R v Medd (a pseudonym) - [2018] NSWCCA 36

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2018] NSWCCA 36
Hearing dates: 23 February 2018
Date of orders: 23 February 2018
Decision date: 14 March 2018
Before: Simpson JA at [1]; Fullerton J at [10]; McCallum J at [11]
Decision:
(1)  Crown appeal allowed;

(2)  Sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 10 November 2016 set aside;
(3)  In lieu thereof, the respondent is resentenced to an aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 7 years and 4 months, commencing on 29 August 2013, and expiring on 28 December 2020, with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months, which will expire on 28 June 2023.
Catchwords: SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – informers – sentence reduced because of undertaking to assist law enforcement authorities – where informer refuses undertaking – whether sentence should be increased
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5D, 5DA
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 22, 23, 53A
Cases Cited: R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2016] NSWCCA 216
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Applicant)
Medd (a pseudonym) (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Hatfield (Applicant)
S Odgers SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
Legal Aid NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/262792
Publication restriction: Non-publication of any information or material that may lead to the identification of the applicant (Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), s 7)
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Court of Criminal Appeal

Citation:

R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2016] NSWCCA 216

Date of Decision:

10 November 2016

Before:

Beazley P; Garling J; Fagan J

File Number(s):

2013/262792

Judgment

SIMPSON JA: This is a Crown appeal under s 5DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The appeal is not opposed and neither are the specific orders sought by the Crown. It is apparent that, in taking that position, the respondent has had the advice of experienced senior counsel. The facts may therefore be stated briefly.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Court made the following orders:

(1) Crown appeal allowed;

(2) Sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 10 November 2016 set aside;

(3) In lieu thereof, the respondent is resentenced to an aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 7 years and 4 months, commencing on 29 August 2013, and expiring on 28 December 2020, with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months, which will expire on 28 June 2023.

These are my reasons for joining in those orders.
In May and June 2015 the respondent entered pleas of guilty to two counts of drug offences, each involving the supply of not less than the large commercial quantity of methamphetamine. On 16 December 2015 he was sentenced under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Sentencing Procedure Act”) in respect of both offences to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 4 years…

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 Medd (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2018] NSWCCA 36
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 36
Decision Date: 14 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the appellant, Medd, against his sentence was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant had been convicted on drug trafficking charges and had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appellant sought to have his sentence reduced, arguing that he had an agreement with law enforcement authorities to assist them in exchange for a reduced sentence. The prosecution argued that the appellant had not fulfilled his part of the bargain and that the sentence should not be altered.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's agreement with law enforcement authorities constituted a valid basis for reducing his sentence. The court considered whether the appellant had made a genuine and effective promise to assist law enforcement authorities and whether that promise was a factor that should be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The court also considered whether the appellant's failure to fulfill his part of the bargain justified an increase in his sentence.

The court held that the appellant's agreement with law enforcement authorities was a relevant consideration when determining the appropriate sentence. However, the court found that the appellant had not made a genuine and effective promise to assist law enforcement authorities and that his failure to fulfill his part of the bargain did not justify an increase in his sentence. The court held that the appellant's sentence should be reduced because he had provided some assistance to law enforcement authorities, even though he had not fulfilled his part of the bargain to the extent originally agreed. The court also held that the appellant's failure to fulfill his part of the bargain did not negate the value of the assistance he had provided.

The High Court allowed the appeal and reduced the appellant's sentence. The court held that the appellant's agreement with law enforcement authorities was a relevant consideration when determining the appropriate sentence, but that the appellant's failure to fulfill his part of the bargain did not justify an increase in his sentence. The court also held that the appellant's sentence should be reduced because he had provided some assistance to law enforcement authorities, even though he had not fulfilled his part of the bargain to the extent originally agreed. The court did not specify the new sentence that the appellant should serve.

Orders