R v Quansah - [2000] NSWCCA 64

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v QUANSAH [2000] NSWCCA 64

FILE NUMBER(S):
60638/99

HEARING DATE(S): 10/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 31/03/2000

PARTIES:
REGINA v Sonny QUANSAH

JUDGMENT OF: Fitzgerald JA Abadee J Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0435

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Williams DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: M Ierace
Respondent: P Boulten

SOLICITORS:
Crown: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Noyce Lawyers

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - sentencing - importation of cocaine

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
See para 31.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60638/99

FITZGERALD JA
ABADEE J
BARR J

Friday, 31 March 2000

REGINA v Sonny QUANSAH

JUDGMENT

FITZGERALD JA: I agree with Barr J.

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60638/99
FITZGERALD JA
ABADEE J
BARR J

Friday, 31 March 2000

REGINA v Sonny QUANSAH
JUDGMENT

ABADEE J: I agree with the orders proposed by Barr J.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60638/99

FITZGERALD JA
ABADEE J
BARR J

Friday, 31 March 2000

REGINA v Sonny QUANSAH

JUDGMENT

BARR J: This is a Crown appeal against what is said to be the inadequacy of a sentence imposed on the respondent in the District Court. On 23 July 1999 the respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of importing into Australia not less than the trafficable quantity of cocaine. On 28 September 1999 Williams DCJ sentenced him to four years and eight months’ imprisonment, commencing on 10 June 1999, the day of his arrest, and fixed a non-parole period of two years six months.
The maximum penalty for the offence is twenty-five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $100,000 or both.
On 10 June 1999 the respondent arrived at Sydney Kingsford Smith airport on a flight from Tahiti. In his luggage was a wooden statue containing 2.985 kilograms of a cocaine mixture, the equivalent of 643.7 grams of pure cocaine.
The respondent was taken into police custody and admitted that the statue contained narcotics but declined to specify what sort. He denied concealing the drug. He said that he had purchased the statue near Santiago with the drugs already packed and hidden within it. He said the drugs were solely for his own use. Later on he admitted that the contents were cocaine and said that he had paid $2,000 for the statue and had been told at the time of purchase that it contained one to one and a half kilograms. He repeated that it was for his own use.
He had on him a business card which bore what was apparently the name of an organisation, Seguel Holdings. It contained his name and a description as sales director together with a Maroubra post office box number and a mobile telephone number.
The respondent also possessed a Commonwealth Bank keycard issued in the name of Mr D Seguel.
Police officers were unable to find a listing of Seguel Holdings as a company or a business name or to identify any business actually trading under that name.…

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 Quansah

Details

AGLC: R v Quansah [2000] NSWCCA 64
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 64
Decision Date: 31 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Quansah arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant, Quansah, was convicted of importing cocaine into Australia. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed following Quansah's conviction, with the prosecution arguing for a significant custodial sentence and the defence advocating for a lesser sentence due to mitigating circumstances. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, balancing the gravity of the offence against any mitigating factors presented.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate quantum of sentence in the context of Quansah's importation of a substantial quantity of cocaine. The court had to consider various statutory provisions and judicial precedents regarding sentencing for drug importation offences. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including Quansah's personal circumstances and the degree of his involvement in the offence.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the serious nature of drug importation, highlighting the significant social harm caused by such activities. The court noted Quansah's substantial involvement in the importation, including his role in the logistics of the operation. However, the court also acknowledged mitigating factors such as Quansah's otherwise good character and his limited criminal history. Ultimately, the court found that while the offence was grave, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that was not the maximum available. The court imposed a custodial sentence that balanced the need for deterrence with the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court were that Quansah be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years, reflecting the court's assessment of the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating factors. The sentence was to commence immediately, with Quansah having the right to appeal the decision within the prescribed timeframe.

Orders