R v Stead - [1999] NSWCCA 41

CITATION: Regina v Stead [1999] NSWCCA 41 revised - 19/03/99

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60313/98

HEARING DATE(S): 12/03/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 March 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Christian Stuart STEAD

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 39; Abadee J at 2; Adams J at 40

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0962

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Judge Viney QC

COUNSEL: W. G. Roser - Respondent
J. Conomos - Appellant

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Respondent
Swioft Yvonne & Burn - Appellant

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED: s 233(1)(cb) Customs Act (Cth)
s 16G Crimes Act (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Postiglione v The Queen (1996-1997) 189 CLR 295 per Dawson and Gaudron JJ at 302
Regina v Watson (CCA 18 September 1998
unreported)

DECISION: Leave to appeal the sentence is refused

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60313/98

SPIGELMAN CJ
ABADEE J
ADAMS J
FRIDAY 12 March 1999

REGINA v Christian Stuart STEAD

JUDGMENT
1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I will invite Abadee J to give the first judgment.
2 ABADEE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a sentence imposed upon him by Judge Viney QC in the District Court. On 17 December 1997, the applicant was arraigned before Judge Hosking QC with John Viana and Wayne Bonette and others to import into Australia not less than a commercial quantity of cocaine. The charges were brought pursuant to s 233(1)(cb) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The maximum penalty for breach of that section is imprisonment for life. The commercial quantity of the drug pursuant to schedule 6 of the Customs Act is two kilograms. The facts disclose that the conspiracy between the applicant, Viana and Bonette, was to import four (4) kilograms of cocaine.
3 On 1 June 1988 Judge Viney sentenced the applicant to a head sentence of ten years with a non-parole period of five years to commence on 25 June 1997.
4 In respect of the applicant several arguments have been advanced. First, that in view of his Honour's findings, a sentence of imprisonment of fifteen years was excessive. This should be explained as meaning this was the sentence first considered by his Honour before reductions under s 16G of the Crimes Act (Cth) were to be dealt with by his Honour. The applicant claims that his Honour should have started with less than fifteen years before applying the relevant reductions. He also argues that the sentence of ten years ultimately imposed was a very high sentence and not reflecting, amongst other things, the objective facts relating to the case.
5 Next it was submitted that having regard to the sentence of eighteen years imprisonment initially considered by his Honour as being appropriate in respect of the co-offender Bonette and the fifteen years imprisonment to which I have already made reference, that the eighteen years and fifteen years terms of imprisonment did not properly reflect the difference in the extent of the involvement of the applicant and Bonette in the commission of the offence. Thus…

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 Stead

Details

AGLC: Regina v Stead [1999] NSWCCA 41
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 41
Decision Date: 12 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Christian Stuart Stead sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by Judge Viney QC in the District Court. Stead was convicted of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of cocaine into Australia, in breach of the Customs Act. Judge Viney sentenced Stead to a head sentence of ten years with a non-parole period of five years. Stead argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate when compared to the sentences imposed on his co-conspirators.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered Stead's arguments and found that Judge Viney had properly assessed the objective facts and subjective factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court found that Judge Viney's initial consideration of a fifteen-year sentence for Stead was not erroneous, and that the ultimate sentence of ten years was not excessive when compared to the sentence imposed on co-conspirator Bonette. The Court found that the disparity in sentences between Stead and Bonette was justified due to Bonette's significant assistance to the police and prosecuting authorities.

The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Stead leave to appeal the sentence, holding that there was no error in Judge Viney's reasons for imposing the sentence. The order of the Court was that leave to appeal the sentence was refused.

Orders