Legal Research
Cases
R v Speechly

R v Speechly

Case [2002] NSWCCA 300 26 July 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 133 A Crim R 26

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v SPEECHLEY [2002] NSWCCA 300

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60546/01

HEARING DATE(S): 8 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 July 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Warren Speechley

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Hulme J at 2; Hidden J at 52

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Finnane DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: GJ Bellew
Respondent: D Dalton

SOLICITORS: Crown: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: John B Hajje & Associates

DECISION: See paragraph 51

- 20 -IN THE COURT OF

60546/01
MASON P
HULME J
HIDDEN J

Friday, 26 July 2002

R v Warren SPEECHLEY

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with Hulme J.

2 HULME J: On 24 July last the Respondent to this Crown appeal was sentenced by Judge Finnane QC in respect of a charge under Section 233B(1)(ca) of the Customs Act, 1901 of being in possession of a prohibited import, viz. a trafficable quantity of cocaine. He had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The weight of pure cocaine was 208.9gms. Although his Honour did not refer to the fact, there was uncontested evidence before him that the estimated street value of cocaine was $200 per gram. Taken into account was an offence under Section 82(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1987 (Cth) of possession of a sum of $19,900, reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of a crime.

3 A trafficable quantity of cocaine covers the range of in excess of 2, to 2,000 grams. Pursuant to s235 of the Act, the maximum penalty prescribed for the Respondent’s offence is imprisonment for 25 years and/or a fine of $100,000 although because of the sentencing regime in New South Wales and Section 16G of the Crimes Act (Cth) the effective maximum period of imprisonment is about 16½ to 17 years – see the cases cited in R v Spiteri [1999] NSWCCA 3 at [13]. Had the quantity been less than 2 grams the maximum penalty would have been imprisonment for 2 years (similarly adjusted) and a fine of $2,000.

4 The sentence imposed on the Respondent was one of imprisonment for a period of 4 years and 6 months, including a non-parole period of 2 years, both such periods commencing on the date of the Respondent’s arrest, namely 1 November 2000.

5 It appears that the Respondent came to the notice of the authorities as a participant in telephone conversations with another person whose calls were being monitored. On 1 November 2000 police attended the Respondent’s premises and executed a search warrant. They found in a garden shed, a sock containing the sum of $19,900 cash and in his bedroom cupboard, 19 clip seal bags and 2 other bags containing cocaine. The Respondent was present during the search and both then and during a formal ERISP later acknowledged that what was found in the bags was cocaine and that the money was…

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 Speechly

Details

AGLC: R v Speechly [2002] NSWCCA 300
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 300
Decision Date: 26 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Speechley, the respondent, Warren Speechley, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court for being in possession of a trafficable quantity of cocaine and possession of a sum of money reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of a crime. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and allowed the appeal. The Court identified several errors in the sentencing process, including the failure to give weight to the nature and extent of the respondent's involvement in drug dealing activities, and the inappropriate discount for the respondent's plea. The Court also found that the non-parole period was manifestly inadequate. In light of these errors, the Court decided to re-sentence the respondent. The new sentence was set at 7 years of imprisonment, including a non-parole period of 4 years. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that sentences imposed for deliberate and calculated wrongdoing, particularly in the field of drugs, are of a nature calculated to deter such conduct.

Orders