Hodgson JA at 1; Simpson J at 36; Greg James J at 56
DECISION:
1. Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed. 2. Sentence on Count 20 set aside, and in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to four years imprisonment commencing on 8 March 2005 and expiring on 7 March 2009, with a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 8 March 2005 and expiring on 7 March 2007. 3. Sentences otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal - Sentence - Discounts - Plea of guilty - Utilitarian discount - Irrelevance of strength of Crown case - Assistance to authorities - Cumulation of discounts - Moderation of effect of discounting process.
Ms. D. Woodburne for the Crown Mr. M. Ramage QC with Mr. T. Keaney for applicant
SOLICITORS:
S.E. O'Connor for Crown P.M. Murphy for applicant
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
DC 02/21/0052
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Neild DCJ
CCA60071/03 DC 02/21/0052
HODGSON JA SIMPSON J GREG JAMES J
Thursday 17 July 2003
R v. NP
Judgment
1 HODGSON JA: The applicant was sentenced on 19 September 2002 by Nield DCJ for the following offences, to which the applicant had pleaded guilty:
(1) Counts 1, 2, 4, 10, 15 and 16: Unauthorised possession of a firearm (s.7(1) Firearms Act 1996, maximum penalty imprisonment for 10 years). (2) Count 3: Possess loaded firearm in public place (s.93G(1)(a)(i) Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty imprisonment for 10 years). (3) Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12: Possess unregistered firearm (s.36(1) Firearms Act 1996, maximum penalty imprisonment for 10 years). (4) Counts 11, 17, 18 and 19: Possess defaced firearm (s.66(b) Firearms Act 1996, maximum penalty imprisonment for five years). (5) Counts 13 and 14: Supply not less than the commercial quantity of a prohibitive drug (s.25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, maximum penalty imprisonment for 20 years, 3,500 penalty unit fine). (6) Count 20: Conspiracy to sell firearms, without being authorised to do so (common law offence).
2 In relation to Count 20, a Form 1 was taken into account containing twelve charges of unauthorised possession of a firearm, four charges of an unregistered firearm, seven charges of possession of a defaced fireman, one charge of unauthorised possession of ammunition, two charges of supplying a prohibited drug, one charge of possession of a prohibited drug and two charges of possession of money reasonably suspected of…
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 NP
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v NP [2003] NSWCCA 195
Case
[2003] NSWCCA 195
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant was convicted of a number of offences including robbery, aggravated assault, and deprivation of liberty. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed, arguing that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the extent to which his sentence should be reduced. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly assessed the extent to which the appellant's sentence should be discounted. The court considered whether the trial judge had erred by failing to give adequate weight to the appellant's guilty plea and his cooperation with authorities. The court also considered whether the trial judge had correctly cumulated the various discounts that were applicable.
The court found that the trial judge had not erred in his assessment of the appellant's sentence. The court held that the trial judge had correctly taken into account the appellant's guilty plea and his cooperation with authorities, and that the trial judge had correctly cumulated the various discounts that were applicable. The court emphasised that the strength of the Crown's case was not relevant to the discount that should be applied for a guilty plea, and that the trial judge had not erred in failing to consider this factor. The court also held that the trial judge had not erred in cumulating the various discounts that were applicable. The court held that the trial judge had correctly moderated the effect of the discounting process, and that the appellant's sentence was therefore appropriate.
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the extent to which the appellant's sentence should be discounted. The court found that the trial judge had correctly cumulated the various discounts that were applicable, and that the appellant's sentence was therefore appropriate. No further orders were made.