Regina v Hennock - [2002] NSWCCA 229

CITATION: REGINA v. HENNOCK [2002] NSWCCA 229

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60896 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 17 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 June 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
HENNOCK, Benjamin David

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1; Smart AJ at 30

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/31/0269

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : English, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: L.M.B. Lamprati
App: P. Bryne, SC.

SOLICITORS: Crown: S. E. O'Connor
App: Richardson Burgin Steer

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal - sentence - ongoing supply of drugs MDMA - youth - nature of dealings - special circumstances - no error - appeal dismissed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drugs Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

No. 60896 of 2001

GREG JAMES, J.
SMART, AJ.
MONDAY 17 JUNE 2002

REGINA v. BENJAMIN DAVID HENNOCK

Judgment

1 GREG JAMES, J: This is an application for leave to appeal from a sentence imposed on the applicant in the District Court of New South Wales at Gosford in consequence of the applicant having pleaded guilty to one count under s.25 A(1) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The particulars of the charge were that he had supplied a prohibited drug, that is methyldioxide methylamphetamine (MDMA) between the 23 March and 23 April 2001 at West Gosford on three or more occasions. That offence is commonly referred to as the offence of supply prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis. It is punishable under the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 by the imposition of 20 years imprisonment or 3,500 penalty units or both.

2 In addition the trial judge was asked to take into account on a Form 1, two counts of supply, one being between the 22 April and 6 June 2001 of methyl dioxide, methyl amphetamine (MDMA), the other being the supply between 5 and 6 June 2001 of cannabis to the value only of $20 but to a school girl and a further offence of possession of 1.8 grams of cannabis located when his premises were searched at the time of his arrest.

3 The maximum penalty for the Form 1 offence of deemed supply of the MDMA is 15 years imprisonment. That for the supply of the cannabis is 10 years imprisonment. In the event that the possession matter had been dealt with by a Local Court it would have been punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment.

4 The applicant was born on 4 September 1981. He had just turned 20 at the time of sentence. He was 19 at the time the offences were committed. They were committed through an intermediary who dealt with an undercover police agent engaged in the prosecution of a controlled operation.

5 That intermediary in dealing with the undercover police agent indicated his sources of supply of the MDMA, and it was discovered that one of those sources was the offender.

6 On…

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 Hennock

Details

AGLC: Regina v Hennock [2002] NSWCCA 229
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 229
Decision Date: 17 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Hennock was a case heard in the Court of Appeal in which the appellant, Hennock, contested his sentence for his involvement in the ongoing supply of drugs, specifically MDMA. The case arose from a lower court's decision, which had convicted Hennock of drug trafficking and imposed a custodial sentence. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence and whether it adequately considered the appellant's youth and the nature of his criminal dealings.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the appellant's age and whether there were special circumstances that warranted a lesser penalty. The court was tasked with determining if the sentencing judge had erred in his assessment of these factors. It was essential to examine whether the lower court had given appropriate weight to the appellant's youth and the mitigating aspects of his criminal conduct.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles and the discretion afforded to the lower court in imposing a penalty. It found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the appellant's age and the nature of his criminal activities, concluding that there were no errors in the sentencing process. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence, and it was satisfied that the judge had appropriately balanced the various mitigating and aggravating factors. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders