Regina v Arnott - [2001] NSWCCA 497

CITATION: REGINA v ARNOTT [2001] NSWCCA 497

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60006/01

HEARING DATE(S): 19 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 November 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Diane Joan ARNOTT

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1; Adams J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/61/0095

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Andrew DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr J S Stratton for the Appellant
Ms E A Wilkins for the Crown

SOLICITORS: Mr D J Humphreys for the Appellant
S E O'Connor for the Crown

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - plea of guilty - utilitarian discount - need to take into account avoidance of necessity to call undercover police

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Thomson & Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 115 A Crim R 104

DECISION: See paragraphs 20 and 21.

60006/01

BARR J
ADAMS J

MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2001

REGINA v DIANNE ARNOTT

Judgment

The Court is in a position to give judgment now. I will ask Justice Adams to give the first judgment.

: Diane Joan Arnott pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge under s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 in that between 14 April 2000 and 18 April 2000 she supplied hereon on four occasions for financial gain. Five additional charges of supplying heroin on 1 April, 31 May, 1 June and 7 June 2000 were taken into account in accordance with s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

3 The applicant’s arrest occurred as a result of a controlled operation targeting the supply of drugs in the Orange area in April and May 2000. It appeared that, on five occasions, undercover police operatives purchased a foil of heroin for $50. The total weight of drugs sold was 0.2 of a gram.

4 The matters taken into account comprised an agreement to supply one further foil of heroin on one of the occasions with which she was charged, the supply of a further $50 deal of heroin to a police undercover operative, sale of three $50 deals of heroin to another person and the supply of 1.1 grams of heroin, this being in her possession for the purpose of supply when she was arrested.

5 When police interviewed the applicant, she made full admissions. The applicant told the police that she purchased $300 of heroin a month from a dealer in Bathurst and that she divided this into twenty deals which she sold at $50 a piece.

6 The applicant said, and there is no reason to disbelieve her, that she had been selling for two months. The applicant was not a drug user. Although she had worked as a process worker, the applicant had substantial debts, partly for unpaid rent to the Housing Commission and partly to the Commonwealth Government for overpayment of a single parent’s pension (as I understand it, fraudulently obtained). She also had a gambling problem.

7 The applicant said that she thought…

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 Regina v Arnott

Details

AGLC: Regina v Arnott [2001] NSWCCA 497
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 497
Decision Date: 19 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Arnott was heard in the High Court of Australia. The defendant, Arnott, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for drug trafficking. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in applying a discount to his sentence due to his guilty plea, and if this discount was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, specifically the need to avoid the necessity of calling undercover police as witnesses.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing in relation to the discount for a guilty plea, and whether the particular circumstances of the case warranted such a discount. The court also had to consider the balance between the deterrence and denunciation functions of sentencing and the need to avoid calling undercover police witnesses, which could compromise their safety and the integrity of ongoing investigations.

The High Court held that the trial judge had appropriately applied the principles of sentencing and had correctly taken into account the circumstances of the case in applying a discount for the defendant's guilty plea. The court emphasised that the discount was justified by the avoidance of the necessity to call undercover police witnesses, which was an important consideration in this case. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in his sentencing decision. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders