R v Hunt; R v Yates

Case [2012] SASCFC 74

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

R v HUNT; R v YATES

[2012] SASCFC 74

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice David and The Honourable Justice Kelly)

21 June 2012

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - SENTENCE - TRAFFICKING, TRADING, SELLING, SUPPLYING OR DISTRIBUTING - INVOLVING CANNABIS, INDIAN HEMP OR HASHISH

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - SENTENCE - TRAFFICKING, TRADING, SELLING, SUPPLYING OR DISTRIBUTING - INVOLVING COCAINE

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - PURPOSE OF SENTENCE - GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS  - PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS  - PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS - GROUNDS FOR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS - PERSONAL FACTORS

Hunt and Yates were jointly charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug, namely cannabinoid, contrary to section 32(1) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) - both were convicted following pleas of guilty in the District Court - Yates was further charged with the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug, namely cocaine, contrary to section 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act - he was convicted of this offence following a plea of guilty - Yates was sentenced to the one term of imprisonment for both offences pursuant to section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) of 10 years with a non-parole period of seven years - Hunt was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and four months with a non-parole period of two years and four months - whether Yates' sentence of imprisonment of 10 years was manifestly excessive - whether sentencing discretion miscarried in the determination of Yates' sentence in imposing one sentence for both offences - whether sentencing Judge misunderstood Yates’ earlier involvement in drug offending - whether sentences imposed on Yates and Hunt lacked parity with that imposed on co-offender Abbott.

Held per Gray J (Kelly, David JJ concurring): Appeals dismissed - the non-parole period set for Hunt was well within the sentencing discretion of the Judge - the overall sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years which was imposed on Yates was well within the sentencing discretion of the Judge.

Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32(1) and s 32(3); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 18A, referred to.
R v Millard (2008) 103 SASR 1; R v Stamos, Williams, Stanton and Kapovic [2004] SASC 132; R v Mema [2011] SASCFC 56; R v Tran & Tran [2011] SASCFC 153; R v Carbone & Ors [2012] SASCFC 34; R v MacGowan (1986) 42 SASR 580; R v Bagnato (2011) 112 SASR 39; R v Jones [2011] SASCFC 97, considered.

R v HUNT; R v YATES
[2012] SASCFC 74

Court of Criminal…

Continue reading R v Hunt; R v Yates

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hunt; R v Yates [2012] SASCFC 74
Case
[2012] SASCFC 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were Hunt and Yates, who were jointly charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of cannabinoid. Yates faced an additional charge of trafficking in cocaine. Both pleaded guilty and were convicted in the District Court of South Australia. Yates received a sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years for both offences, while Hunt was sentenced to three years and four months imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and four months.

The appeals raised several legal issues concerning the sentencing of Yates and Hunt. Specifically, the court was asked to determine whether Yates' sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing judge had miscarried their discretion by imposing a single sentence for both of Yates' offences, whether the judge misunderstood Yates' prior involvement in drug offending, and whether the sentences imposed on Yates and Hunt lacked parity with that imposed on a co-offender, Abbott.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Gray, David, and Kelly JJ, dismissed both appeals. The court found that the sentences imposed on both Hunt and Yates were well within the sentencing discretion of the trial judge. Regarding Hunt's sentence, the court held that the non-parole period was justified, noting that Hunt stood to gain similarly to Abbott from the trafficking operation. The court also highlighted that Hunt's offending was not considered isolated, that he offended for financial gain, pleaded guilty later than Abbott, and that his personal circumstances warranted a greater emphasis on personal deterrence, thus justifying a disparity in sentence compared to Abbott. The court concluded that no grounds for appeal based on parity had been established.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J
The non-parole period set for Hunt was well within the sentencing discretion of the Judge. The conclusions the Judge made in determining Hunt’s head sentence and non-parole period were fully justified. Hunt stood to receive a similar reward from the trafficking operation to Abbott. Hunt, unlike Abbott, was sentenced on the premise that his offending was not isolated. Hunt willingly chose to offend for financial gain. He pleaded guilty at a later point in time than Abbott and his personal circumstances were sufficiently different from that of Abbott as to justify a greater need for personal deterrence. I do not consider that a ground of appeal based on parity has been established to warrant interference by this Court with Hunt’s sentence. Conclusion I would dismiss both appeals against sentence. DAVID J: I would dismiss the appeals. I agree with the reasons of Gray J. KELLY J: I agree that both appeals should be dismissed for the reasons given by Gray J.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.