Reardon v The Queen - [2012] NSWCCA 46

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Reardon v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCCA 46

Hearing Date(s): 26 March 2012

Decision Date: 28 March 2012

Jurisdiction:

Before:
Beazley JA at 1
Harrison J at 2
McCallum J at 26

Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - parity with co-offenders - Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 24(2) - whether applicant has cause for a justifiable sense of grievance - no marked disparity between co-offenders - appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Lovoni v R [2011] NSWCCA 289
Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357

Texts Cited:

Category: Principal judgment

Parties:
Alan George Reardon (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel:
M Johnston (Applicant)
S Bowers (Crown)

- Solicitors:
Baker Ryrie Rickards Titmarsh (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File number(s):
2009/12087

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal:

- Before: Toner DCJ

- Date of Decision: 13 August 2010

- Citation:

- Court File Number(s) 2009/12087

Publication Restriction:

JUDGMENT

BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Harrison J.
HARRISON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by Toner DCJ at Sydney on 13 August 2010. The sole ground of appeal is that the difference in the sentences imposed on his co-offenders gives rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on his part. For the reasons that follow I consider that leave to appeal should be granted but that the appeal should be dismissed.
The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to four offences. This appeal is only concerned with the sentence imposed by his Honour with respect to a charge that he knowingly took part in the manufacture of 5.877kg of methylamphetamine, being not less than the large commercial quantity for such a drug, contrary to s 24(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The standard non-parole period is 15 years.
The applicant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 10 years and 9 months commencing on 8 January 2009 and expiring on 7 October 2019 with an additional term of 4 years and 3 months expiring on 7 January 2024. He was also sentenced on three additional counts. His total effective sentence for the s 24(2) offence was therefore 15 years. When his other sentences are taken into account the total effective sentence is 16 years with an effective non-parole period of 11 years. Taking into account a discount of 25 percent for an early plea of guilty, this suggests a starting point for the subject offence of 20 years.
The applicant contends that the sentence imposed by his Honour upon William Edmund Greenaway, and the sentences respectively imposed by Ashford DCJ on David McGreevy and Jake Callagher are so different to the…

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 Reardon v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Reardon v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 46
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 46
Decision Date: 28 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reardon v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted for drug-related offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The appellant appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed, arguing that it was disproportionate when compared to the sentences given to co-offenders. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the appellant's appeal should be upheld, focusing on the principles of sentencing parity among co-offenders.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had a justifiable sense of grievance regarding the disparity in sentences handed down to him and his co-offenders. The appellant contended that the sentencing disparity was significant and unjust, while the Crown argued that any differences in sentences were justified and did not constitute marked disparity. The court had to weigh the principles of sentencing parity against the specific circumstances of the case, including the roles of the co-offenders in the commission of the offence.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the nature and extent of each co-offender's involvement in the offence, as well as the statutory provisions under which they were sentenced. The court found that there was no marked disparity in the sentences imposed on the appellant and his co-offenders, as their respective roles and culpability were appropriately reflected in their sentences. The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated a justifiable sense of grievance, and the appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The court's decision emphasised the importance of assessing sentencing disparities in light of the individual circumstances and the legislative framework governing drug-related offences.

Orders