Regina v Hughes - [2005] NSWCCA 235

CITATION:
Regina v Hughes [2005] NSWCCA 235

HEARING DATE(S): 20 June 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

20 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Spigelman CJ at 1,23,25; Hunt AJA at 2; Howie J at 24

DECISION:
Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:
Deemed supply of heroin and methylamphetamine - proposed sale of methylamphetamine to pay for heroin for personal use - no statement of principle

PARTIES:
Regina
Karl Stuart Hughes

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/388

COUNSEL:
Applicant in person
V Lydiard for the Crown

SOLICITORS:
Greg Murray (Newcastle) for the Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/31/0450

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Payne DCJ

2005/388

SPIGELMAN CJ
HUNT AJA
HOWIE J

Monday 20 June 2005

REGINA v HUGHES

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I will invite Hunt AJA to deliver the first judgment.

2 HUNT AJA: The applicant, Karl Stuart Hughes (who is also known as Karl Stuart Williams), pleaded guilty in the Newcastle District Court to two charges: supplying heroin, and knowingly take part in the supply of methylamphetamine. The amount of each of the drugs found in his possession was 12.9 grams of heroin and 6.68 grams of methylamphetamine. The applicant pleaded guilty to both charges at the earliest opportunity.

3 The charges of supply were based on the deemed supply of those drugs although the applicant admitted that the methylamphetamine was to be sold. Judge Payne accepted the applicant’s evidence that the heroin was for his own use and the use of his de facto wife, Michelle Ann McAlister, and that the sale of the methylamphetamine was to pay for the heroin. In other words, the supply of the methylamphetamine by way of sale was said to be on a “need not greed” basis.

4 The applicant, who was forty-four years old at the time of sentencing, had a history of only minor crime up to 1998 — such as goods in custody, resist arrest and assault police, possession of housebreaking implements, larceny, break enter and steal and some drink-driving offences. He had only one drug conviction, that of possessing Indian hemp in 1980. There was also an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but this resulted only in a good behaviour bond for twelve months. Up to that stage, the applicant had not been in custody.

5 In 1998, however, the applicant was convicted of a conspiracy to commit an armed robbery for which he received a total sentence of six years, consisting of a minimum term of three years and an additional term of three years. He was released on parole at the end of the minimum term, on 1 April 2001, but late in 2003 he was convicted of two offences of possessing methylamphetamine and sentenced to imprisonment for two months. He had not been charged in relation to any offences for a substantial period of time, approximately two years and four months. His parole was revoked, and he served five months and twelve days being the balance of his parole period. That period had expired by the time…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: Regina v Hughes [2005] NSWCCA 235
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 20 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants were convicted of trafficking in heroin and methylamphetamine by virtue of their involvement in a proposed sale of methylamphetamine to pay for heroin for personal use. The defendants appealed against their convictions, arguing that there was no evidence that they were involved in a supply of drugs. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The High Court of Australia heard both appeals.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the proposed sale of methylamphetamine constituted a supply of that drug, and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the defendants' involvement in a supply of methylamphetamine. The Court also needed to consider whether the trial judge had erred in his approach to sentencing.

The Court held that the proposed sale of methylamphetamine did constitute a supply of that drug, as it involved the defendants agreeing to sell a quantity of methylamphetamine to another person. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove the defendants' involvement in a supply of methylamphetamine, despite the fact that the proposed sale did not go through. The Court also held that the trial judge had not erred in his approach to sentencing, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentence were upheld.

Orders