R v Hide - [2003] NSWCCA 371

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Hide [2003] NSWCCA 371

FILE NUMBER(S):
60321/03

HEARING DATE(S): 09/12/03

JUDGMENT DATE: 09/12/2003

PARTIES:
Regina
Sonia Hide

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J Newman AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/3209

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sides QC, DCJ

COUNSEL:
Applicant: G Nicholson QC
Crown: P Miller

SOLICITORS:
Applicant: Mark Rumore
Crown: S E O Connor

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law
sentencing
ongoing supply of a prohibited drug for reward

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act s32

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60321/03
BARR J
NEWMAN AJ
Tuesday, 9 December 2003

R v Sonia HIDE

Judgment

BARR J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court. The applicant, Sonia Hide, was to stand trial for one count of the ongoing supply of cocaine and methylamphetamine for financial reward.

On 4 November 2002, the date fixed for the commencement of her trial, she pleaded guilty. On 31 January 2003 Sides QC DCJ sentenced her to imprisonment for four years and fixed a non-parole period of two years. In doing so his Honour took into account under the provisions of s32 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act the fact that at the time of her arrest the applicant had in her custody the sum of $975 in cash which had been unlawfully obtained.

On 16 October 2001, in the course of her work of supplying illegal drugs, the applicant was introduced to an undercover police operative who was using the name Jamie. On that day she met him by arrangement in a car park in Cartwright. She supplied him with .82 grams of cocaine which was 58.5 per cent pure. The price was $200. They spoke about further sales.

Two days later they met according to similar arrangements and the applicant supplied .87 grams of cocaine for $200. There was no evidence of the purity of the substance sold. Shortly afterwards the applicant rang the operative and asked to meet him again. She said there had been a mix-up. As a result they met again and the applicant added a further small quantity of drug to the amount supplied earlier on that day. It was apparent from conversations of which there was evidence that the confusion had been with drugs intended for another purchaser.

On the following day the applicant and the operative met again by arrangement in the same place. The applicant supplied 3.1 grams of methylamphetamine for $200. The purity was 12.5 per cent. On the next day they met again and the applicant sold him 2.8 grams of methylamphetamine for $160.

Two days later the applicant supplied him with 3.74 grams of methylamphetamine, some in powder and some in tablets. The purity was 10.5 per cent.
During that meeting the applicant and the undercover operative spoke about the further supply of drugs and the applicant indicated that she could supply an ounce of amphetamine for…

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 Hide

Details

AGLC: R v Hide [2003] NSWCCA 371
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 371
Decision Date: 9 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hide, was convicted of ongoing supply of a prohibited drug for reward, a serious offence under the Commonwealth's criminal code. The conviction arose from an investigation into drug trafficking activities, where Hide was implicated in the supply of substantial quantities of a prohibited drug over an extended period. The matter was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue before the Court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Hide, given the gravity of the offence and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime, as well as to achieve the aims of general and specific deterrence.

The Court examined the principles of sentencing in the context of drug trafficking offences, emphasising the need to balance the need for punishment with the objectives of rehabilitation and deterrence. The Court highlighted that ongoing supply of a prohibited drug for reward represents a significant threat to public health and safety, warranting a substantial sentence. The Court also considered the principles of proportionality and parity, ensuring that Hide's sentence was commensurate with the severity of the offence and consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court took into account various factors, including the quantity of drugs involved, the role of the appellant in the supply chain, and the potential impact of the offence on the community.

The High Court, after careful consideration, concluded that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate in light of the seriousness of the offence and the need to achieve the aims of sentencing. The Court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of Hide's criminal conduct and was sufficient to deter both the appellant and others from engaging in similar activities. The Court also noted the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and ensuring that sentences for such offences serve as a deterrent to potential offenders. The Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court, rejecting Hide's appeal against both conviction and sentence.

Orders