Legal Research
Cases
R v Klein

R v Klein

Case [2001] NSWCCA 120 19 March 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
121 A Crim R 90

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Klein, Lucy Pearl [2001] NSWCCA 120

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60713/00

HEARING DATE(S): 19 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Lucy Pearl Klein

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 22; Simpson J at 32

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0516

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Solomon DCJ

COUNSEL : D Staehli - Crown
G Jones - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Freemans Solicitors - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCE - drug importation - Crown appeal - whether sentence manifestly inadequate - (by majority) not manifestly inadequate. ND

CASES CITED:
R v Behar (NSW CCA 14 October 1998);
R v Benais (1999) NSW CCA 236;
R v Budiman (NSW CCA 8 September 1998);
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243;
R v Chu (1998) (NSW CCA 16 October 1998);
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim 349;
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231;
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Laurentiu and Becheru (NSW CCA 1 October 1992);
R v Lawson, Wu and Thapa (NSW CCA 12 December 1997);
R v Leroy (1984) 2 NSWLR 441;
R v Stead 99 NSW CCA 4;
R v Wong (1999) 48 NSWLR 340;
R v Zayat (NSW CCA 22 November 1996).

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 060317/00

DC 11/11/0516

GILES JA
WOOD CJ at CL

SIMPSON J

Monday 19 March 2001

REGINA v Lucy Pearl KLEIN

JUDGMENT

1 GILES JA: The respondent entered a plea of guilty to a charge of importing cocaine contrary to s233B of the Customs Act 1901. She was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and nine months with a non parole period of two years and six months. This is a Crown appeal on the ground that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.

2 The respondent arrived in Australia from South Africa on 7 June 2000, and was identified for a full baggage search. An ion scan of some of her belongings tested positive for the presence of cocaine. When informed of this, the respondent admitted carrying narcotics concealed on her body and in her shoes. She was found to be carrying a package of cocaine taped around her waist and packages of cocaine in her shoes. The cocaine had a gross weight of 960.3 grams and a pure cocaine weight of 513.7 grams. Its street value was somewhere between $296,000 and $370,000.

3 In interviews subsequently conducted the respondent said that she knew she was bringing narcotics into Australia, although saying she thought she was carrying marijuana, and that she knew it was illegal to do so. She said she did it for money in order to help discharge her debts. She and a friend of hers in South Africa agreed with acquaintances in that country to carry the packages, which 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 Klein

Details

AGLC: R v Klein [2001] NSWCCA 120
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 120
Decision Date: 19 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Klein, the defendant was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug into Australia. The appeal before the court was by the Crown, seeking to argue that the sentence imposed on the defendant was manifestly inadequate. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the defendant was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence was too lenient in light of the seriousness of the offence. The defendant contended that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the circumstances of the case.

The High Court considered the principles governing the adequacy of sentences in such cases. The court noted that while the primary responsibility for determining sentences lies with the sentencing judge, the appellate court has the power to intervene if the sentence is manifestly inadequate. The court examined the relevant sentencing principles and guidelines, as well as the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the majority of the court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and dismissed the Crown's appeal. The court emphasised the importance of deference to the original sentencing judge and the need to ensure that the appellate process does not unduly interfere with the primary sentencing jurisdiction.

Orders