R v T - [2000] NSWCCA 266

CITATION: Regina v Robertson [2000] NSWCCA 266

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60841/99

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 14 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 July 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Hayden Robert Robertson

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 12; Grove J at 2; Bergin J at 13

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0413

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Viney DCJ

COUNSEL : R. Sutherland (Crown/Applicant)
C.J. Watson (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP (Crown/Applicant)
Carnone Anderson (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Sentence - Import of Drugs - Ecstasy - Minor Role as "Postbox" - Asserted Inadequacy - Sentence of Periodic Detention Within Discretionary Bounds in Exceptional Circumstances of the Case

DECISION: Crown Appeal Dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60841/99

MEAGHER JA
GROVE J
BERGIN J

Friday 14 July 2000

REGINA v HAYDEN ROBERT ROBERTSON

JUDGMENT

1    MEAGHER JA: The Court is in a position is to give judgment. I ask Grove J to give the first judgment.

2    GROVE J: This is a Crown appeal asserting inadequacy of sentence imposed on the respondent for an offence of being knowingly concerned in the importation of a prohibited import. That prohibited import was the drug Methyldioxin Methylamphetamine, commonly known as ecstasy. The learned sentencing judge imposed upon the respondent a sentence which effectively required him to serve three years periodic detention, suspended after one year. The expression of the sentence was in the somewhat awkward language required by the Commonwealth Crimes Act but, that said, this was the practical effect.

3    The respondent was a young man aged 22 years. He has no previous convictions. The facts of the matter were relatively unremarkable. The respondent was in the habit of partaking of marijuana from time to time. He apparently began to do this as a result of contact with that drug whilst in a boarding school in Western Australia. He was attending that school as his parents were overseas in connection with his father's employment. He had left home and was residing in a flat with his fiancee Holly Ferguson, to whom later reference will be made. In order to obtain his supplies of marijuana he came into contact with a man called Capper. It appears Capper is a man whose interests in drugs are well known in the northern beaches area of Sydney. Apparently whilst the respondent was under the influence of marijuana, Capper put to him a proposition he would in effect act as a post box for material to arrive from overseas. The respondent later admitted that he knew drugs were involved although it is plain that he did not know precisely what drugs or the quantities involved. What happened was that mail addressed to a fictitious name was collected by the respondent and his fiancee, Holly Ferguson. Upon its receipt they placed it in a vehicle and were on their way to deliver it to Capper. There has been some submission to the court as to whether as a matter of categorisation that activity should…

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 T

Details

AGLC: R v T [2000] NSWCCA 266
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 266
Decision Date: 14 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v T was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, T, was found guilty of importing drugs, specifically ecstasy, and was sentenced to periodic detention. The nature of the dispute centred on the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the lower court, with T asserting that the sentence was inappropriate given the minor role they played in the drug importation scheme.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence of periodic detention was within the discretionary bounds of the sentencing judge and whether the exceptional circumstances of the case warranted a different sentence. The court had to consider the role of T in the importation scheme and the broader principles of sentencing for drug offences.

In examining the matter, the court recognised the defendant's role as a minor participant, acting as a "postbox" for the drugs. Despite this, the court determined that the sentence imposed was within the discretionary range of the sentencing judge. The court further held that the exceptional circumstances of the case, including the defendant's role, did not necessitate a departure from the sentence imposed. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to balance the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing, while also considering the defendant's role in the offence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the original sentence of periodic detention was upheld.

Orders