2 SULLY J: At the hearing of this appeal the Court ordered that the respondent to the appeal be referred to only as “Miss X”.
3 The appeal is a Crown appeal against a suspended sentence of imprisonment for 2 years which was passed upon the respondent, Miss X, on 25 July 2003 by his Honour Acting Judge Mahoney, QC in the Sydney District Court.
4 The respondent was arrested on 4 June 2002. She was charged with having conspired between 1 May 2002 and 5 June 2002 to supply heroin in an amount constituting a commercial quantity of that drug as prescribed by the relevant legislation. The amount prescribed in Schedule 1 to the Drugs Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) in respect of heroin is 250 grams. A conspiracy of the kind charged against the respondent contravenes sections 26 and 25(2) of that Act; and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of, relevantly, imprisonment for 20 years.
5 The respondent pleaded guilty as charged; and did so at the earliest available opportunity in the Local Court. She was committed upon her plea, and pursuant to section 51A of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW), to the District Court for sentence. As previously indicated she stood for sentence on 25 July 2003. She was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years commencing on 25 July 2003 and expiring on 24 July 2005; and the whole of that sentence was suspended pursuant to section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), (hereinafter “the Sentencing Procedure Act”), upon her entering into a good behaviour bond for 2 years with conditions.
6 So far as concerns the relevant objective facts, it will suffice to set out two excerpts from the written submissions made by the Crown in connection with the present…
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 X
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v X [2004] NSWCCA 93
Case
[2004] NSWCCA 93
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Regina v X was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, with Grove J, Sully J, and Bell J delivering the judgment. The appeal concerned a sentence of imprisonment for two years, which was suspended by the District Court, for a conspiracy to supply heroin. The Court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and allowed the Crown's appeal against the sentence. The Court identified several legal issues, including the application of statutory discounts for a guilty plea and the relevance of exceptional family circumstances. The Court found that the primary judge erred by adding the statutory discounts together rather than applying them sequentially, and by giving undue weight to the respondent's family circumstances. The Court also found that the sentence was disproportionate when compared to sentences passed on co-offenders. The Court re-sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for two years and six months, to be served by way of periodic detention, with a non-parole period of one year and six months. The Court emphasized the importance of taking a firm grasp of reality when sentencing and ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and reflect community standards.