R v Jordan - [2002] NSWCCA 228

CITATION: R v Jordan [2002] NSWCCA 228

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60233/01

HEARING DATE(S): 13/02/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Steve Jordan

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1; Buddin J at 15

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0458

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Howie DCJ

COUNSEL : P R Boulten - Applicant
PJP Power - Crown

SOLICITORS: Gregory J Goold - Application
SE O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law: sentence - ongoing supply of cocaine and supply of cocaine - cumulative sentences - whether total sentence excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Probation and Parole Act

CASES CITED:
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47
R v Hoon and Pouoa [2000] NSW CCA 137
R v Plane (CCA unreported 10 April 1990)
R v Scevola [2001] NSW CCA 430

DECISION: See para 14

60233/01

HIDDEN J

BUDDIN J
Monday, 24 June 2002

REGINA v Steven JORDAN

Judgment

1 HIDDEN J: The applicant, Steven Jordan, seeks leave to appeal against sentences passed upon him in the District Court after he pleaded guilty to a charge of ongoing supply of cocaine (s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act) and a further charge of supplying cocaine (s 25 of the Act). The first charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment, and the second charge 15 years. On the second charge the learned sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to a fixed term of imprisonment for 3 years to commence on 14 March 2000, the date he was taken into custody. On the first charge his Honour sentenced him to imprisonment for 3½ years, to commence at the expiration of the sentence on the second charge, with a non-parole period of 12 months. For the two charges, then, the effective sentence was 6½ years with a non-parole period of 4 years.

2 The applicant worked as a barman at a café in Kings Cross. Between 12 January and 3 February 2000 undercover police officers went to the café and bought cocaine from the applicant on five separate occasions. The first four purchases were each of one gram at a price of $200, and the last was for three grams at a cost of $550. On each occasion the cocaine was about thirty percent pure. It was this series of events which gave rise to the first charge, supplying cocaine on an ongoing basis.

3 The applicant was arrested on 14 March 2000. He was taken to the flat above the café where he lived, so that the police could search it. There the police found, or were shown by the applicant, a quantity of cocaine contained in plastic bags, together with a set of scales and other paraphernalia commonly associated with the supply of drugs. The cocaine at the flat weighed a little under 62 grams and, again, was about thirty percent pure.

4 His Honour found that the applicant…

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 Jordan

Details

AGLC: R v Jordan [2002] NSWCCA 228
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 228
Decision Date: 24 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jordan involved the appellant, Jordan, who had been found guilty of ongoing supply of cocaine and supply of cocaine. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the cumulative sentences imposed on Jordan were excessive. The court was tasked with assessing the proportionality of the total sentence in relation to the crimes committed.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the cumulative sentences imposed upon Jordan, which were the result of his conviction for ongoing supply of cocaine and supply of cocaine, constituted an excessive punishment. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the crimes, the sentencing principles applicable in such cases, and the overall fairness and proportionality of the sentences imposed.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the principles of sentencing and proportionality in criminal cases. It was noted that the sentences imposed on Jordan were within the statutory maximum for each offence and that the court had carefully considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at the total sentence. The court concluded that the cumulative sentences were not excessive, as they appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences committed and were proportionate to the crimes. The court also highlighted that it had exercised its discretion in a manner consistent with legal principles and that there were no grounds to interfere with the sentencing decision.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentences imposed on Jordan were upheld as appropriate and proportionate to the crimes committed. The court's reasoning and analysis provided clarity on the application of sentencing principles in cases involving ongoing supply of dangerous drugs, reaffirming the importance of proportionality and fairness in the criminal justice system.

Orders