Regina v Keith Brown - [2001] NSWCCA 367

CITATION: Regina v Keith Brown [2001] NSWCCA 367 revised - 21/09/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60651/00

HEARING DATE(S): 12 September 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 September 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Keith Brown

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 20

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/31/0149

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : English DCJ

COUNSEL : D. Woodburne - Crown
R. Burgess - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Appellant

CASES CITED:
R v Deeble (unreported) CCA 19/9/91

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; sentences imposed in Court below quashed - in lieu: on count 1 a sentence of imprisonment for 4 years commencing on a day 7 weeks prior to 1st September 2000. Non parole period of 2 years to commence on that same day.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60651/00

SULLY J
CARRUTHERS AJ

Regina v Keith Brown

JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J: The Court is in a position to deal with this matter.

2 The present applicant, Mr Brown, seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of sentences passed upon him by her Honour Judge English sitting in the District Court at Newcastle on 29 September 2000.

3 Mr Brown had pleaded guilty before her Honour to two counts, each of which charged him with the supply of a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine. The supply was a deemed supply; and each of the two offences thus charged exposed Mr Brown upon conviction to a statutory maximum penalty of, relevantly, imprisonment for 15 years.

4 Mr Brown asked her Honour to take into account, - and her Honour did take into account, - two further matters that were placed before her Honour upon a Form 1.

5 The first of those matters involved an incident on 2 February 2000, when the offender was stopped by police at a time when he was driving a particular motor vehicle; and a quantity of cannabis weighing 4.72 grams was located in a bag in the back of the vehicle. The applicant denied all knowledge of the cannabis when originally spoken to about it by the police, but, as I have said, he asked eventually that it be taken into account in connection with his sentencing in the District Court.

6 The second of the scheduled matters concerned an incident on 27 October 1999, on which occasion the applicant was stopped as he left certain licensed premises in Hamilton. He was found to be carrying on his person a container, which itself contained three separate plastic bags, each of which contained a white powdered substance. The applicant admitted that the substance was in fact amphetamine. The total weight involved was 6.1 grams.

7 I think that it is a fair inference that her Honour regarded those two matters as explicable, although of course not excusable, by reference to what was undoubtedly an amphetamine addiction from which Mr Brown was then suffering.

8 In connection with the two indicted…

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 Keith Brown

Details

AGLC: Regina v Keith Brown [2001] NSWCCA 367
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 367
Decision Date: 12 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences passed on Keith Brown by the District Court. Brown pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying methylamphetamine, with each charge carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. The District Court judge sentenced Brown to four years for the first count and five years for the second count, with non-parole periods of two years and three years respectively. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the appeal, focusing on whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether there was any error of law.

The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the arguments presented by the Crown, who contended that the sentences were too severe given the quantity of the drugs, the mid-range nature of the drugs, Brown's cooperation with the police, his guilty plea, and his comparatively strong subjective case. The Court found that there was no identifiable error of law in the District Court's sentencing remarks. However, the Court was concerned that the sentences might have fallen outside the upper end of the permissible range, considering the evidence of Brown's significant steps towards rehabilitation during his pre-sentence custody.

After considering the evidence and the relevant criminal statistics, the Court concluded that the sentences imposed were heavy and warranted adjustment. The Court granted leave to appeal, upheld the appeal, and quashed the sentences imposed in the lower court. In their place, the Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for four years for each count, commencing seven weeks prior to the original sentence date, with a non-parole period of two years for each count. The sentences were to be served concurrently.

Orders