R v Thompson - [2000] NSWCCA 362

CITATION: R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 362

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60163/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 11/08/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 August 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Katrina Thompson

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1; Dowd J at 34

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0028

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Blanch CJ/DC

COUNSEL : H Dhanji - Applicant
R d Ellis - Crown

SOLICITORS: D J Humphreys - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Crown

DECISION: Appeal Allowed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60163/00

JAMES J
DOWD J

FRIDAY 11 AUGUST 2000

REGINA v KATRINA THOMPSON

JUDGMENT

1 JAMES J: Katrina Thompson has applied for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on her in the District Court on 9 March 2000 by his Honour Justice Blanch, the Chief Judge of the District Court. The applicant had pleaded guilty in the Local Court and had been committed for sentence on one charge under s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act of having supplied a prohibited drug, heroin, on three separate occasions between 18 June 1999 and 23 June 1999. In sentencing the applicant Justice Blanch took into account two offences, both committed in December 1998, which were minor offences of dishonesty.
2   The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three years, consisting of a minimum term commencing on 9 March 2000, the date of sentencing, and expiring on 2 November 2000 and an additional term commencing on 3 November 2000 and expiring on 8 March 2003.
3   The minimum term which would expire on 2 November 2000 was set by his Honour on the basis that his Honour had decided that it would be appropriate for the applicant to serve at least nine months in custody but that allowance had to be made for a discrete period of pre-sentence custody of about five weeks.
4 The applicant was sentenced at the same time as another offender named Karamitsios on whom, for one charge under s 25A, a similar sentence of imprisonment for three years, with a minimum term of nine months, was imposed.
5   In his remarks on sentence the Chief Judge stated the common facts of the offences committed by the two prisoners, that is the applicant and Karamitsios, in a way that has been accepted by counsel for the applicant on this application.

His Honour said:

“The common facts of the cases are that during June 1999, there was a police operation which identified these two prisoners as a number of offenders engaged in the sale of heroin in the Kings Cross Area. The group consisted of two principals, three middle managers and seven runners who sold deals of heroin on the streets of Kings Cross. These two prisoners were identified as runners and it is accepted by the police that they were addicted to heroin and were therefore user/dealers and dealers in the sense that they were working for other people who were major suppliers and middle men in peddling heroin…

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 362
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 362
Decision Date: 11 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Katrina Thompson appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, which found her guilty of supplying heroin on three separate occasions. The court sentenced her to three years imprisonment with a minimum term of nine months. The appeal raised questions about the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the sentences given to other offenders involved in similar drug activities. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the principle of parity in sentencing should apply, given the significantly lenient sentences of other offenders. The appeal court found that the principle of parity should apply, particularly in relation to another offender, Pouoa, who received a sentence the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal deemed not manifestly inadequate. The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal, quashed the original sentence, and re-sentenced Thompson to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period expiring on the date of the judgment and an additional term of nine months. The Court ordered Thompson's release on parole.

Orders