Regina v Massart - [2000] NSWCCA 150

CITATION: Regina v Massart [2000] NSWCCA 150

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60789/99

HEARING DATE(S): 1 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Phyllis Massart

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 23, 25; Foster AJA at 24; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/3208

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Coorey DCJ

COUNSEL :
D C Frearson
(Crown/Appellant)
C B Craigie
(Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor
(Crown/Appellant)
Leary & Co
(Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - drug supply but prisoner suffering from delusions and disturbed judgment - exceptional case - sentences not manifestly inadequate.

DECISION: Crown appeal against sentence dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA60789/99

DUNFORD J
FOSTER AJA
SMART AJ
MONDAY 1 MAY 2000

REGINA v Phyllis MASSART
JUDGMENT

1 SMART AJ: The Crown appeals against the alleged inadequacy of five concurrent sentences each comprising a minimum term of one year and an additional term of three years in respect of each of five counts of supplying a prohibited drug; two counts relating to the supply of methylamphetamine and three to the supply of amphetamine. 2 The offences took place within a period of seven weeks from 30 October 1995 to 15 December 1995. The trial lasted from 17 August 1999 to 30 August 1999. It does not appear why there was such a long delay in the trial taking place. 3 The Crown alleged that the prisoner supplied the drugs in question to Bone Metreski who then supplied the drugs to an undercover police officer. The judge described the Crown case as a strong one. It included observations of the prisoner in the car park in which the supplies took place and the tapes of a number of a telephone conversations. She denied that she was in the car park and that the telephone conversations were referring to her supplying drugs. She said that they were referring to her obtaining drugs. In her evidence she denied any involvement in selling drugs to Metreski. She said that she had once made an arrangement with Metreski around 14 December 1995 to purchase amphetamine from him. 4 $1,000 was paid for the drug supply on the first count, $1,000 on the second count, $2,200 on the third count, $6,500 on the fourth count and $6,500 on the fifth count. 5 As to count 1, the powder supplied weighed 28 grams and contained 2 per cent methylamphetamine. As to count 2, the powder supplied weighed 276 grams and contained 1.5 per cent methylamphetamine. As to count 3, the powder supplied weighed 55.2 grams and contained 4.5 per cent amphetamine. As to count 4, the powder supplied weighed 227 grams and contained 6.5 per cent amphetamine. And as to count 5, the powder supplied weighed 235.1 grams and contained 5.5 per cent amphetamine. It can thus be seen that the amounts of methylamphetamine and amphetamine involved were relatively small. 6 Bone Metreski pleaded guilty as to his involvement in offences with the…

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 Massart

Details

AGLC: Regina v Massart [2000] NSWCCA 150
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 150
Decision Date: 1 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Massart, the defendant was convicted of drug supply. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering that the defendant was suffering from delusions and had disturbed judgment at the time of the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate, given the defendant's mental state.

The court considered the defendant's mental health, specifically his delusions and impaired judgment, which influenced his actions. It was noted that the defendant's condition played a significant role in his criminal behaviour. The court had to balance the need for punishment with the recognition of the defendant's mental health issues. The court held that the sentences were not manifestly inadequate, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the case.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised that while the defendant's mental state was a mitigating factor, it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court recognised the seriousness of the drug supply offence but acknowledged the unique context of the defendant's mental health issues. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were appropriate, given the mitigating factors and the need for public protection.

No further orders were made by the court beyond affirming the sentences imposed. The decision underscores the importance of considering mental health issues in sentencing, while also maintaining a focus on the gravity of the offence committed.

Orders