R v Sansone - [2015] SASCFC 168

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v SANSONE
[2015] SASCFC 168
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable Justice Sulan, The Honourable Justice Peek and The Honourable Justice Nicholson)
16 November 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - OTHER MATTERS
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - OTHER MATTERS
Appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to administering a drug to his former partner. He was sentenced to 10 months, one week and five days' imprisonment. The sentencing Judge had reduced the head sentence she would have imposed by two months for time the appellant had spent in custody.
The two-month period taken into account for time spent in custody was in fact five months and nine days. Counsel had misinformed the Judge. The prosecution conceded that the appellant had been sentenced on an incorrect factual basis.
Held, allowing the appeal (the Court):
1. The sentence is set aside. The Court proceeds on the basis that the head sentence of 12 months, one week and five days, before taking into account time spent in custody, was correct.
2. The appellant is re-sentenced to 12 months, one week and five days' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven months' imprisonment. The sentence and non-parole period are backdated to 29 April 2015.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 33I(1)(a); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 9A, referred to.

R v SANSONE
[2015] SASCFC 168
Court of Criminal Appeal: Sulan, Peek and Nicholson JJ

THE COURT: This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to administering a drug to his former partner, contrary to s 33I(1)(a) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years, or both. On 8 October 2015, the appellant was sentenced to 10 months, one week and five days’ imprisonment. He has appealed against the sentence.
The history of the matter is that on 21 February 2015, the appellant was at home with his partner and two young children, aged 8 and 2, both of whom were asleep. The appellant and his partner are both users of illicit drugs.
The appellant’s partner asked him to mix a shot of methylamphetamine which she intended to inject. The appellant administered a quantity of the methylamphetamine intravenously to himself. His partner, who had administered some methylamphetamine to herself, was attempting to inject herself to administer a further quantity of the drug. According to the appellant, she was having difficulty in finding a vein. He offered to help her and did so by injecting the drug for her.
The appellant’s partner began to react in a bizarre way. Neighbours called an ambulance. As a consequence, the appellant was charged with the offence to which he pleaded guilty.
The appellant has a supportive family. In 2007, he suffered a brain aneurism…

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 Sansone

Details

AGLC: R v Sansone [2015] SASCFC 168
Case: [2015] SASCFC 168
Decision Date: 16 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Sansone* concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the applicant, Sansone, before the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The applicant had been convicted of a number of drug offences, including the supply of a prohibited drug, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing the sentence that was ultimately handed down. Specifically, the applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the circumstances of the offending, the applicant's personal circumstances, and the objective seriousness of the drug offences.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, including the limited grounds upon which an appellate court will interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial judge. Their Honours reviewed the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, including submissions regarding the applicant's role in the drug supply, his prior criminal record, and any mitigating factors. The Court applied established sentencing principles, balancing the need for punishment and deterrence against considerations of rehabilitation and proportionality.

Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was not demonstrably excessive or unjust in the circumstances of the case.

Orders