R v Wilson - [2024] SASCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
R v WILSON
[2024] SASCA 20
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, the Honourable Justice Bleby and the Honourable Justice David)
7 March 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - SENTENCE - TRAFFICKING, TRADING, SELLING, SUPPLYING OR DISTRIBUTING - OTHER SUBSTANCES AND OFFENCES INVOLVING MULTIPLE SUBSTANCES OR OFFENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - SENTENCE - MANUFACTURING, PRODUCING OR CULTIVATING - CANNABIS
Crown appeal against sentence.

On 14 August 2023, the respondent pleaded guilty to three charges, namely, cultivating a controlled plant in artificially enhanced conditions, possession of prescribed equipment, and trafficking in a commercial quantity of cannabis contrary to ss 33K(1)(ab), 33LA(a) and 32(2) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) respectively.
The prosecution and defence consented to the respondent being sentenced in the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 116 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) (‘CPA’). In sentencing, the magistrate considered the respondent’s criminal history, most relevantly convictions in 2012 and 2020 for cultivation offences.
With respect to the trafficking offence, the magistrate sentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment of two months and 21 days. This represented a discount of 10 per cent for a guilty plea, from a starting point of three months.
In relation to the offences of artificially enhanced cultivation of cannabis and possession of prescribed equipment, the magistrate sentenced the respondent to terms of imprisonment of 15 days each, with both to be served concurrently with the trafficking sentence. The resultant combined head sentence of imprisonment was two months and 21 days.
The magistrate suspended the term of imprisonment on the respondent entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 10 months. The prosecution did not take issue with the magistrate’s decision to suspend the sentence.
The sole ground of appeal was that the sentence for the trafficking offence was manifestly inadequate.
Held (by the Court), refusing permission to appeal:
1.The sentence for the trafficking offence was manifestly inadequate.
2.When a person is to be sentenced for a major indictable offence in the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 116 of the CPA, it is incumbent on the prosecution to provide the magistrate with the necessary assistance in formulating a sentence for the offence that accords with applicable sentencing principles.
3.In this case, the prosecution’s failure to provide the magistrate with any real assistance of this nature spoke against a grant of permission to appeal. In addition, the fact that the Director did not take issue on appeal with the decision to suspend the sentence rendered the consideration of personal deterrence of lesser importance in this case.
4.Having regard to the way that this matter proceeded in the Magistrates Court, it is not necessary to grant permission to appeal to emphasise the importance of the applicable…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2024] SASCA 20
Case: [2024] SASCA 20
Decision Date: 7 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the Crown against the respondent, Wilson, in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute arose from the sentence imposed by a magistrate in the Magistrates Court for drug offences, specifically the manufacturing and cultivation of cannabis, and trafficking in a controlled substance.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly inadequate, thereby justifying interference on appeal. The Court was required to consider the appropriate sentencing standards for such offences and whether those standards had been correctly applied by the Magistrates Court.

The Court reasoned that the sentencing standards articulated over time must apply consistently across all jurisdictions, including the Magistrates Court when exercising its sentencing jurisdiction. It found that the starting point for the trafficking offence was "well below the appropriate range for an offence of this seriousness" and was "manifestly inadequate." Consequently, the final sentence imposed was also considered manifestly inadequate. Despite this finding, the Court refused permission to appeal, indicating that it was not necessary to grant permission to emphasise the importance of consistent application of sentencing standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Accepting that the same standards of sentencing must be observed in the Magistrates Court acting under s 116 as in the District Court in the exercise of its usual jurisdiction, it cannot be said, with respect, that a decision of a magistrate will be viewed as an authoritative lessening of those standards. That is especially so if this Court makes clear, as it now does, that the sentencing standards articulated over time must apply in the same way, whichever court exercises the sentencing jurisdiction. Having regard to the way that this matter proceeded in the Magistrates Court, it is not necessary to grant permission to appeal to emphasise the importance of those standards being applied consistently across the jurisdictions.Conclusion There can be no doubt that the starting point for the trafficking offence was well below the appropriate range for an offence of this seriousness. It was manifestly inadequate. It follows that the final sentence was also manifestly inadequate. However, for the reasons given above, we refuse permission to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.