R v Hughes - [1998] VSCA 98

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 139 of 1998

THE QUEEN
v
HARRY EDWARD HUGHES

---

JUDGES: TADGELL, ORMISTON and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 19 October 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19 October 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSCA 98

---

CRIME - Sentence - Conspiracy to traffic in amphetamines - Principles of parity - Four co-offenders - Not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Ms M. Sexton P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr B.J. Bourke Bullards

TADGELL, J.A.:

I will invite Ormiston, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

ORMISTON, J.A.:

The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a sentence imposed on him in the County Court, where he pleaded guilty in May of this year to one count of conspiring to traffic in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, for which the maximum penalty was 15 years' imprisonment, but for which, on this occasion, the applicant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, of which he has to serve 18 months before becoming eligible for parole.
Two grounds of appeal are relied upon in support of the application, namely, (1) that the sentence was manifestly excessive; (2) that the learned judge erred in imposing the sentence "in comparison to the sentences which were imposed on the applicant's co-offenders", thereby raising the issue of parity. The latter ground requires the Court to have regard to the other sentences imposed that day on four other persons involved in the conspiracy, who also pleaded guilty to a number of other offences, including trafficking and being in possession of drugs of dependence, as well as one count of cultivating a narcotic plant.
Before dealing with those facts, it should be noted that the applicant is now aged 35 years, having been aged 33 when the offence of conspiracy took place, from August to November 1996. He admitted 27 prior convictions from eight court appearances over the years 1981 to 1996, although only one of them was for a drug- related offence (trafficking), for which he had been fined some $600 in 1996. Other offences for which he had been convicted included burglary, theft and handling, for several of which he had received terms of imprisonment.
At least four of the five offenders had been observed at or near a shed rented by one of the accused, Neville, in which a laboratory had been set up to manufacture amphetamines. One of the co-offenders, Darrell James Burton, seems to have been the principal person involved in getting the scheme under way, although one Sheales, who was not before the sentencing judge and in fact has not yet been tried, may also have had a significant role: of him it is unnecessary to say anything. Certainly in August 1996 they purchased some chemical glassware for the proposed laboratory, as police surveillance of their activities revealed, primarily of conversations on the telephone of Darrell Burton. The surveillance then revealed discussions in September 1996 between…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: R v Hughes [1998] VSCA 98
Case: [1998] VSCA 98
Decision Date: 19 October 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hughes involved a dispute between the Crown and the accused, Hughes, who was convicted for his role in a conspiracy to traffic in amphetamines. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred around the sentencing of Hughes, with the Crown arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive, while Hughes contended that it was fair and in line with the sentences received by his co-offenders.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the principles of parity were correctly applied in the sentencing process, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Hughes' involvement in the conspiracy, as well as the sentences given to his co-offenders. The court also had to consider the principle of parity, which requires that co-offenders receive similar sentences unless there are significant differences in their roles or culpability.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the principles of parity had been properly applied in the sentencing process. The court noted that while Hughes played a significant role in the conspiracy, his sentence was not manifestly excessive when compared to the sentences of his co-offenders. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the degree of Hughes' involvement, his remorse, and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the sentence was proportionate and not manifestly excessive.

The court therefore dismissed the appeal against sentence. The final orders confirmed Hughes' sentence, reflecting the court's determination that it was fair and in line with the sentences of his co-offenders. The decision underscores the importance of considering the principles of parity in sentencing co-offenders and highlights the need for proportionality in the criminal justice system.

Orders