Regina v Cook - [2002] NSWCCA 240

CITATION: REGINA v COOK [2002] NSWCCA 240

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60882/01

HEARING DATE(S): 12 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Charlinn McCulloch Cook

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1; Blanch AJ at 15

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/0276

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Coorey DCJ

COUNSEL : Applicant in person
D Woodburne (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Applicant in person
S E O'Connor (Crown)

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60862/01

ADAMS J

BLANCH J

WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE 2002

REGINA v CHARLINN McCULLOCH COOK

JUDGMENT

1 ADAMS J: This is an application by Charlinn McCulloch Cook for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on her in the District Court at Parramatta on 15 November 2001 by Coorey DCJ. Ms McCulloch Cook appears unrepresented and has made some brief but pointed submissions in writing to the court. She relies on those submissions for the purpose of arguing her case. Written submissions have also been made by the Crown. In accordance with the usual practice those submissions have been provided to the applicant who has decided that she does not need to add to the written submissions already filed.

2 The applicant pleaded guilty to an offence on indictment as follows:

“On or about 22 January 2000 at Prospect in the State of New South Wales [she] did knowingly take part in the manufacture of an amount of a prohibited drug to wit pseudoephedrine 299.6 grams”.

3 The circumstances giving rise to this charge were that on 22 January 2000 the police attended premises located at 14 Deodar Way, Prospect armed with a search warrant. After identifying themselves to the occupants who would not open the door, police removed the mesh from a security screen and then entered the house. Once inside the kitchen area the officers saw a four-gallon mineral spirits drum, a large garbage bag containing empty Sudafed blister packets and inside a cupboard a glass container with a white and clear substance in it.

4 In the main bedroom the police found a resealable bag containing a quantity of cannabis leaf, a resealable bag containing a methylamphetamine, a paper bag containing a quantity of pseudoephedrine and two sets of scales. Analysis revealed that the bags contained 5.8 grams of cannabis leaf and 32.3 grams of eight percent pure amphetamine. These offences were placed on a Form 1, which his Honour was asked to and did take into account in sentencing the applicant on the charge contained in the indictment.

5 The quantity of pseudoephedrine (9 grams of 54.5 percent purity) is included in the total weight of pseudoephedrine alleged in the substantive charge.

6 In the kitchen the police found an estimated total of ten thousand six hundred and thirty seven Sudafed tablets weighing 2.534 kilograms, a twenty litre drum of methylated spirits, five Pyrex beakers containing a white sludge and a clear liquid, traces of pseudoephedrine on a cutting board, a spoon,…

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 Cook

Details

AGLC: Regina v Cook [2002] NSWCCA 240
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 240
Decision Date: 12 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Cook, Charlinn McCulloch Cook sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by Coorey DCJ in the District Court at Parramatta. The applicant was convicted of participating in the manufacture of a prohibited drug, pseudoephedrine, on or about 22 January 2000 at Prospect in New South Wales. The police discovered a significant amount of pseudoephedrine, equipment for drug manufacture, and other illicit substances in the premises where Cook was present. The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate and whether there were any errors in the sentencing process.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered several grounds for appeal presented by Cook, including her first-time incarceration, her plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, the impact of her imprisonment on her children, her rehabilitation efforts during incarceration, and the District Court judge's consideration of a non-custodial sentence. The Court found that the District Court had appropriately considered these factors and did not identify any errors in the sentencing process. The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that while the sentence could have been different, it was not significantly different from what was imposed, and therefore granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal were that the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the District Court was upheld.

Orders