Legal Research
Cases
R v Pickett

R v Pickett

Case [2010] NSWCCA 273 25 November 2010

Drug Offences

Sentencing

Sentencing Procedure

Voluntary Cessation of Criminal Activity

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Pickett [2010] NSWCCA 273

HEARING DATE(S): 22 October 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1; Fullerton J at 79; RA Hulme J at 86

DECISION: Crown appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – particular offences – drug offences – supply prohibited drug (cocaine) – other offences – CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal – suspended sentence – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – sentencing procedure – failure to properly assess objective seriousness – whether subjective features given too much weight – consideration of exceptional circumstances – no error established – voluntary cessation of criminal activity prior to arrest – Crown appeal dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Brown v R; Reid v R [2006] NSWCCA 144
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Bardo (NSWCCA, 14 July 1992, unreported)
R v Burns [2007] NSWCCA 228
R v Clark (NSWCCA, 15 March 1990, unreported)
R v Gipp [2006] NSWCCA 115; 161 A Crim R 173
R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
R v Hoon; R v Pouoa [2000] NSWCCA 137
R v Santos [2010] NSWCCA 127
R v Thompson (NSWCCA, 4 April 1991, unreported)
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168
Scott v R [2010] NSWCCA 103

PARTIES: Regina (Applicant)
Paul Anthony Pickett (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2009/153743

COUNSEL: D Arnott SC (Applicant)
H Dhanji SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) (Applicant)
Gaitanis Lawyers (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/153743

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Phegan ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 30 June 2010

2009/153743

SIMPSON J
FULLERTON J
R A HULME J
25 November 2010

R v Paul Anthony PICKETT

Judgment

1 SIMPSON J: This is a Crown appeal against the asserted inadequacy of a sentence imposed upon the respondent in the District Court on 30 June 2010 following his plea of guilty to a charge of ongoing supply of a prohibited drug (cocaine). Also taken into account, pursuant to Pt 3 Div 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“the Sentencing Procedure Act”) were two additional offences (“the Form 1 offences”) of supplying a prohibited drug (also cocaine) and one of being an owner of a vehicle, failing to disclose the identity of a passenger therein (an offence created by s 17(1) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, and carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 12 months).

2 The offence of ongoing supply of a prohibited drug is created by s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. It is committed where a person, on three or more separate occasions within a period of 30 days, supplies, for financial or material reward, a…

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 Pickett

Details

AGLC: R v Pickett [2010] NSWCCA 273
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 273
Decision Date: 25 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pickett, the defendant was convicted of supplying a prohibited drug, specifically cocaine, and faced additional charges. The matter was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court, with the prosecution appealing the sentence imposed on the defendant. The appeal centred on whether the sentence handed down was manifestly inadequate, particularly considering the objective seriousness of the offence and the subjective factors taken into account by the sentencing court. The court was also asked to consider if the sentence imposed adequately reflected the defendant's voluntary cessation of criminal activity prior to his arrest.

The appeal required the court to delve into the sentencing process and assess whether the trial judge had properly evaluated the objective seriousness of the offence. Furthermore, the court examined whether undue weight had been assigned to the subjective features, including the defendant's voluntary cessation of criminal activity. The appeal also invited scrutiny of the trial judge's consideration of exceptional circumstances, as well as whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court's task was to determine if any errors had been made in the sentencing process that warranted the intervention of the appellate court.

Upon review, the court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence. The court determined that the sentencing judge had given appropriate consideration to the subjective features, including the defendant's voluntary cessation of criminal activity prior to arrest. The court was satisfied that the sentence imposed reflected a balanced approach, taking into account both the objective and subjective factors relevant to the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence remained in place.

Orders