Regina v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131 revised - 23/06/2004
HEARING DATE(S):
15/4/04
JUDGMENT DATE:
11 May 2004
JUDGMENT OF:
Spigelman CJ at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 1
DECISION:
1. Leave to appeal granted; 2. Sentence in relation to Count 2 quashed, and in lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for 2 years, to date from 4 February 2003; 3. Sentence in relation to Count 1 quashed and in lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which is to consist of a non-parole period of 7 years, and a total term of 9 years and 4 months, each to date from 4 February 2003, with the non-parole period expiring on 3 February 2010; 4. Specify 3 February 2010 as the earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against severity of sentence - supply commercial quantity methylamphetamine - ongoing supply - possess prohibited drug on Form 1- plea of guilty - whether sentencing judge erred in considering utilitarian value of plea - whether appropriate discount allowed for plea - whether characterisation of offence as "middle range" of objective seriousness an error - whether s 21A and 54B Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act erroneously applied - application of s 21A and 54B of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and effect on sentencing - whether sentences manifestly excessive.
[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 Way
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Case
[2004] NSWCCA 131
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in the matter of R v Way involved the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to supplying a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and possessing a prohibited drug on Form 1. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in various respects in imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon the respondent. The respondent argued that the judge had failed to appropriately account for the utilitarian value of his guilty plea and had misapplied certain provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in characterising the offence and determining the appropriate sentence.
The court considered whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the discount for the respondent's guilty plea. It was argued that the judge had not adequately recognised the benefits of the plea, including the preservation of judicial resources and the avoidance of a trial, which should have resulted in a more substantial reduction in the sentence. Additionally, the court examined whether the characterisation of the offence as "middle range" in terms of objective seriousness was an error. The court also scrutinised the application of sections 21A and 54B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, particularly whether they had been erroneously applied in the context of the sentencing process. The respondent contended that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.
The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in the manner argued by the respondent. The court upheld that the judge had appropriately considered the benefits of the guilty plea and had applied the relevant statutory provisions correctly. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, affirming the original sentencing decision. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.