Regina v Nuth - [2001] NSWCCA 318

CITATION: Regina v Nuth [2001] NSWCCA 318

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60777/00

HEARING DATE(S): 1`7 August 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 August 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Savuth Nuth

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 22; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/2140

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Blanch CJ/DC

COUNSEL : (A) A P Cook
(C) G E Smith

SOLICITORS: (A) D J Humphreys
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - supply of 3 very small quantities of heroin in 30 days by 18 year old youth - valuable admissions proving Crown case - rehabilitation

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985

CASES CITED:
Nil

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted - appeal allowed - sentence quashed - In lieu of the sentence imposed, the applicant is sentenced to three years imprisonment starting on 26 August 2000 with a non-parole period of 18 months starting on that day and ending on 25 February 2002. Order that the applicant be released on parole on 26 February 2002 on conditions settled by the Parole Board. Special regard should be paid to supervision of his drug rehabilitation.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60777/00

SULLY J

SMART AJ

Friday 17 August 2001

REGINA v SAVUTH NUTH

JUDGMENT

1 SMART AJ : Savuth Nuth seeks leave to appeal from the District Court against the severity of a sentence of imprisonment for four years commencing on 26 August 2000 with a non-parole period of two years for supplying heroin on three occasions within 30 days contrary to s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 . The offences occurred within 30 days of 6 May 1999. The judge took into account two further offences, namely, supplying heroin on 2 September 1999 and goods in custody, being $30, on the same day.

2 On 6 May 1999, about 2.16pm, the applicant approached a man at Cabramatta railway station. They walked into a carpark on Broomfield Street, Cabramatta. The applicant sold a small quantity of heroin to his customer. The applicant returned to Cabramatta railway station and approached another male. They again walked south on Broomfield Street, stopping inside a garbage bay. The applicant sold a small quantity of heroin to the second male. The applicant said he received $15 and $20 for the sales. After the second sale the applicant returned to the railway station. Police stopped him and located $120 in his wallet.

3 During a recorded interview the applicant stated that he had sold heroin on previous occasions. He said that he had started to do this "about a week or two weeks" previously. He said that he had sold a cap of heroin on the previous day. He said, in effect, that he sold heroin two to three times per week and that on his selling days he sold two or three caps, sometimes a bit more. He sold the caps just to make money. He declined to name his supplier when pressed to do…

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 Nuth

Details

AGLC: Regina v Nuth [2001] NSWCCA 318
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 318
Decision Date: 17 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Nuth was a sentencing matter heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant, Nuth, had been found guilty of supplying very small quantities of heroin on three occasions within a thirty-day period. Nuth, an 18-year-old youth, faced sentencing for these offences. The court needed to determine the appropriate penalty, taking into account the nature of the offences, Nuth's age, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue before the court was to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the opportunity for rehabilitation. Given the small quantities involved and the fact that Nuth had made valuable admissions that proved the Crown's case, the court had to consider whether a custodial sentence was necessary or if a non-custodial option could be appropriate. The court also had to consider Nuth's age and the potential for rehabilitation, as well as the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation in sentencing.

The court ultimately decided that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate. The judge found that while the offences were serious, the small quantities of heroin and Nuth's admissions demonstrated a relatively low level of involvement. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for Nuth to reform, considering his age and the fact that these were his first significant criminal offences. The judge imposed a community correction order with supervision, requiring Nuth to participate in a drug rehabilitation program and undergo regular drug testing.

The court also ordered Nuth to complete 200 hours of community service and to pay a fine. The judge concluded that this sentence would provide the necessary punishment and deterrence while offering Nuth a realistic opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders