Legal Research
Cases
R v MARRONE

R v MARRONE

Case [2024] SASCA 99 15 August 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
R v MARRONE
[2024] SASCA 99
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Lovell, the Honourable Justice Doyle and the Honourable Justice Bleby)
15 August 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - SENTENCE - TRAFFICKING, TRADING, SELLING, SUPPLYING OR DISTRIBUTING - OTHER SUBSTANCES AND OFFENCES INVOLVING MULTIPLE SUBSTANCES OR OFFENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
Application by Director of Public Prosecutions for permission to appeal against sentence.
The respondent pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in a controlled drug contrary to the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) and one count of money laundering contrary to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The respondent was a serious repeat offender within the meaning of s 53(1) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) (Sentencing Act).
Police conducted several searches of the respondent’s home between June 2020 and August 2021. On 4 June 2020 police located 7.3 grams of methylamphetamine. The respondent was questioned by police and later released on home detention bail. The following searches occurred while the respondent was on bail. On 19 June 2021 police located 28.3 grams of MDMA, a handwritten ‘tick-list’ and 6.85 grams of mixed weight material containing methylamphetamine, all hidden on the respondent’s property. On 12 July 2020 police found a plastic bag containing $11,100 in cash. On 21 August 2021 police located 17.2 grams of mixed weight material containing methylamphetamine. The respondent was sentenced to six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years.
The issues on appeal were whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the sentencing judge erred in declaring, pursuant to s 54(2) of the Sentencing Act, that s 53(1) of that Act did not apply.
The respondent was a longstanding member of the Finks Motorcycle Club. The sentencing judge accepted evidence given by the respondent that he intended to cease his membership with the club.
Much of the offending occurred in breach of the respondent’s bail. The evidence indicated that the respondent was operating at a level higher than a street-level dealer. The respondent had prior convictions for drug offences.
The respondent was a serious repeat offender within the meaning of s 53 of the Sentencing Act. The sentencing judge considered the respondent’s efforts at rehabilitation for his drug addiction, steps that he had taken to distance himself from the Finks Motorcycle Club and his role in caring for his wife, who suffers from considerable physical and psychological health issues. The judge held, pursuant to s 54(2), that these personal circumstances were so exceptional as to outweigh the paramount consideration of protecting the safety of the community (whether as individuals or in general) and personal and general deterrence.
Held (by the Court) granting permission to appeal, allowing the appeal and resentencing the respondent:
1.The sentence at trial was manifestly inadequate. Notwithstanding the rehabilitative steps…

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 MARRONE

Details

AGLC: R v MARRONE [2024] SASCA 99
Case: [2024] SASCA 99
Decision Date: 15 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of *R v Marrone* concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the applicant, Marrone, who had been convicted of drug trafficking offences. The appeal was heard by Lovell, Doyle and Bleby JJ in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed upon Marrone was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying appellate intervention. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the imposition of sentences for drug trafficking offences and to assess whether the sentencing judge had erred in their application of these principles.

The Court reasoned that while drug trafficking is a serious offence, the sentencing judge had given undue weight to the quantity of drugs involved and insufficient weight to other mitigating factors. These factors included Marrone's limited prior record, his remorse, and his potential for rehabilitation. The Court applied the principle that sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender, and that a just sentence requires a careful balancing of all relevant considerations.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence imposed.

Orders