Legal Research
Cases
R v Medd (a Pseudonym)

R v Medd (a Pseudonym)

Case [2016] NSWCCA 216 10 November 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2016] NSWCCA 216
Hearing dates: 8 June 2016
Date of orders: 10 November 2016
Decision date: 10 November 2016
Before: Beazley P
Garling J
Fagan J
Decision:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The aggregate sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Whitford DCJ on 16 December 2015 is quashed.

3. In lieu thereof Medd is sentenced to an aggregate sentence for both counts of imprisonment for a non-parole period of 7 years to commence 29 August 2013 and to expire 28 August 2020 and a balance of term of 2 years 4 months to commence 29 August 2020 and to expire 28 December 2022. Medd will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiry of the non-parole period of the aggregate sentence.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – supply of large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine –manifest inadequacy – whether discount for assistance excessive – consideration of comparable sentences – re-sentencing
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AAT v R [2011] NSWCCA 17
CMB v Attorney-General for New South Wales (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
R v AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43; (2011) 205 A Crim R 222
R v Hallocoglu (1992) 29 NSWLR 67
R v Holland [2011] NSWCCA 65; (2011) 205 A Crim R 429
R v Mereb; R v Younan [2014] NSWCCA 149
SZ v R [2007] NSWCCA 19; (2007) 168 A Crim R 249
Toole, Kurt v R; Toole, Joshua v R [2014] NSWCCA 318
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Applicant)
Medd (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Virginia Lydiard (Applicant)
Mr John Peluso (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
Ms Nadia Long (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/262792
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Not published

Date of Decision:

16 December 2015

Before:

Whitford SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/262792

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The respondent pleaded guilty to one charge of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine contrary to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) and a second charge under the same section of having knowingly taken part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine.

The aggregate sentence imposed at first instance was a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months and a balance term of 1 year 2 months. The indicative sentences were a non-parole period of 2 years 7 months and a balance of term of 11 months for count 1, and a non-parole period of 3 years 1 month and a balance term 1 year 1 month for count 2.

The Crown appealed on the ground that the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate, particularly on account of the 20% discount allowed for assistance to authorities was excessive.

Per the Court

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) [2016] NSWCCA 216
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 216
Decision Date: 10 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Medd, the appellant was convicted for the supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The matter was heard on appeal against sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the original sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the discount for assistance granted to the appellant was excessive. The court also considered comparable sentences to determine if a re-sentencing was warranted.

The court considered the gravity of the offence and the quantity of drugs involved, which warranted a significant penalty. It examined the principle of totality and assessed whether the discount for assistance provided to the appellant was disproportionate to his role in the offence. The court evaluated precedent cases to understand the sentencing principles and norms applicable to similar offences. The court noted the appellant's cooperation with law enforcement, which was a mitigating factor, but also highlighted the substantial harm caused by the supply of a large quantity of methylamphetamine.

After reviewing the submissions and the relevant legal principles, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate given the nature and scale of the offence. The court determined that the discount for assistance was excessive, leading to an unduly lenient sentence. Consequently, the court ordered a re-sentencing of the appellant to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to ensure consistency with comparable cases. The court emphasised the need for sentences to adequately reflect the harm caused by drug supply offences and to deter future criminal conduct.

Orders