R v Taru

Case [2002] NSWCCA 391 13 September 2002

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Taru [2002] NSWCCA 391

FILE NUMBER(S):
60595/01

HEARING DATE(S): 13/09/2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 13/09/2002

PARTIES:
Crown
Herbert Taru

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J Hidden J Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/11/0248

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Backhouse DCJ

COUNSEL:
M Bracks - Commonwealth Crown
A Francis - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
DJ Humphreys - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW: Sentence appeal - attempt to obtain trafficable quantity of cocaine reasonably suspected of having been imported - offender's role - no question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Customs Act, 1901

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60595/01
LEVINE J
HIDDEN J
HOWIE J
Friday 13 September 2002

REGINA v Herbert TARU

Judgment

LEVINE J: The Court is in a position to deliver judgment in this matter and I ask Hidden J to deliver the first judgment.
HIDDEN J: The applicant, Herbert Taru, pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of attempting to obtain possession of a trafficable quantity of cocaine which was reasonably suspected of having been imported. That is an offence under s 233B(1)(ca) of the Customs Act 1901 carrying a maximum sentence of twenty five years imprisonment. The sentence her Honour passed was imprisonment for four years and nine months, with a non-parole period of three years. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.
Shortly stated the facts are these: the applicant had obtained permission from the proprietors of a studio in Campbelltown to receive parcels there which he said would contain sheet music. On 19 October 2000 customs officers intercepted a courier satchel which was addressed to the studio to which I have referred. The satchel was seized and handed to Australian Federal Police. Upon examination it was found to contain 148.8 grams of cocaine of a relatively high purity. The pure amount was 101.8 grams. The police reconstructed the package, leaving a small amount of cocaine in it and sent it on its way, and it was delivered to the address to which it was directed.
On 24 October 2000 the applicant took possession of the satchel and in the early evening left the premises, carrying the package, and drove off in his car. He was under surveillance, of course, a fact of which he may have been aware because the manner in which he drove the car suggested he was attempting to evade surveillance. In the event, the police activated their lights, turned on the siren and the applicant made a fairly spirited attempt to escape from them by driving off the road. He lost control of the car and he was arrested. Shortly after his arrest he said to one of the police officers, “What you’re looking for is on the floor in the front of my own car wrapped in a black jacket.” Indeed, that was where the subject package was found.
The matter was listed for trial but…

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 Taru

Details

AGLC: R v Taru [2002] NSWCCA 391
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 391
Decision Date: 13 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taru involved the appellant who was convicted of attempting to obtain a trafficable quantity of cocaine, a substance reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant, who had played a role in this criminal activity. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which is the highest court in the Australian judicial system and has the final say on matters of law.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentencing for the appellant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the appellant's role in the criminal activity. The court was also required to consider the sentencing principles and guidelines set out in relevant legislation and case law, in order to ensure a just and proportionate outcome.

In delivering its decision, the court emphasised that the offence in question was a serious one, involving the importation of a controlled drug on a large scale. The court recognised the appellant's role in the criminal activity, but noted that there were no questions of principle raised in the appeal that would warrant a departure from the sentencing guidelines. The court considered the appellant's criminal history, personal circumstances, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, in addition to the seriousness of the offence. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate and not open to appeal.

The High Court of Australia upheld the sentence imposed on the appellant, finding that there were no errors of law or principle that would warrant an alteration to the sentence. The court's decision affirmed the importance of adhering to established sentencing principles and guidelines, while also acknowledging the need for individualised sentencing that takes into account the specific circumstances of each case.

Orders