Regina v CN - [2001] NSWCCA 100

CITATION: REGINA v. CN [2001] NSWCCA 100

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60285 of 2000

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 26 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 March 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v. CN

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1; Smart AJ at 34

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0046

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Williams, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: P. Berman, SC.
App: P.R. Boulten

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: Mark Klees & Associates

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal against sentences - two counts supply commercial quantity of heroin and cocaine - juvenile offender - sentence according to law - direction sentence be served in a detention centre - direction means form of sentence less severe - appropriate considerations on sentencing juveniles for serious crimes - sentence not in error.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drugs Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Justices Act 1902
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987

CASES CITED:
N/A

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60285 of 2000

CORAM: GREG JAMES, J.

MONDAY 26 MARCH 2001

REGINA v. CN

JUDGMENT

1 GREG JAMES, J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Williams in the District Court of New South Wales at Sydney on 10 May 2000. The applicant had pleaded guilty to two offences under s.25(2) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

2 Those offences were that he had supplied a prohibited drug of not less than the commercial quantity. The drug in question, as appears from the facts sheet that was before his Honour, on the first charge was heroin, he having supplied bags of that heroin in accordance with a mode of operation which had been adopted some time previously. The drug in question on the second charge was cocaine.

3 In addition, there was a matter of goods in custody on a Form 1.

4 The quantities involved in the two offences being, on the first charge, some 629 grams and on the second charge, some 400 grams, the commercial quantity of each drug being prescribed as 250 grams.

5 The goods in respect of which the goods in custody charge applied, was some $48,000 found in his possession on the same day.

6 The offence of supply carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

7 The applicant had pleaded guilty before the magistrate and the matters went forward under s.51A of the Justices Act 1902. On each of them, his Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment for three years and six months to commence on 27 April 2000 and to expire on 26 October 2003.

8 His Honour imposed a non-parole period of 18 months to commence on 27 April 2000 and to expire on 27 October 2001. His Honour directed that the sentences he had imposed be served wholly in a detention centre, the applicant being aged 16 at the time of sentence.

9 It has been powerfully argued by Mr.…

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 CN

Details

AGLC: Regina v CN [2001] NSWCCA 100
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 100
Decision Date: 26 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent against their sentences imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The respondent was found guilty on two counts of supplying a commercial quantity of heroin and cocaine. The appeal raised issues concerning the sentences imposed, particularly in relation to the direction that the sentences be served in a detention centre, and whether this direction constituted a form of sentence less severe than that which would have been imposed in the case of an adult offender. The respondent argued that the sentence was not according to law and that it did not appropriately consider the special considerations that apply when sentencing juvenile offenders for serious crimes.

The court examined the sentencing principles applicable to juvenile offenders, emphasising the importance of rehabilitation and the need to avoid imposing excessively severe sentences that could have a detrimental impact on the offender's future. The court noted that the sentences imposed were within the maximum penalties prescribed by statute and that the direction to serve the sentences in a detention centre was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the respondent's age. The court held that the sentences were not in error and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors in determining the appropriate form of sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

The court's decision reinforces the importance of considering the special circumstances of juvenile offenders when determining sentences for serious crimes. The court found that the sentences imposed were appropriate and in accordance with the law, and that the direction to serve the sentences in a detention centre was a suitable form of sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation. The court's ruling provides guidance to sentencing courts when dealing with similar cases involving juvenile offenders.

Orders