PARTIES: Regina (Appellant) Ryan RIDDELL (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA Blanch J Howie J
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/11/0324
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Finnane DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 26 September 2008
COUNSEL: W Abraham QC (Appellant) R Richter QC (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) Gregory J Goold (Respondent)
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL – sentencing – appeal against the inadequacy of sentence – criminal acts performed under the threat of duress – does not negative the need to impose a sentence that reflects general deterrence CRIMINAL – sentencing – two offences involving different quantities of the same drug – relevance of quantity of drug to sentencing
TEXTS CITED: R G Fox and A Freiberg, “Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria”, (1999) Oxford University Press.
DECISION: 1 Appeal allowed; 2. Set aside the orders made by Finnane DCJ on 26 September 2009 and impose the following sentences: Count 1: A sentence…
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 Riddell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Riddell [2009] NSWCCA 96
Case
[2009] NSWCCA 96
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Riddell involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentences imposed on the respondent, a Canadian national, who was found guilty of drug trafficking offences. The respondent had imported cocaine into Australia concealed in car ballasts sent from Canada. The court had to decide whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were adequate and whether the quantity of the drug should influence the sentencing.
The legal issues before the court included the adequacy of the sentences imposed, considering the respondent’s actions were performed under duress, and the relevance of the quantity of the drug in the sentencing process. The court had to determine whether duress negated the need for a sentence that reflected general deterrence, and whether the quantity of the drug was a relevant factor in sentencing for two separate offences.
The court held that the sentences imposed were inadequate and that duress did not negate the need for a sentence reflecting general deterrence. The quantity of the drug was a relevant factor to be considered in sentencing for two separate offences. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences were quashed and replaced with sentences of imprisonment. The final orders included sentences of imprisonment for the respondent, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
The Crown appealed against the sentences imposed.Facts of the offences The respondent is a Canadian national, who arrived in Australia on 10 March 2007 on a six month visa. On 4 June 2007, three consignments of goods were sent from Canada to Australia using the consignment agency UPS. Each consignment was addressed to “R RIDDELL, Riddell Motorsports”. A mobile phone number and an address in Cronulla were specified. The Consignor was from British Columbia. “Riddell Motorsports” was a non-existent entity and the mobile telephone number was a pre-paid number which was subscribed through Vodafone on 22 April 2001 to a person likely to be a non-existent person. On 8 June 2007, a UPS delivery driver attempted to deliver the three consignments to the given address at Cronulla, by pressing the security intercom. The driver was not a regular delivery driver. No one responded and the driver returned to the UPS depot with the consignments. The consignments were subsequently seized by the Australian Federal Police (the AFP). On examination, each consignment contained cocaine secreted into a car ballast pit. The cocaine was removed by the AFP and replaced by a substitute substance. On 15 June 2007, pursuant to a controlled operation order, an AFP officer, posing as a UPS delivery driver, telephoned the mobile number specified as part of the consignee’s address and spoke to the respondent. Arrangements were made between the AFP officer and the respondent for delivery of the three parcels to the respondent in the car park at the Cronulla address. The respondent accepted delivery of the consignments, signed a receipt for them and loaded the packages into his motor vehicle. Later that morning, the respondent placed the three packages in a Kennards Self Storage Facility at Moore Park. The respondent had rented that storage facility in his own name, but had provided a non-existent address. Shortly thereafter, the respondent travelled to Sydney International Airport, to change his return air ticket to Canada, which was ticketed for 5 September 2007, to a ticket on the next available flight. His flight was changed to the following morning, that is 16 June 2007, at 7.35 am. The respondent was arrested as he attempted to depart Sydney on that flight. At the time of the respondent’s arrest, a mobile telephone with the same number as the consignment; $AUD6,500; the keys to access the Cronulla unit; and a padlock key to another storage unit at Kennards Self Storage, Tempe, were found on him. The AFP conducted a search of the Cronulla unit, the motor vehicle the respondent had hired and the Moore Park storage unit. They found the three consignments delivered to him by the AFP on 15 June 2007 within the storage unit, and in the boot of his motor vehicle found styrofoam packing identical to that used in the consignments. On 3 July 2007, the AFP conducted a search of the Kennards storage unit at Tempe, where they located, relevantly, the following items:(1)a padlock securing the storage unit, the key to which was in the respondent’s possession at the time of his arrest;(2)twelve 1 kg compressed blocks of white powder in a blue sports bag;(3) a number of empty identical sports bags;(4) seventy two dismantled car ballast bars;(5)three garbage bags containing styrofoam packing identical to that used in the consignments and the rear boot of the respondent’s motor vehicle;(6)nine white cardboard boxes, some of which contained the consignments, with the exception of an area on the boxes the approximate size of the airway bill and shipping sticker, which had been cut and torn away;(7)four UPS shipping stickers showing signs of being torn from the white cardboard backings all addressed to “R RIDDELL, Riddell Motorsports”;(8)tools consistent with those required to dismantle the consignments and retrieve the drugs;(9)a Kennards’ lease agreement signed in the name of Ryan Riddell, with a false address;(10) a set of electronic scales; and(11) cocaine on all surfaces throughout the premises.