R v Parkinson - [2001] NSWCCA 244

Reported Decision:
125 A Crim R 1

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Parkinson [2001] NSWCCA 244 revised - 5/07/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60061/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27/06/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 June 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v John Parkinson

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 38; Howie J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/1151

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Bellear DCJ

COUNSEL : M.C. Grogan - Crown
C.B. Craigie - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
King Lawyers - Applicant

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - discount for early plea - accumulation of sentences - totality

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902 - s 51A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 - ss 24, 25(1), 25(2)
Firearms Act 1996 - s 36(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 23, 44

CASES CITED:
R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v GDR (1994) 35 NSWLR 376

DECISION: See para 36

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60061/02

BARR J
HOWIE J
WEDNESDAY 27 June 2001

REGINA v JOHN EDWARD PARKINSON

JUDGMENT

1 HOWIE J: The applicant John Edward Parkinson seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed by Judge Bellear DCJ on 2 February 2001 for a number of drug and firearm offences. The applicant had pleaded guilty to these charges before a magistrate and was committed for sentence to the District Court under s 51A of the Justices Act. However, by reason of some defect in the committal document, an indictment was presented before the District Court containing the same charges to which the applicant had pleaded guilty before the magistrate and on being arraigned on that indictment the applicant again pleaded guilty.

2 The indictment contained six counts, five of them were offences concerning the supply and manufacture of amphetamine contrary to the provisions of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The counts on the indictment and the amount of drugs to which they relate are as follows:

1. 28 October 1999 - Supply 54.8 grams of methylamphetamine.

2. 7 February 2000 - Supply 53.2 grams of methylamphetamine.

3. 17 March 2000 - Supply 44 grams of methylamphetamine in that he had that drug in his possession for the purposes of supply.

4. 17 March 2000 - Supply 988.2 grams of methylamphetamine being not less than the commercial quantity of that drug.

3 The first three counts on the indictment were all contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and carried a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. The fourth count was contrary to s 25(2) of the Act by reason of the amount of drug involved and carried a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. The fifth count was contrary to s 24 of the Act and carried a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

4 The sixth count on the indictment alleged that on 7 December 1999…

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 Parkinson

Details

AGLC: R v Parkinson [2001] NSWCCA 244
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 244
Decision Date: 27 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the appellant, Parkinson, who had been convicted of multiple charges, including armed robbery and unlawful possession of firearms. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the trial judge failed to properly consider the totality of the appellant's offending and the need for general deterrence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate discount to be applied for an early guilty plea and the principles governing the accumulation of sentences. The Crown contended that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the totality of the appellant's offending and the need for general deterrence when imposing the sentence. The appellant, on the other hand, argued that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had adequately considered all relevant factors.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the totality of the appellant's offending, including the severity and nature of the crimes committed. The Court held that the trial judge had erred in not applying a sufficient discount for the early guilty plea and in not adequately considering the need for general deterrence. The Court also found that the trial judge had not properly accumulated the sentences for the various offences, leading to an overall sentence that was manifestly inadequate. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.

The High Court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the offending when imposing a sentence, including the severity and nature of the crimes committed, and the need for general deterrence. The Court also highlighted the need for trial judges to properly accumulate sentences for multiple offences and to appropriately consider discounts for early guilty pleas. The final orders were not detailed in the text provided.

Orders