R v Vincent - [2006] NSWCCA 276

CITATION: Regina v Jamieson Vincent [2006] NSWCCA 276

HEARING DATE(S): 28 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1, 43; Whealy J at 41; Howie J at 42

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 08/28/2006

DECISION: Sentence quashed and a new sentence imposed.

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING - Crown appeal for manifest inadequacy - Supply of commercial quantity of prohibited drugs - SENTENCING - Circumstances in which moral culpability of offender involved in actual offence is greater than accessory.

CASES CITED: R v Vincent [2006] NSWCCA 78

PARTIES: Regina (Appellant)
Jamieson Vincent (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1241

COUNSEL: J. Girdham (Appellant)
P. Boulten SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh – New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
M. Ricci – The Law Practice (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/1161

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nicholson DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 12 May 2006

- 12 -

2006/1241

SPIGELMAN CJ
WHEALY J
HOWIE J

Monday 28 August 2006

REGINA v Jamieson VINCENT

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: This is a Crown appeal against the alleged inadequacy of a sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Nicholson SC in respect of two counts of supplying a commercial quantity of MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy.

2 In an undercover operation two policemen visited the Lady Jane Korean Restaurant which was conducted by the respondent and other members of his family. On two occasions the respondent supplied drugs to the undercover police operatives. On one such occasion the respondent’s brother, Shamus Vincent, was present.

3 His Honour also sentenced Tony Vincent, another brother of the respondent, with respect to two other supply charges and also a charge involving the sale of an unregistered firearm and ammunition. One of the supply charges was being knowingly concerned in count 2 on the indictment presently before the Court.

4 The respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced in relation to two counts of supplying a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs. Count 1 alleged that on 28 November 2002 the respondent supplied a commercial quantity of MDMA. Count 2 alleged that on 10 June 2003 the respondent supplied a commercial quantity of MDMA. On each occasion the transaction was for 1000 tablets of variable quality. On the first occasion the tablets contained 247.8 grams of MDMA. On the second they contained 326.3 grams. The cost was $16,500 on each occasion.

5 When passing sentence on count 2, his Honour took into account on a Form 1 containing four charges:

(i) supply of 275 grams of MDMA on 8 February 2003;

(ii) deemed supply of 80.7 grams of cocaine on 23 February 2004;

(iii) possession of 0.48 grams of amphetamine; and

6 In relation to count 1 his Honour set a non-parole period of fifteen months to date from 23 February 2004, with a balance of term of five months to date from 23 May 2005.

7 In relation to count 2 (and taking into account the Form 1) his Honour…

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 Vincent

Details

AGLC: Regina v Jamieson Vincent [2006] NSWCCA 276
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 276
Decision Date: 28/08/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vincent, the respondent, Vincent, was convicted of supplying a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs. The Crown sought an appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court, contending that it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the higher court. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence met the threshold of being manifestly inadequate, given the nature and circumstances of the offence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the moral culpability of Vincent, as the actual offender, was greater than that of an accessory to the crime.

The court meticulously examined the sentencing principles applicable to drug supply offences, especially those involving commercial quantities. It acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the societal impact of such criminal activities. The court also evaluated the lower court's consideration of Vincent's role in the offence and the specific circumstances that contributed to the crime. In assessing the sentence, the court found that the lower court had not adequately accounted for the seriousness of the offence and the level of moral culpability associated with Vincent's direct involvement in the drug supply. The Crown's argument that the sentence was manifestly inadequate was supported by these findings. Consequently, the court concluded that the original sentence did not appropriately reflect the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.

Orders