1. Allow the Crown appeal; 2 Quash the sentence imposed on the Respondent on 2 February 2007; 3. Sentence the Respondent to imprisonment for a term of 25 years, including a non-parole period of 15 years; 4. Direct the legal advisers for the Respondent to provide to the Respondent an explanation of the above orders in accordance with the requirements of s16F of the Crimes Act (C’th).
1 HANDLEY AJA: In this appeal I have had the considerable benefit of reading the reasons for judgment of Hulme J and Hall J. Their analyses of the facts, the history of the proceedings, the legislation and the authorities enables me to deal with the matter quite briefly.
2 The sentencing judge found that the prisoner had a managerial role in the importation, and should be sentenced as a principal who stood to benefit as such from the importation (“if we let go we get nothing”). The jury found that he knew that the speedboat contained a quantity of an illegal drug, although there was no direct evidence that he knew precisely what the drug was. This is not a mitigating circumstance because, he either knew this or was recklessly indifferent.
3 The illegal drug was contained in 46 plastic bags, with a gross weight of 45.83kgs containing 34.8kgs of methylamphetamine with a wholesale value of at least $5 million.
4 There was no evidence that the prisoner knew the precise…
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 To
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v To [2007] NSWCCA 200
Case
[2007] NSWCCA 200
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Regina v To, the Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on To, who had been convicted of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the importation of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and the Court of Criminal Appeal agreed. The trial judge had sentenced To to imprisonment for 17 years, with a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months. The appeal court allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence, and imposed a sentence of 25 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 years. The appeal court found that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appropriate starting point for sentencing and had given undue weight to To's admissions at trial. The appeal court also noted that the quantity of methylamphetamine involved in the importation was 46 times the minimum commercial quantity, and that the potential profitability of drug importation and dealing was high. The appeal court emphasised that the severity of the penalties prescribed by Parliament reflected the seriousness with which it viewed the importation of prohibited drugs, and that the sentence imposed on To should reflect the criminality inherent in his involvement in the importation. The appeal court also considered sentencing patterns in other cases involving commercial quantities of prohibited substances and found that the sentence imposed on To was inadequate in comparison.