Legal Research
Cases
R v Skorin

R v Skorin

Case [2005] NSWCCA 276 11 August 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Regina v Skorin [2005] NSWCCA 276

HEARING DATE(S): 14/06/05

JUDGMENT DATE:

11 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
James J at 1; Howie J at 54; Rothman J at 55

DECISION:
Crown appeal against sentence allowed. Respondent re-sentenced

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - crown appeal - offence of knowingly taking part in the cultivation of not less than a large commercial quantity of cannabis plants - guilty plea - assistance provided by the respondent - the respondent was not at the lowest level of the organisation but was, at least, at some intermediate level - whether sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Criminal Appeal Act
Criminal Procedure Act
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act

CASES CITED:
R v O'Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397
R v Khouzame [2000] NSWCCA 505
R v Mills [2005] NSWCCA 175
R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42

PARTIES:
Regina v Blaz SKORIN

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/901

COUNSEL:
Ms VJ Lydiard - Crown
AJ Bellanto QC - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh - Crown
Uther Webster & Evans - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/11/1053

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Puckeridge DCJ

2005/901 CCAP

JAMES J
HOWIE J
ROTHMAN J
Thursday 11 August 2005

R v BLAZ SKORIN

Judgment

1 JAMES J: This is an appeal by the Crown pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act against a sentence imposed on the respondent Blaz Skorin (also known as Bill Skorin) in the District Court on 31 March 2005 by his Honour Judge Puckeridge QC for an offence, to which the respondent had pleaded guilty, of knowingly taking part between 1 June 2002 and 18 March 2003 in the cultivation of not less than a large commercial quantity of cannabis plants.

2 Judge Puckeridge sentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment of two years two months, with a non-parole period of one year (or, more accurately, slightly less than one year) commencing on 31 March 2005 and expiring on the 27 March 2006. The respondent had been arrested on the 17 December 2003 but had been released on bail on 19 December 2003 and had remained at liberty on bail until he was sentenced. Judge Puckeridge ordered that the non-parole period of the sentence he was imposing should expire on 27 March 2006, so as to take into account the discrete period of three days of pre-sentence custody. Judge Puckeridge sentenced the respondent in accordance with the repealed s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, because the period within which the offence had been committed had commenced prior to 1 February 2003.

3 Pursuant to Div 7 of Pt 3 of Ch 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act Judge Puckeridge also sentenced the respondent on a back-up charge of possessing an unregistered firearm, which was a .177 calibre air rifle. On this charge the respondent was sentenced to the rising of the Court. No complaint was made against this sentence on the hearing of this…

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 Skorin

Details

AGLC: R v Skorin [2005] NSWCCA 276
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 276
Decision Date: 11 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Skorin, the respondent, Skorin, was convicted of knowingly participating in the cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis plants. The appeal was brought by the Crown, challenging the sentence imposed on Skorin. The matter was heard and determined in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate given Skorin's role in the cultivation operation, which was at least at an intermediate level within the organisation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Skorin's involvement in the cannabis cultivation operation, as well as the principles of sentencing and the appropriate punishment for such an offence. The Crown submitted that Skorin's role warranted a harsher sentence than that imposed by the trial judge, while the respondent contended that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the seriousness of Skorin's involvement in the cannabis cultivation operation. The court noted that Skorin was not at the lowest level of the organisation but held at least an intermediate position, which involved a significant degree of planning, organisation, and control. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and remitted the matter to the County Court for resentencing. The court emphasised the importance of considering the offender's role and the gravity of the offence when determining an appropriate sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be upheld, and the matter be remitted to the County Court for resentencing. The court provided no specific guidance on the appropriate sentence but left it to the County Court to impose a sentence that reflected the seriousness of Skorin's involvement in the cannabis cultivation operation.

Orders