R v Spillane - [1999] NSWCCA 280

CITATION: R v Spillane [1999] NSWCCA 280

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60830 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 09/09/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 September 1999

PARTIES :

Michael Thomas Spillane (applicant)
Regina (respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J at 1; Simpson J at 2; Hidden J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Mahoney DCJ

COUNSEL: C B Craigie (applicant)
F Veltro (respondent)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission (applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - importation of trafficable quantity of ecstasy - courier - process of arriving at sentence - evaluation of assistance to police - assessment of ecstasy as middle range drug - range of sentence for offences of this kind.

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act (Cth)

CASES CITED:
R v Bowers (1997) 97 ACrim R 461
R v Doan (CCA unreported 27 September 1996)
R v Bourel (CCA unreported 11 December 1998)
R v Hauser (CCA unreported 11 December 1997)
R v Budiman (1998) 102 ACrim R 411
R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 448
R v Bushell (CCA unreported 7 August 1998)
R v Dizel (CCA unreported 23 August 1996)
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220.

DECISION: Appeal allowed; sentence reduced.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60830/98

NEWMAN J
SIMPSON J
HIDDEN J

THURSDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 1999

REGINA v Michael Thomas SPILLANE

JUDGMENT

1     NEWMAN J: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons and orders proposed by Hidden J and I agree with them.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60830/98

NEWMAN J
SIMPSON J

HIDDEN J

16 September 1999

REGINA v Michael Thomas SPILLANE

Judgment
2     SIMPSON J : I agree with the orders proposed by Justice Hidden and with his reasons therefor.

* * * * * * * * * *

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60830/98

NEWMAN J
SIMPSON J
HIDDEN J

Thursday, 16 September 1999

Regina v Michael Thomas Spillane

Reasons for judgment
3     HIDDEN J: The applicant, Michael Thomas Spillane, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him at the Sydney District Court upon a charge of importing a trafficable quantity of ecstasy. He was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years to date from the date of his arrest, 21 June 1998, with a non-parole period of four years and eight months.

Facts

4     The applicant is an Irish national, now 44 years of age, who had been living in London. On 21 June 1998 he arrived in this country on a Singapore Airlines flight, carrying a suitcase. The suitcase was searched by Customs officers, who found five packets of white tablets hidden inside a cushion. Later examination established that there were 5,686 tablets, with a gross weight of 1,706gm and an MDMA (ecstasy) content of 447.3gm. That quantity is high in the trafficable range, the commercial quantity being 500gm.
5     When spoken to by Customs officers the applicant appeared to be well affected by alcohol. To the Customs officers he denied that the suitcase was his, as…

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 Spillane

Details

AGLC: R v Spillane [1999] NSWCCA 280
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 280
Decision Date: 16 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Spillane involved the defendant, Spillane, who was convicted for the importation of a trafficable quantity of ecstasy. The matter was heard in the court, which was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. The primary legal issues centred around the process by which the court should arrive at a sentence, the evaluation of Spillane’s assistance to the police, the classification of ecstasy as a middle range drug, and the typical sentencing range for offences of this nature.

The court began by considering the assistance provided by Spillane to the police, which was a significant mitigating factor. It examined whether this assistance warranted a reduction in sentence. The classification of ecstasy as a middle range drug was another critical aspect, as it influenced the severity of the sentence. The court also needed to ensure that the sentence was commensurate with the nature of the offence and aligned with the sentencing guidelines for similar offences.

In its reasoning, the court balanced the mitigating factor of assistance to the police against the gravity of the offence. It found that while Spillane had provided some assistance, it was not sufficient to warrant a significant reduction in sentence. The court categorised ecstasy as a middle range drug, which helped to situate the sentence within an appropriate range. The court concluded that the sentence should reflect both the nature of the offence and the degree of assistance provided. The final orders reflected this balance, resulting in a sentence that was neither excessively lenient nor unduly harsh.

Orders