Legal Research
Cases
R v Radford

R v Radford

Case [2002] NSWCCA 122 28 March 2002

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Radford [2002] NSWCCA 122

FILE NUMBER(S):
60714/00

HEARING DATE(S): 28 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 28/03/2002

PARTIES:
Regina v Stephen Charles Radford

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/31/0089

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coolahan DCJ

COUNSEL:
(A) P R Boulten
(C) D M L Woodburne

SOLICITORS:
(A) Brezniak Neil - Smith & Co
(R) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
Sentence; supplying heroin on an ongoing basis; applicant running a retail drug supply business trading in small quantities combination of facts and no compelling objective features; reliance on hearsay material in reports; no evidence of prime facts from applicant and no sufficient evidence as to other matters; importance of quality evidence; sentences not excessive

LEGISLATION CITED:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

DECISION:
Leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60714/00

STUDDERT J
SMART AJ

Thursday, 28 March 2002
REGINA v STEPHEN CHARLES RADFORD
JUDGMENT

SMART AJ: Mr Radford appeals against the alleged severity of a sentence of six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years six months for the offence of supplying a prohibited drug (heroin) on an ongoing basis (count 1) and concurrent sentences of a fixed term of 18 months imprisonment on each of two counts of knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (heroin) (counts 5 and 6). The applicant was convicted and sentenced consequent upon the jury’s verdict after a trial lasting three days in the District Court.

In this Court most attention was concentrated on the sentence of six years imprisonment and the ongoing offence under s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

The applicant was the subject of an authorised police undercover operation. The facts are summarised chronologically. On 7 December 1999 the undercover operative went to the applicant’s home at Tighes Hill. The applicant opened the door and appeared to be extremely affected by drugs. A female named Karlee was also there. The applicant produced a small plastic cup which was overflowing with foils and asked the operative how many she wanted. She said, "Two”, handed over money and was given two foils containing 0.39 grams of heroin. This was the first instance of the ongoing offence under s 25A.

Pursuant to an arrangement which the operative made by telephone, she visited the applicant’s premises on 8 December 1999. She saw the applicant in the living room. Karlee who was also there, asked “How many do you want?” The operative replied “two”. Both the applicant and Karlee went into another room, were there for a short time and then Karlee came back and handed the operative two foils of heroin in exchange for money. These facts were the subject of count 5.

On 9 December 1999 the operative again arranged to visit the applicant’s home. The female driver of a Ford Meteor sedan pulled up outside the premises and…

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 Radford

Details

AGLC: R v Radford [2002] NSWCCA 122
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 122
Decision Date: 28 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the applicant, who was convicted of supplying heroin on an ongoing basis, running a retail drug supply business. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it was excessive and disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the applicant's role in the drug supply business.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive or disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court also had to consider the applicant's argument that the trial judge relied on hearsay material in the reports and that there was no evidence of the prime facts from the applicant. Furthermore, the court had to examine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the other matters that the trial judge considered in determining the sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not excessive or disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court found that the trial judge had considered the appropriate matters in determining the sentence and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence. The court also noted that the applicant had run a retail drug supply business, which involved the supply of heroin on an ongoing basis. The court held that the applicant's role in the drug supply business was a significant aggravating factor in determining the sentence. Furthermore, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the other matters that the trial judge considered in determining the sentence. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the trial judge relied on hearsay material in the reports, holding that the trial judge had appropriately considered the evidence before him.

The court dismissed the applicant's appeal against sentence. The original sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld.

Orders