R v Saba - [2006] NSWCCA 214

CITATION: Regina v Saba [2006] NSWCCA 214
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 12 July 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Kirby J at 32; Hoeben J at 42

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 07/12/2006

DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed.; (2) Sentences imposed by McGuire DCJ quashed.; (3) In lieu thereof the prisoner is sentenced on the first count, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, to a sentence of three years to commence on 24 June 2005 and expire on 23 June 2008 with a non-parole period of 18 months to commence on 24 June 2005, and expire on 23 December 2006.; (4) On counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 the prisoner is sentenced to two years imprisonment to commence on 24 June 2005 and expire on 23 June 2007, with a non-parole period of 12 months to commence on 24 June 2005 and expire on 23 June 2006.; (5) All sentences are to be concurrent with each other and with the sentence imposed on the first count.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL APPEAL – sentencing – Crown appeal – wholesale drug dealer – rehabilitation – full-time custody on remand – sentence of periodic detention – appeal allowed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CASES CITED: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Betwell (NSWCCA, 4 December 1990, unreported)
R v Cacciola (1998) 104 A Crim R 178
R v Carrion (2002) 49 NSWLR 149
R v Clarke (NSWCCA, 15 March 1990, unreported)
R v Thompson (NSWCCA, 4 April 1991, unreported)

PARTIES: Regina
Ronnie Saba

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/746

COUNSEL: P Ingram - Crown
P Dailly - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) - Crown
Shad Partners - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0857

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McGuire DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16 March 2006

2006/746 CCAP

HANDLEY JA
KIRBY J
HOEBEN J
12 JULY 2006

REGINA v RONNIE SABA

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL APPEAL – sentencing – Crown appeal – wholesale drug dealer – rehabilitation – full-time custody on remand – sentence of periodic detention – appeal allowed

FACTS

The prisoner pleaded guilty to all five counts on the indictment of supplying illegal drugs and another five matters on a Form 1. He had been engaged in the supply of substantial quantities of several illegal drugs of considerable value over a number of suburbs in Sydney. The trial Judge imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months on each count with non-parole periods of 12 months to be served by way of periodic detention. In his reasons for judgment, the Judge noted the prisoner had promptly submitted to rehabilitation and this had been successful. His Honour further noted the matters on the Form 1 and said that he had taken these matters into consideration on the first count. The prisoner had…

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 Saba

Details

AGLC: R v Saba [2006] NSWCCA 214
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 214
Decision Date: 12/07/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saba involved the appellant who had been convicted of drug-related offences. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which was a term of periodic detention instead of full-time custody. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in imposing a sentence that did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a sentence that was lenient given the gravity of the appellant's criminal conduct. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences, nor did it adequately address the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and whether the trial judge had given sufficient weight to these considerations.

In determining the appeal, the court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in imposing a sentence that was unduly lenient. The court held that the appellant's criminal conduct was of a serious nature, involving the wholesale supply of drugs. The court further found that the sentence imposed did not adequately address the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. As a result, the Crown's appeal was allowed, and the court substituted a sentence of full-time custody on remand.

The final orders of the court were that the original sentence of periodic detention was set aside, and a sentence of full-time custody on remand was imposed. This decision emphasised the need for sentencing to reflect the gravity of the offence and to adequately address the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders