CITATION: R v SCIBERRAS [2006] NSWCCA 268

HEARING DATE(S): 31 July 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 September 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; Hislop J at 80

DECISION: See paragraph 79

PARTIES: Regina
Carmel Sciberras

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/795

COUNSEL: Crown: C Williams
Respondent: Mr Haesler SC

SOLICITORS: Crown: S Kavanagh
Respondent: S O'Connor

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/21/3193

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sides DCJ

- 1 -

2006/795

BEAZLEY JA
HULME J
HISLOP J

Regina v Carmel SCIBERRAS

Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Hulme J.

2 HULME J: On 16 February 2006 the Respondent to this Crown appeal pleaded guilty to 4 charges, viz:-

(i) That between 24 August and 10 September 2004 he did, on 3 or more separate occasions supply a prohibited drug for reward, namely methylamphetamine and 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine,

(ii) That between 29 July 2004 and 12 January 2005 he supplied a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine being in an amount greater than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine,

(iii) That between 29 July 2004 and 12 January 2005 he supplied a prohibited drug, namely cannabis, and

(iv) That between 30 July and 12 January 2005 he supplied a prohibited drug, namely 3,4 methylenedioxymethyl-amphetamine being in an amount greater than a commercial quantity of 3,4 methylenedioxymethyl-amphetamine

3 3,4 methylenedioxymethyamphetamine is commonly known as ecstasy.

4 All offences arose pursuant to the Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act. The first, arising under s25A, rendered the Respondent liable to imprisonment for 20 years. The second, arising under s25(2), also rendered the Respondent liable to imprisonment for 20 years. A “commercial quantity” of methylamphetamine included quantities in the range of 250 to just under 1,000 grams. Had the quantity been somewhat less than 250 grams the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed would have been 15 years.

5 The third offence, arising under s25(1), rendered the Respondent liable to imprisonment for 10 years. Had the quantity been somewhat less than 1000 grams and the prosecution or Respondent not elected to have the matter dealt with on indictment, the maximum period of imprisonment would have been 2 years. Had the quantity been between 25 kg and 100 kg, the maximum penalty would have been 15 years imprisonment.

6 The fourth offence, also arising under s25(2), rendered the Respondent liable to imprisonment for 20 years. A “commercial quantity” of 3,4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine included quantities in the range of 125 to just under 500 grams. Had the quantity been somewhat less than 125 grams the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed would have been 15 years.

7 It is also to be noted that for an offence of supplying a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine or 3,4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine and which lies in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for such an offence, a standard non-parole period of 10 years has been prescribed albeit the decision of this Court…

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 Sciberras

Details

AGLC: R v Sciberras [2006] NSWCCA 268
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 268
Decision Date: 5 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Carmel Sciberras, the Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentences imposed by Judge Sides in the District Court for multiple drug supply offences. Carmel Sciberras had pleaded guilty to four charges of drug supply, with the offences occurring between 2004 and 2005. The Crown appealed against the sentences on the grounds that they were manifestly inadequate and failed to consider the objective seriousness of the offences. The appeal was heard on 31 July 2006, and the judgment was delivered on 5 September 2006 by Beazley JA, Hulme J, and Hislop J.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the adequacy of the sentences imposed for the drug supply offences. The Crown argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate, did not reflect the objective seriousness of the offences, and failed to consider the standard non-parole periods prescribed by law. The Court needed to determine whether the sentences imposed by Judge Sides were appropriate and whether the Crown's appeal should be allowed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentences imposed by Judge Sides were manifestly inadequate. The Court held that the sentences did not adequately reflect the objective seriousness of the offences and failed to consider the standard non-parole periods prescribed by law. The Court noted that the quantities of drugs supplied were substantial, and the Respondent's involvement in the drug trade was significant. The Court also found that the sentences did not adequately account for the cumulative effect of the multiple drug supply offences.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the sentences imposed by Judge Sides on counts 2 and 4, and imposed new sentences. The Court confirmed the sentences imposed by Judge Sides on counts 1 and 3. On count 2, the Court sentenced the Respondent to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 6 years and a balance of term of 2 years. On count 4, the Court sentenced the Respondent to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 5 years and a balance of term of 3 years. The Court also recorded that the Respondent would first be eligible for parole on 11 July 2012.

Orders