Regina v Boundy - [2002] NSWCCA 319

Reported Decision:
(2002) 132 A Crim R 482

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Boundy [2002] NSWCCA 319

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60069/02

HEARING DATE(S): 5 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Steven Walter Boundy

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Hulme J at 2; Smart AJ at 51

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/51/0150

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Hosking DCJ

COUNSEL : (A/C) P Barrett
(R) G Wendler

SOLICITORS: (A/C) S E O'Connor
(R) John D Weller

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - supply of commercial quantity of cannabis - actual saleable quantity less but still serious offence - sentence manifestly inadequate - effect of delay since sentencing on re-sentencing

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

CASES CITED:
R v Blanco (unrep) CCA 22/10/78
R v Clark (unrep) CCA 15/3/90
Rex v Geddes (1936) 36 SR 554 at 556
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 at 354
R v Rushby (1977) 1 NSWLR 594 at 597-598
R v Swann (unrep) CCA 17/7/92
R v Burnett & Ors (1996) 85 A Crim R 76
R v Peel (1971) 1 NSWLR 247 at 262
Postiglione v R (1996-97) 189 CLR 295 at 341
R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115 AT 124
R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296

DECISION: See para 86

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60069/2002

MASON P

HULME J

SMART AJ

Wednesday, 14 August 2002

R v Steven Walter BOUNDY

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with Smart AJ.

2 HULME J: On 19 September 2001 at Lismore Local Court the Respondent pleaded guilty to each of the following charges:-

(a) That on 27 April 2001 at Murwillumbah he did supply a commercial quantity of cannabis leaf contrary to the provisions of section 25(2) (mistakenly mentioned as section 25(1)) of the Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985;

(b) That between 22 April 2002 and 27 April 2001 at Murwillumbah he did supply a prohibited drug namely cannabis leaf contrary to the provisions of section 25(1) of that Act; and
(c) That on 27 April 2001 at Murwillumbah he did cultivate 13 cannabis plants contrary to the provisions of section 23(1) of that Act.

3 On 29 November 2001 at the Lismore District Court the Respondent adhered to his pleas and Judge Hosking SC sentenced him as follows. On the first charge the Respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months from that day. The execution of that sentence was suspended for its term on conditions of the Respondent’s entering a good behaviour bond and other formal matters. In respect of the second and third charges he was ordered to enter into a good behaviour bond on the same terms.

4 The Crown has appealed against what it says is the inadequacy of these sentences.

5 Under s29 of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act, possession of cannabis leaf in anything like…

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 Boundy

Details

AGLC: Regina v Boundy [2002] NSWCCA 319
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 319
Decision Date: 14 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Boundy involved the sentencing of an individual found guilty of supplying a commercial quantity of cannabis. The specifics of the offence were significant, as the actual quantity supplied, while less than initially alleged, was still substantial and indicative of a serious criminal enterprise. The case reached the higher courts, which reviewed the original sentence imposed by a lower court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the initial sentence was manifestly inadequate given the nature of the offence. The court had to consider the impact of the delay in the appeal process on the appropriate re-sentencing of the defendant. The balance between the principle that a delay should not benefit the defendant and the need to ensure the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence was crucial in this matter.

The court carefully examined the circumstances of the offence, including the quantity of drugs involved and the seriousness of the criminal activity. It concluded that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime. The court also weighed the impact of the delay on the re-sentencing, noting that while delays should not be used to the defendant's advantage, they could not result in a sentence that was disproportionately harsh. Ultimately, the court determined that a re-sentencing was necessary and provided detailed reasoning for the revised sentence, ensuring it was both just and appropriate for the offence committed.

Orders