R v S

Case [2000] NSWCCA 13 24 February 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 111 A Crim R 225

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v "S" [2000] NSWCCA 13

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60376/99

HEARING DATE(S): 07/12/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 February 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
"S"

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Hulme J at 2; Barr J at 38

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Dodd DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: M Grogan
Respondent: J Korn

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor

DECISION: 1. The appeal by the Crown is allowed; 2. The sentence imposed by Judge Dodd on the Respondent on 15 June 1999 is quashed; 3. In lieu thereof, the Respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum term of 3 years commencing on 15 June 1999 and expiring on 14 June 2002 and an additional term of 1 year commencing on 15 June 2002 and expiring on 14 June 2003

- 16 -
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No 60376 of 1999

DUNFORD J
HULME J
BARR J
Thursday, 24 February 2000

REGINA -v- S

JUDGMENT
1    DUNFORD J: I agree with the Reasons of Hulme J and the orders proposed by His Honour.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No 60376 of 1999

DUNFORD J
HULME J
BARR J
Thursday, 24 February 2000
REGINA -v- S
JUDGMENT
2 HULME J: On 15 June 1999 the Respondent to this appeal was sentenced by Judge Dodd to imprisonment for 3 years consisting of a minimum term of 18 months commencing on that date and an additional term of 18 months. The sentencing judge directed that the Prisoner be released on parole subject to the conditions set forth in Form 1 to the Schedule to the Sentencing (General) Regulation 1996 at the expiration of the minimum term. The charge in respect of which the sentence was imposed was that between 1 December 1995 and 30 June 1996 the Prisoner knowingly took part in the manufacture of not less than a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug namely, amphetamine. He pleaded guilty.
3    By Notice of Appeal filed and served on 5 July 1999 the Crown has appealed from the sentence imposed.
4    The manufacture the subject of the charge occurred at Dooralong and, after the laboratory there was raided by the police, at Sylvania Waters. The Respondent was involved in the organisation and transport of equipment and chemicals to Dooralong, the commencement of the manufacturing process there and the recruitment of others to assist in that regard. When problems occurred in the manufacture, the Respondent again attended the site.
5    So far as the second site and manufacture was concerned, the Respondent was involved in the storage of chemicals and equipment, the transhipment of some chemicals and regular attendance at the premises to monitor and assist. The Respondent himself manufactured at least one of the items of equipment.
6    One unusual feature of the case was that the Respondent had previously been charged in respect of the manufacture at…

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 S

Details

AGLC: R v S [2000] NSWCCA 13
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 13
Decision Date: 24 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v S, the Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to manufacturing a large commercial quantity of amphetamine. The District Court sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for 3 years, with a minimum term of 18 months and an additional term of 18 months. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the sentence manifestly inadequate. The appeal court noted that the respondent's involvement in the drug manufacturing operation was significant, and the offence was his second, committed while on bail for another drug-related charge. The court also found that the respondent had provided valuable assistance to the authorities, for which a 50% discount was applied to the sentence. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the discount and the special circumstances did not justify the length of the additional term. The court increased the minimum term to 3 years and reduced the additional term to 1 year, resulting in a total sentence of 4 years. The court left the matter of parole to the discretion of the parole authorities.

Orders