Regina v K - [2000] NSWCCA 200

CITATION: Regina v K [2000] NSWCCA 200

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 060436/99

HEARING DATE(S): 18/05/2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v K

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1,28,30; Heydon JA at 29; Smart AJ at 2-27

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0069

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Latham DCJ

COUNSEL : G.P. Craddock - Appellant
R.F. Sutherland - Crown

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission - Appellant
Commonwealth D P P - Crown

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Courier of trafficable quantity of heroin (mid range) - permissible range - discount for assistance.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231
Wong & Leung [1999] NSWCCA 420
R v Lawson (1997) 98 A Crim R 463
R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal allowed; Sentence quashed; In lieu therof applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years starting on 29.11.1998 with a non parole period of 3 years.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60436/99
MASON P
HEYDON JA
SMART AJ
THURSDAY, 18 MAY 2000

REGINA v K

JUDGMENT

1 MASON P: I will ask Smart AJ to deliver the first judgment.
2 SMART AJ: In this matter I will refer to the applicant by the pseudonym "K".
3 K seeks leave to appeal and to appeal against the severity of a sentence of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years for the offence of importing into Australia a quantity of heroin being not less than the trafficable quantity.
4 On 29 November 1998 the applicant arrived by plane in Sydney from Indonesia. Concealed at the bottom of his briefcase was 999.5 grams of heroin mixture with a purity of 72.1 percent. The nett weight of pure heroin was 720.6 grams, which is a trafficable quantity. At the then current street prices of $300 to $450 for 1 gram at fifteen percent purity, the heroin seized was estimated to have a street value of $1 million to $1.5 million.
5 Upon the applicant's arrival he was to proceed to a nominated motel and contact his principal in Indonesia for further instructions. This is a typical mode of operation. Upon his arrest K agreed to assist the authorities. Under their supervision he went to the nominated motel and endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to contact his principal. However, his principal telephoned him at the motel. About one and a half hours later K received a local call advising him that on the following day he would receive a further call with further instructions. A person subsequently attended on him at the motel and saw the briefcase. He left and returned about twenty minutes later with $20,000 which he gave to K. This person was arrested.
6 At the sentence hearing the Crown conceded that the applicant should be sentenced as a courier and that was correct.
7 The judge thought that the offence was committed solely in order…

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 K

Details

AGLC: Regina v K [2000] NSWCCA 200
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 200
Decision Date: 18 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus K, the defendant was convicted for being a courier of a trafficable quantity of heroin. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the permissible range of penalties and whether a discount should be applied for any assistance provided to the authorities.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who was found guilty of being a courier of a mid-range quantity of heroin. The legal issues included the assessment of the permissible range of penalties under the relevant legislation and whether the defendant's assistance to the authorities warranted a discount in sentencing. The court needed to balance the severity of the offence with any mitigating factors, such as the defendant's cooperation with law enforcement.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record. The court also acknowledged the defendant's assistance to the authorities, which included providing information that led to the arrest of other individuals involved in drug trafficking. Based on these factors, the court determined that a discount in sentencing was appropriate. The court ultimately imposed a sentence within the permissible range, taking into account the discount for assistance.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a discount applied for the assistance provided. The specific details of the sentence, including the length of the term and any additional penalties, were not detailed in the judgment.

Orders