R v Knapp - [2004] NSWCCA 419

CITATION: R v Knapp [2004] NSWCCA 419

HEARING DATE(S): 4 November 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1; Adams J at 2; Davidson AJ at 7

DECISION: 1. That leave to appeal be granted; 2. That the appeal be allowed; 3. That the sentence imposed in the District Court be set aside and in lieu the applicant be sentenced to twenty one months imprisonment to commence from 4 February 2004 with a non parole period of nine months to end on 3 November 2004, on and from which date he is to be released to parole for the balance of the sentence. On parole he is to be subject to an additional condition namely that he be subject to the supervision of an officer of the Probation and Parole Service until it is determined by a responsible officer of that Service that he is no longer required to be subject to supervision. The whole of the sentence is to end on 3 November 2005.

CATCHWORDS: appeal against severity of sentence - s25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 - methylamphetamine - plea of not guilty - youth and rehabilitation prospects - statistical evidence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s21A, s44
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s25(1)

CASES CITED: Regina v Juliano Romy Bardo, unreported, NSWCCA 14 July 1992
R v Bishop, unreported, NSWCCA 23 September 1996
R v Bloomfield (1998) NSWCCA 15 July 1998; 44 NSWLR 734
R v Clark, unreported, NSWCCA 15 March 1990
R v Garvie, unreported, NSWCCA 24 March 1997
R v Goldsworthy, unreported, NSWCCA 22 May 1996
R v Ozer, unreported, NSWCCA 9 November 1993

PARTIES :
Crown - Respondent
Ryan Knapp - Appellant

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/2049

COUNSEL: P Power - Crown
B Glennon - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) - Crown
J Weller - Applicant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/21/3157

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

2004/2049

SIMPSON J
ADAMS J
DAVIDSON AJ
Thursday 25 November 2004

REGINA v RYAN KNAPP

Judgment

1 SIMPSON J: I agree with Davidson AJ.

2 ADAMS J: I agree with the orders proposed by Davidson AJ but I wish to add some comments of my own.

3 In R v Clark (unreported, NSWCCA 15 March 1990), which was a case involving two counts of supplying amphetamines, Hunt CJ at CL said, “The position is worse when there has been a profitable commercial exploitation, but trafficking alone in any substantial degree should normally lead to a custodial sentence”. His Honour had earlier observed that the “word ‘trafficking’ clearly carries with it the connotation of supply on more than one occasion”. In R v Ozer (unreported, NSWCCA 9 November 1993) Hunt CJ at CL referred to what he had said in Clark and concluded that in Ozer’s case, his offence was “a limited and isolated event” and thus “he was not ‘trafficking’ in the sense in which that word is used in the cases,…

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 Knapp

Details

AGLC: R v Knapp [2004] NSWCCA 419
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 419
Decision Date: 25 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Knapp was heard in the High Court of Australia. The accused, Knapp, had been convicted of drug trafficking and was appealing the severity of his sentence. The conviction stemmed from a significant amount of methylamphetamine found in his possession. Knapp had pleaded not guilty and had been sentenced under section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The appeal centred on whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the case, including Knapp's age, prospects for rehabilitation, and the statistical evidence presented regarding the prevalence of drug offences.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate weight to be given to the various sentencing factors and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the statutory requirement to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence and the prospects for rehabilitation. Specifically, the court needed to assess the relevance and weight of statistical evidence concerning drug trafficking offences and whether it appropriately influenced the sentence.

The court found that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had considered the statutory requirements and the relevant sentencing principles. The court also noted that the trial judge had given appropriate weight to the statistical evidence, acknowledging its relevance to the prevalence and seriousness of drug trafficking offences. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime, the need for general deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the offender, including his age and potential for rehabilitation. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the statutory requirements, the nature of the offence, and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders