Regina v Colin - [2000] NSWCCA 236

CITATION: REGINA v COLIN [2000] NSWCCA 236

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60078/00

HEARING DATE(S): 7 June 2000, 9 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 June 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Eric Giles Colin

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Newman J at 25; Adams J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/11/0649

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Goldring DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr C K Maxwell QC (Crown)
Mr S J Odgers (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
John Bettens & Co (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Sentence appeal by Crown - supply cocaine - low level offender - effect of delay - appeal allowed - periodic detention imposed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 2000
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Regina v Everett (1993) 181 CLR 295

DECISION: Orders below quashed; the respondent is sentenced to a period of twelve months' imprisonment to be served by way of periodic detention to commence on 16 June 2000

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60078/00

SPIGELMAN CJ
NEWMAN J
ADAMS J

WEDNESDAY 7 JUNE 2000

REGINA v ERIC GILES COLIN
JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: Mr Justice Adams will deliver the first judgment. 2 ADAMS J: The respondent, Eric Giles Colin, pleaded guilty to supplying a prohibited drug, cocaine, over a period in early 1995. He was arrested whilst in the course of this conduct as a result of a police operation which principally targeted the person for whom he worked, a Mr Zajak. For reasons having nothing to do with Mr Colin, he was not dealt with in the District Court until January 2000, for all practical purposes a delay of five years. 3 It is clear from his Honour's judgment that he co-operated with the police from the time of his arrest in March 1995 and has never denied the offence. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and it was apparent from the beginning that he would do so. 4 His Honour, having considered the material objective and subjective circumstances, fined the respondent in the amount of $4,000 and deferred passing sentence under what was then s 558 of the Crimes Act 2000 which permitted him to be released upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years and to come up for sentence if called upon. We have been informed that the fine of $4,000 was not paid having regard to the Crown's appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence. 5 The offences arose out of his employment in a restaurant in a northern suburb of Sydney as a sommellier and waiter. Until that stage, as I understand it, he had not had any contact with illegal drugs. As it happened, however, the restaurant was a place where cocaine was supplied, mostly, as his Honour accepted, by Mr Zajak who was a regular patron and who was there daily. Mr Colin needed accommodation and, having found out from someone in the cafe that Mr Zajak may…

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 Colin

Details

AGLC: Regina v Colin [2000] NSWCCA 236
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 236
Decision Date: 9 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Colin, the defendant appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court for supplying cocaine. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the Crown sought a review of the sentence. The central dispute was whether the delay in bringing the case to trial should result in a reduction of the sentence due to the defendant's status as a low-level offender. The defendant argued that the delay in the proceedings prejudiced his position and warranted a lighter sentence, while the Crown contended that the delay did not significantly impact the defendant's case and thus should not affect the severity of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court were the impact of delay in criminal proceedings on the sentencing and the appropriate weight to give to the defendant's status as a low-level offender. The court needed to determine whether the delay was substantial enough to warrant a reduction in sentence and how this interacted with the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing. The court also had to consider the broader implications for the administration of justice and the potential deterrent effect of imposing a sentence despite the delay.

The court found that the delay did indeed prejudice the defendant's case and that this warranted a reduction in the sentence. The delay not only caused the defendant to suffer anxiety and uncertainty but also affected his ability to prepare his defence. Given the defendant's status as a low-level offender, the court decided that a lesser sentence was appropriate. The court also considered the principles of justice and the need for consistency in sentencing. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and imposed a sentence of periodic detention instead of the original imprisonment term.

Orders