R v YZ - [1999] NSWCCA 263

CITATION: Regina v YZ [1999] NSWCCA 263

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 61261/97

HEARING DATE(S): 21/6/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 August 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
"YZ"

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Sully J at 2; Dunford J at 21

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 95/11/0699

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Blanch CJDC

COUNSEL: Mr. P. Hastings QC/Miss S. McNaughton - Appellant
Mr. J. Doris - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP - Appellant
Murphy's Lawyers Inc. - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law (C'th) - plea of guilty to charge of conspiracy to import prohibited drug - offer of assistance to authorities - sentence discounted accordingly - subsequent refusal to give evidence in accordance with undertaking - whether original undertaking given in good faith - whether refusal was "without reasonable excuse"; held: (i) Court not satisfied of lack of good faith; (ii) Court satisfied that lack of reasonable cause had been established.

ACTS CITED: Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

DECISION: Appeal allowed; substituted in accordance with s.21E(3) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, and in place of the sentence imposed by Blanch CJDC, a sentence of 10 years and 4 months commencing on 5 August 1994, and having a non-parole period of 7-1/2 years.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
61261/97
BEAZLEY JA
SULLY J
DUNFORD J
27 August 1999

REGINA v “YZ”
JUDGMENT

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Sully J.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
CCA 61261/97
BEAZLEY JA
SULLY J
DUNFORD J
27 August 1999

REGINA v “YZ”

JUDGMENT

2 SULLY J: This is an appeal brought pursuant to section 21E of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions,[“the Director”]. The respondent to the appeal is a prisoner who is known, for the purposes of the present proceedings, by the Court-approved pseudonym, “YZ”. 3 On 5 August 1994 YZ was arrested and charged with having conspired to import into Australia prohibited imports, to which section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) applied, to whit, narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of cannabis resin being not less than the commercial quantity prescribed for cannabis resin. The maximum statutory penalty for such an offence is life imprisonment. 4 YZ pleaded guilty to the charge and before a Local Court Magistrate. On 5 March 1996, YZ adhered to that plea before his Honour Justice Blanch, Chief Judge of the District Court. Thereafter, and on 5 and 8 March 1996 Blanch J heard submissions on sentence. Put simply, YZ indicated to Blanch J his willingness to assist the Director by giving evidence for the Crown in a pending prosecution of a man called Warren, an alleged co-conspirator with YZ and others in connection with the cannabis resin importation previously mentioned. YZ signed an undertaking to that effect; and it will be necessary to return presently to a consideration of the terms of the undertaking and of the way in which it was subsequently implemented. On 11 March 1996 Blanch J sentenced YZ to imprisonment…

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 YZ

Details

AGLC: R v YZ [1999] NSWCCA 263
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 263
Decision Date: 27 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v YZ involved a defendant who had entered into a plea of guilty to a charge of conspiracy to import a prohibited drug. As part of the plea agreement, the defendant had offered to assist the authorities, which resulted in a reduction of the proposed sentence. However, the defendant subsequently refused to testify as had been agreed, leading to a challenge regarding the validity of the plea bargain. The court was required to determine whether the undertaking to provide assistance had been made in good faith and whether the defendant's refusal to testify was without reasonable excuse.

The legal issues before the court centred on the validity of the plea agreement and the defendant's subsequent refusal to testify. The court had to assess the good faith of the defendant's original offer of assistance and whether the defendant's refusal to testify was justified. The court also needed to consider whether the defendant's refusal to testify was reasonable and whether it had a valid excuse. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the plea agreement and the defendant's actions following the plea.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that it was not satisfied that the undertaking to provide assistance had been made in bad faith. However, the court did find that the defendant's refusal to testify was without reasonable excuse. The court noted that the defendant's change of heart was not based on any newly discovered evidence or other reasonable justification. Instead, the court found that the defendant's refusal was due to a change in personal circumstances that did not amount to a reasonable excuse. Consequently, the court held that the defendant's refusal to testify was without reasonable cause.

The court ordered that the sentence be increased to reflect the breach of the plea agreement. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of plea agreements and the consequences of failing to honour the terms of such agreements. The defendant's sentence was adjusted accordingly, taking into account the breach of the plea bargain.

Orders