REGINA v White - [1999] NSWCCA 60

CITATION: REGINA v WHITE [1999] NSWCCA 60

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60579/98

HEARING DATE(S): 10 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 March 1999

PARTIES :

Julie White (Applicant)
v
The Crown (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1; Smart AJ at 31

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/128

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Twigg DCJ

COUNSEL: D E Baran - (Applicant)
L Lamprati (Crown) - (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Dorrough Smart (Applicant)
S E O'Connor (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law and procedure; appeal on sentence; supply of prohibited drugs; possession of prohibited drugs; term of imprisonment not manifestly excessive; hardship to applicant's family; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

ACTS CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Sentrencing Act 1989

CASES CITED:
Griffiths v R (1977) CLR 293
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R at 295-296
R v Niga, CCA, 13 April 1994, per Kirby P.
R v Bailey (1988) 34 A Crim R 154

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; a direction that the applicant be released on parole at the expiration of the minimum term on 5 August 1999.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60570/98
SIMPSON J

SMART AJ

Tuesday 30 April 1999

REGINA v Julie WHITE

Judgment
SIMPSON J :
1 This is an application for leave to appeal a sentence imposed on the applicant by Twigg DCJ on 6 August 1998 following her plea of guilty to a charge of supply of prohibited drugs contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. At the applicant’s request pursuant to s 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, in sentencing the applicant Twigg DCJ took into account three counts of possession of prohibited drugs.
2 S 25(1) prescribes a maximum penalty of fifteen years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $220,000 in respect of this offence. Twigg DCJ sentenced the applicant to a total term of imprisonment for two years. Having found special circumstances pursuant to s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1989, he divided the sentence into equal minimum and additional terms of twelve months each.
3 All offences were committed on 5 November 1997. On that day police executed a search warrant on the premises occupied by the applicant. She co-operated immediately, and directed them to where the drugs were concealed under the mattress of her bed. Police found a bag containing 8.26 grams of methylamphetamine (the subject of the charge to which the applicant pleaded guilty), 76.6 grams of cannabis leaf, and items associated with the supply of drugs. In another handbag they found 11.2 grams of ephedrine, and .59 grams of amphetamine. The cannabis leaf, ephedrine and the smaller quantity of amphetamine were the subject of the counts on the Form 1.
4 When interviewed the applicant told police that she had purchased the drugs a week earlier for her own use. She maintained her admission and entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.
5 The applicant was born…

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 White

Details

AGLC: REGINA v White [1999] NSWCCA 60
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 60
Decision Date: 30 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Regina v White involved the defendant, White, who had been found guilty of supplying and possessing prohibited drugs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the trial judge sentenced White to a term of imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the sentence, White appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking a reduced sentence on the grounds of the hardship it would cause his family. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the original sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offences.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the severity of the offence and the impact of the sentence on White’s family. The Court of Appeal also needed to determine if the hardship claimed by White’s family was sufficient to warrant a reduction in his sentence. In addressing these issues, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions and precedents concerning appeals against sentences.

The Court of Appeal examined the evidence presented regarding the nature and circumstances of the drug offences, and the extent of White's involvement. It noted that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the principles of sentencing and had not erred in determining the appropriate term of imprisonment. Additionally, the court assessed the hardship to White’s family but concluded that it did not justify a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court did not make any specific orders beyond dismissing the appeal and affirming the trial court's sentence. This decision reinforces the principle that appeals against sentence are only successful if the sentence is manifestly excessive or if there has been a significant error in the sentencing process.

Orders