Regina v Sando - [2000] NSWCCA 301

CITATION: REGINA v. SANDO [2000] NSWCCA 301

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60726 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 11 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 August 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
SANDO, Scott Ronald

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1/15; Wood CJ at CL at 16; Greg James J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0135

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Stewart, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: J.V. Agius, SC.
App: G.P. Craddock

SOLICITORS: Crown: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
App: T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - application for leave to appeal against sentence - asserted error in assessing comparative culpability with courier co-accused - no error.

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
DPP v. Olbrich (1999) 108 A. Crim. R. 465

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60726 of 1998 CORAM: BEAZLEY, JA.
WOOD, CJ. at CL.
GREG JAMES, J.
FRIDAY 11 AUGUST 2000

REGINA v. SCOTT RONALD SANDO
JUDGMENT
1 BEAZLEY, JA: I will ask Greg James, J. to give the first judgment. 2 GREG JAMES, J: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence was convicted on one count of, without reasonable excuse, attempting to obtain possession of prohibited import to which s.233B of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) applied, that is, a quantity of cocaine which had been imported into Australia in contravention of the Act, being not less than the trafficable quantity. In respect of that offence he was sentenced to imprisonment for six years with an non-parole period of three years to commence on 8 September 1999 and pre-sentence custody was taken into account. 3 The circumstances of the offence were set out in an agreed statement of facts to which the learned sentencing judge had reference. That agreed statement of facts referred to the arrival of a courier, Anita Adomaa, into Australia carrying a Johnsons baby powder canister containing the cocaine. The gross weight of the powder and container was recorded as approximately 624 grams. The consequent analysis of the powder confirmed the presence of cocaine weighing 156 grams pure weight. She was apprehended by police and assisted them. In particular, having been provided with a substitute canister of baby powder, she arranged for the attendance of the applicant at motel premises and a transaction then ensued which his Honour set forth in his remarks on sentence. 4 There was discussion as to how much the applicant had brought with him to pay for the drug and his ability to test the drug to ensure that it was of the requisite kind and quality. Upon attempting to test it he noted that it was talcum powder, he noted also that the canister was made in Australia. He left the room and was subsequently arrested. Initially, he declined to have any conversation as to the matter with police but in due course when the matter came forward before his Honour he relied upon his admission to police…

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 Sando

Details

AGLC: Regina v Sando [2000] NSWCCA 301
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 301
Decision Date: 11 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Sando, the defendant was convicted of multiple drug trafficking offences and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Sando sought leave to appeal against his sentence, contending that the sentencing judge erred in assessing his comparative culpability with a co-accused, who was a courier. The appeal focused on whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the respective roles of the parties in the criminal enterprise. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether there was a significant error in the assessment of comparative culpability that warranted a review of the sentence.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the sentencing judge had made an error in assessing the comparative culpability of the defendant in relation to the co-accused. Sando argued that the judge had not sufficiently distinguished between his role and that of the courier, leading to an overestimation of his culpability. The court had to consider whether the sentencing judge's assessment was based on a correct understanding of the roles played by each party in the drug trafficking operation. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the defendant's actual level of involvement.

The court found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the evidence and the roles of both parties in the drug trafficking operation. It held that there was no significant error in the assessment of comparative culpability. The court reasoned that the judge had appropriately weighed the evidence and had correctly identified the respective contributions of the defendant and the co-accused. The sentence imposed was deemed to be commensurate with the defendant's level of involvement, taking into account all relevant factors. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders