis leaf - possession of unauthorised firearms - s33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - residual discretion to dismiss Crown appeal.

LEGISLATION CITED: Firearms Act 1996
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED:
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
R v Lee (1994) 76 A Crim R 271
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63 unreported, 5 March 2001
R v Bavadra [2000] NSWCCA 292; 115 A Crim R 152
R v Vougdis (1989) 41 A Crim R 125
R v Lemene [2001] NSWCCA 5; 118 A Crim R 131
R v Dawson [2000] NSWCCA 399 unreported 18 December 2000.
Flentjar v Daire (1983) 32 SASR 101
Queen v Shannon (1979) 21 SASR 442
Reiner's case (1974) 8 SASR 102
R v Thurgar (1999) 51 A Crim R 109
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Griffith v R (1977) 137 CLR 293
R v Everett (1994) 181 CLR 295

DECISION: Crown appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60113/01

SPIGELMAN CJ
SIMPSON J

EINFELD AJ

5 September 2001

REGINA v Richard John HARRIS

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN : I agree with Simpson J

2 SIMPSON J : This is a Crown appeal against the asserted leniency of sentences imposed upon the respondent in the District Court on 8 February 2001, following the respondent’s pleas of guilty to an indictment containing three charges, each brought under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. An additional thirteen offences, of a different kind, were taken into account under s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

3 The three charges to which the respondent pleaded guilty were:

4 All of the thirteen offences taken into account were offences under the Firearms Act 1996. Twelve involved possession of unauthorised firearms. Of these, three were shortened shotguns; one was a rifle; eight were…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: R v Harris [2001] NSWCCA 322
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 322
Decision Date: 5 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harris, the respondent was prosecuted for various drug-related offences, including the supply of methylamphetamine and pseudoephedrine, conspiracy to supply cannabis, and possession of unauthorised firearms. The matter came before the court following an appeal by the Crown against the leniency of the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal was brought pursuant to section 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which allows for the dismissal of a Crown appeal if the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessively lenient, warranting the dismissal of the Crown's appeal. The court was required to consider the gravity of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing outlined in the Act. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentence imposed adequately reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the nature and extent of the respondent's criminal activities, including the large quantities of drugs involved and the possession of unauthorised firearms. The court also considered the respondent's criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences. The court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and was, therefore, excessively lenient. As a result, the Crown's appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences imposed for serious drug-related offences reflect the gravity of the crimes and serve as a deterrent to others considering engaging in similar activities.

Orders