Legal Research
Cases
R v Wilson & Ors

R v Wilson & Ors

Case [2012] VSCA 141 29 June 2012

Appeal

Sentence

Manufacturing and trafficking of MDMA, methylamphetamine and cocaine

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
S APCR 2010 0409

SCOTT WILLIAM WILSON Applicant

v

THE QUEEN Respondent

S APCR 2011 0007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant

v

RAYMOND SASSINE Respondent

S APCR 2010 0437

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant

v

STELLIOS KALAKIAS Respondent

S APCR 2010 0461

VICKI WILSON Applicant

v

THE QUEEN Respondent

---

JUDGES MAXWELL P, WEINBERG JA and COGHLAN AJA

WHERE HELD MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING 7 November 2011

DATE OF JUDGMENT 29 June 2012

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION [2012] VSCA 141

JUDGMENTS APPEALED FROM DPP (Vic) v Kalakias, S Wilson & Ors (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Lawson, 5 November 2010)
DPP (Vic) v V Wilson (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Lawson, 29 November 2010)
DPP (Vic) v Sassine (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Lawson, 16 December 2010)
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Manufacturing and trafficking of MDMA, methylamphetamine and cocaine – Counts of trafficking in large commercial quantity and commercial quantity – Possess drug of dependence – Possess pill press – Handle stolen goods – Co-offenders – Two offender appeals – Whether sentences manifestly excessive – Two Crown appeals – Whether sentences manifestly inadequate – Objective gravity – General deterrence – Trafficking sentences ‘extraordinarily lenient’ – Parity – Constraints imposed on resentencing by unappealed sentence – Procedural fairness – Verdins principles applicable – Appeals allowed – Offenders resentenced – Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) ss 71, 71AA, 71AC, 71A, 71C, 73(1).
---

Appearances: Counsel
Solicitors

For the Applicant, S Wilson Mr D A Dann
Randles, Cooper & Co Pty Ltd

For the Respondent, Sassine
Mr P F Tehan QC with
Ms K Blair
Patrick Dwyer

For the Respondent, Kalakias Mr C B Boyce
Andrianakis & Associates

For the Applicant, V Wilson Mr J McLoughlin Victorian Legal Aid

For the Crown

Mr P B Kidd SC

Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

- - -
MAXWELL P
WEINBERG JA
COGHLAN AJA:
1 In 2007, Victoria Police commenced an investigation into the manufacturing and trafficking of MDMA (‘ecstasy’) and methylamphetamine, and the trafficking of cocaine, in Melbourne’s northern suburbs. That investigation resulted in the arrest, conviction and sentencing of a large number of individuals.

2 These appeals concern the sentences imposed on four of those involved. In two cases, the offender seeks leave to appeal against sentence; in the other two, the Director has appealed against the inadequacy of the sentence. For reasons which follow, we have concluded that each of the applications should be granted and each of the Director’s appeals should succeed. Annexure A to these reasons is a table which sets out, for each of the four individuals, both the original sentence and the resentencing which we propose.

3 Before we deal with the grounds of appeal in each of the separate appeals, it is necessary to set out a summary of the offending. This summary is taken from the Crown opening, which was the basis of the sentencing in each case.…

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 & Ors

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson & Ors [2012] VSCA 141
Case: [2012] VSCA 141
Decision Date: 29 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wilson & Ors, the appellants, Wilson and another co-offender, appealed against their sentences for their involvement in the manufacture and trafficking of MDMA, methylamphetamine, and cocaine. The co-offenders, as well as the Crown, sought to appeal the sentences imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were manifestly excessive and whether the sentences imposed on the co-offenders were manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the sentences imposed on the appellants were manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentences did not reflect the objective gravity of the offending and did not provide sufficient general deterrence. The court further found that the trafficking sentences were 'extraordinarily lenient'. In terms of the Crown's appeals, the court found that the sentences imposed on the co-offenders were manifestly inadequate. The court held that the sentences did not reflect the objective gravity of the offending and did not provide sufficient general deterrence. The court also found that the sentences did not provide adequate parity between the co-offenders.

The court noted the constraints imposed on resentencing by the unappealed sentence of the co-offender and the need for procedural fairness. The court applied the Verdins principles and allowed the appeals. The offenders were resentenced. The court held that the objective gravity of the offending required sentences that reflected the serious nature of the crimes committed. The court also held that the sentences needed to provide adequate general deterrence and ensure parity between co-offenders. The court took into account the constraints imposed by the unappealed sentence and the need for procedural fairness in reaching its decision.

Orders