R v Teuma - [2001] NSWCCA 369

CITATION: R v Teuma [2001] NSWCCA 369

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60184/01

HEARING DATE(S): 20/9/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 September 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Jason Raymond Teuma

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1,37, 39; Howie J at 38; Carruthers AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/0261

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Nield DCJ

COUNSEL : R A Hulme (Crown)
P Kintominas (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Michael Croke & Co (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - appeal against severity - reliance upon JIRS statistics to argue sentence was manifestly excessive bearing in mind only a single episode supply of drugs - applicant said to be a go-between - appeal dismissed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act, 1901
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CASES CITED:
R v Bardo (Unreported, NSWCCA, 14 July 1992.)
R v Clark (Unreported, NSWCCA, 15 March 1990)
R v Ozer (Unreported, NSWCCA 9 November 1993)
The Queen v Olbrich (1999-2000) 199 CLR 270

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

- 8 -IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60184/01

GILES JA

HOWIE J

CARRUTHERS AJ

Thursday 20 September 2001

Regina v Jason Raymond Teuma

JUDGMENT

1 GILES JA: I ask Carruthers AJ to deliver the first reasons for judgment.

2 CARRUTHERS AJ: Jason Raymond Teuma seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Nield at the Parramatta District Court on 21 March 2001. On that day the applicant was sentenced on one count of supply prohibited drug (deemed), the drug being cannabis leaf, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking Act) 1985, which provides a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years and/or 2000 penalty units. His Honour was asked to take into account two charges on a Form 1, being one count of possess prohibited drug (amphetamines) and one count of goods in custody, being cash in the sum of $3,250.

3 Taking into account the matters in the Form 1, his Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for three years to date from 21 March 2001 and to expire on 20 March 2004, and fixed a non-parole period of one year to expire on 20 March 2002.

4 His Honour initially determined that the appropriate head sentence (putting aside the discount for the guilty plea) was imprisonment for four years. His Honour then discounted that term by 25 percent to reach the ultimate head sentence of three years.

5 The special circumstances which his Honour found to justify variation of the nominal ratio, were the applicant's “hitherto unblemished character”, (this might be thought to be a generous finding bearing in mind a previous conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol) together with the likelihood that he would not re-offend.

6 The applicant was born on 24 April 1974, and at the date of the offence was in full-time employment as a boilermaker.

7 On 25 March 2000, police from North Shore Detectives with the assistance of…

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 Teuma

Details

AGLC: R v Teuma [2001] NSWCCA 369
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 369
Decision Date: 20 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina versus Teuma, the defendant appealed against the severity of his sentence for drug supply. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Teuma, who was found to have been involved in a single instance of drug supply, sought to argue that his sentence was manifestly excessive when compared to statistics from the Judicial Indicative Recidivism Score (JIRS) system. Teuma contended that, as he acted merely as an intermediary or go-between, the sentence was disproportionately harsh.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and if reliance on JIRS statistics was an appropriate means of assessing this. The court was required to consider the role Teuma played in the drug supply, the principles of sentencing in Victoria, and the relevance of JIRS statistics in this context. The court also needed to evaluate whether the sentence was proportionate to the nature and circumstances of Teuma's involvement in the drug supply.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It was noted that while Teuma played a role as a go-between, his involvement in facilitating the supply of drugs warranted a significant sentence. The court emphasised that JIRS statistics could not be relied upon to determine the severity of a sentence. It was held that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including Teuma's role, the nature of the offence, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court.

Orders