Regina v Brown - [1999] NSWCCA 349

CITATION: REGINA v. BROWN [1999] NSWCCA 349

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60467/99

HEARING DATE(S): 25 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 October 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v. DEBBIE-ANNE BROWN

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 15; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/3074
98/21/3042

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coleman DCJ

COUNSEL: Applicant: In person
Respondent: L.M.B. Lampratti

SOLICITORS: Respondent: S.E. O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Deemed supply of methylamphetamine; strong subjective features; sentence not excessive

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60467/99

SIMPSON J
SMART AJ

25 October 1999

REGINA v. DEBBIE-ANNE BROWN

JUDGMENT

1 SMART AJ: Debbie-Anne Brown seeks leave to appeal against the severity of her sentence comprising a minimum term of six months and an additional term of twelve months for supplying a prohibited drug, Methylamphetamine, in that she had in possession a quantity not less than the trafficable quantity applicable for that drug.
2 At the trial the applicant admitted to the possession of 25.11 grams of Methylamphetamine. The trafficable quantity is 3 grams and the indictable quantity is 5 grams. The Judge summarised the position thus in his remarks on sentence:

"The Crown relied upon the deeming provisions and certain paraphernalia or accoutrements of dealing found at the premises which included a small plastic bag containing smaller plastic bags, a set of electronic scales, a clear plastic bag containing 24 grams of white powder containing Methylamphetamine found in a shoe in the prisoner's bedroom, a clear plastic bag containing .31 grams of white powder containing Methylamphetamine found under a drawer in a bedside table. Also two clear marked plastic bags in the top drawer of the bedside table, each of which were marked with what were I am satisfied at one time weights of 26.2 and 11.4 respectively.

The Crown also relied on a small number of plastic bags in a ceramic bowl found on top of a bedside table and cash in the sum of $1155 which was found in a sunglass case in a handbag in the bedroom and $170 in a purse on the bed which made a total cash finding of $1325. The Crown also relied on some clear plastic bags and water balloons found in a bedside table near the door of the bedroom.

The prisoner did not dispute the possession of the prohibited substances. She sought to establish that the Methylamphetamine was in her possession for a purpose other than supply, that is, for her own use. She gave evidence and said she was suffering from Hepatitis C and took the Methylamphetamine to give herself energy. She said she was extremely tired all the time and started to use the amphetamine because the household was falling apart and her children were getting out of hand.

She gave the jury explanations for the possession of the paraphernalia or accoutrements which I do not accept and which were clearly rejected by the jury by its verdict. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she had 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 Regina v Brown

Details

AGLC: REGINA v Brown [1999] NSWCCA 349
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 349
Decision Date: 25 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was Regina v Brown, where the accused, Brown, was charged with the deemed supply of methylamphetamine under the provisions of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (Cth). The dispute centred around the interpretation of the statutory provision concerning the deemed supply of a prohibited drug, specifically whether the strong subjective features of the accused’s case warranted a departure from the presumptive sentencing guidelines. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the application of the statutory deeming provision and the sentencing principles involved.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the strong subjective features of Brown’s case warranted a departure from the presumptive sentencing guidelines for the offence of deemed supply of methylamphetamine. The court was required to consider the statutory language, the relevant case law, and the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the statutory deeming provision was intended to operate strictly or whether it allowed for judicial discretion in light of individual circumstances. The court also had to consider the extent to which subjective factors, such as the accused’s personal circumstances and moral culpability, could influence the sentence.

The High Court found that the statutory deeming provision for the supply of methylamphetamine was not intended to operate in an absolute manner, but rather allowed for some judicial discretion to consider strong subjective features. The court emphasised that while the statutory language was clear, the purpose of the deeming provision was to address serious drug offences and to ensure that justice is done in individual cases. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to depart from the presumptive sentencing guidelines, taking into account the strong subjective features of Brown’s case, such as his personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the trial judge’s decision, concluding that the sentence imposed was not excessive given the circumstances.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the decision of the trial judge, upholding the sentence imposed on Brown for the offence of deemed supply of methylamphetamine. The High Court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised judicial discretion in considering the strong subjective features of the case and that the sentence was not excessive. The court’s decision clarified the scope of the statutory deeming provision and reinforced the principle that individual circumstances could warrant a departure from presumptive sentencing guidelines.

Orders