R v Purdie - [2005] NSWCCA 15

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Purdie [2005] NSWCCA 15

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/2394-

HEARING DATE(S): 01/02/05

JUDGMENT DATE: 01/02/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Shannon Leslie PURDIE

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0149

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Judge Urquhart QC - DCJ

COUNSEL:
G Rowling - Crown
S Odgers SC - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)
Paul Kenny and Associates

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - supply of prohibited drug - not less than the commercial quantity of cocaine - whether disparity of sentence with that of co-offenders- credit for discrete period of pre-sentence custody

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed in respect of non-parole period

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2004/2394
GROVE J
JAMES J
TUESDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2005

REGINA v Shannon Leslie PURDIE

Judgment

GROVE J: I will ask James J to give the first judgment.
JAMES J: Shannon Leslie Purdie applied for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him in the District Court on 19 March 2004 by his Honour Judge Urquhart Q.C on a charge that between 1 and 13 October 2001 he knowingly took part in the supply of a prohibited drug, being not less than the commercial quantity of cocaine, to which the applicant had pleaded guilty.
Judge Urquhart imposed a sentence of imprisonment of five years nine months, commencing on 24 October 2003 with a non-parole period of four years. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for twenty years and/or a fine of $385,000. Having regard to the date of the commission of the offence, the standard non-parole period for an offence of that kind was not applicable.
The applicant was one of three co-offenders, all of whom were sentenced by Judge Urquhart. The other two offenders, Matthew Glen Keller and Anthony Denholm had not pleaded guilty and had been found guilty by a jury after a trial conducted before Judge Urquhart.
For the offence of supplying a prohibited drug being not less than the commercial quantity of cocaine, of which he had been found guilty, Keller was sentenced by Judge Urquhart to imprisonment for eight and a half years, commencing on 22 October 2003, with a non parole period of five years four months. For the offence of supplying a prohibited drug being not less than the commercial quantity of cocaine, of which Denholm had been found guilty by the jury, Denholm was sentenced by Judge Urquhart to imprisonment for six years, commencing on 22 October 2003, with a non-parole period of four years.
Having regard to the grounds of the application by the applicant for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him, it is convenient to summarise the history of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and, to some extent, his co-offenders.
The applicant was arrested on 20 June 2002 and was refused bail. He remained in custody until 20 December…

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 Purdie

Details

AGLC: R v Purdie [2005] NSWCCA 15
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 15
Decision Date: 1 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Purdie involved the defendant, Purdie, and the Crown. The dispute arose from Purdie's conviction for the supply of cocaine, a prohibited drug, in a quantity that was not less than the commercial amount. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Crown sought a sentence for Purdie that reflected the gravity of his offence, while Purdie argued for a lesser penalty, citing the disparity in sentences handed down to his co-offenders, as well as credit for the period he had spent in pre-sentence custody.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the disparity in sentences between Purdie and his co-offenders warranted a reduction in his sentence and whether Purdie was entitled to credit for the time he had spent in custody prior to his sentencing hearing. The court had to balance these considerations against the need to deter such offences and ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that while it was important to consider the disparity in sentences among co-offenders, it was not a decisive factor in determining the appropriate sentence for Purdie. The court found that the supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug was a serious offence that warranted a significant penalty. However, the court did grant Purdie credit for the period he had spent in pre-sentence custody, reducing his overall sentence by the appropriate amount. The court concluded that the sentence imposed on Purdie was appropriate and reflected both the seriousness of his offence and the mitigating factors present in this case.

The court ordered that Purdie be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reduced by the credit for the period of pre-sentence custody. The specific details of the sentence, including the length of imprisonment and any additional penalties, were not provided in the text.

Orders