Regina v Scevola - [2001] NSWCCA 430

CITATION: Regina v Scevola [2001] NSWCCA 430

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60072/01

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 19 October 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 October 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Reno Guerino Scevola

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Howie J at 17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0551

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Rummery DCJ

COUNSEL : D.M. Woodburne (Crown)
H. Dhanji (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
D.J. Humphreys (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - CONTINUING SUPPLY OF DRUGS - SERIOUS POSSESSION ON FORM 1 - SENTENCE NOT EXCESSIVE - NO SPECIAL MATTER OF PRINCIPLE

CASES CITED:
Regina v Cartwright 1989 17 NSWLR 243
Regina v Gallagher 1991 23 NSWLR 220
Regina v Ellis 1986 6 NSWLR 603
Regina v Thomson 2000 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: APPEAL DISMISSED

60072/01

GROVE J
HOWIE J

Friday 19 October 2001

REGINA v RENO GUERINO SCEVOLA

JUDGMENT

1 GROVE J: This is in the first instance an application to extend the time for making an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The matter has been before this court, differently constituted, on a previous occasion. Directions were given concerning the filing of affidavits in regard to that application and this has been done.

2 For my part I would be prepared to grant the extension of time and deal with the application on the merits, despite the circumstance that it was sought to be brought before the court very late in the day

3 HOWIE J: I agree the matter should be dealt with on its merits.

4 GROVE J: I turn therefore to the application for leave to appeal against sentence which was imposed by Rummery DCJ in the Sydney District Court. The applicant was sentenced on 4 February 2000, having appeared before his Honour on several previous occasions. He had been committed for sentence pursuant to s51A of the Justices Act following his pleas of guilty before a Magistrate to charges first that he supplied a prohibited drug, namely, cocaine on three separate occasions contrary to s25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and secondly, that he supplied the same drug contrary to s25 of that Act.

5 His Honour was also asked to take into account an offence of unlawful possession of property, being cash, the amount of $400, alleged to be the proceeds of drug sales.

6 The facts of the matter were that police were conducting an operation pursuant to the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operation) Act 1997 on 17 February 1999. An undercover police operative was introduced to the applicant in the Kings Cross area and following conversation the applicant supplied him with two capsules of cocaine for the sum of $60 each. Earlier on the same day the applicant had been observed to supply a capsule to another unidentified male in exchange for $60. On the following day there was another meeting and again the supply of a capsule for $60 to the undercover operative.

7 On 10 March 1999 there followed…

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 Scevola

Details

AGLC: Regina v Scevola [2001] NSWCCA 430
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 430
Decision Date: 19 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Scevola involved the defendant, Scevola, who was charged with ongoing supply of drugs and possession on Form 1. Scevola was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He appealed the severity of his sentence, arguing it was excessive and should be reconsidered.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed on Scevola was excessive given the circumstances of his involvement in the supply of drugs. The court had to weigh the gravity of the offence against the mitigating factors presented by Scevola’s counsel, including his cooperation with authorities and personal circumstances. The appeal also examined whether the sentence reflected the principle of proportionality and whether any special matters warranted a deviation from the standard sentencing approach.

The court held that the sentence was not excessive. It considered the nature and extent of Scevola’s involvement in the drug supply, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court found that Scevola’s cooperation with law enforcement and his personal background did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence. The totality of the circumstances, including the impact of his actions on the community, supported the sentence imposed. The court concluded that no special matter of principle or exceptional circumstances were present that would necessitate a departure from the sentence determined by the trial judge.

In light of the above reasoning, the appeal was dismissed. The sentence handed down by the Supreme Court was upheld as appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed.

Orders