Legal Research
Cases
Rodgers v R

Rodgers v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 47 23 March 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47
Hearing dates: 26 February 2018
Date of orders: 23 March 2018
Decision date: 23 March 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
N Adams J at [119]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – offences of supplying large commercial quantity of cocaine and offering to supply large commercial quantity of cocaine under s.25(2)Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 – offence of giving corrupt benefit to a Commonwealth public official (a police officer) under s.142.1(1) Criminal Code (Cth) – Form 1 offence of supplying indictable quantity of cocaine – whether error in commencement date of sentence for Commonwealth offence – claim of illegitimate disparity in sentence for one offence with co-offenders – claim of error and denial of procedural fairness concerning “special circumstances” for State offences - claim that sentences manifestly excessive – no error demonstrated – parity ground rejected – objective gravity of drug supply offences – objective gravity of offence of giving corrupt benefit to police officer to obtain confidential information to assist importation of border-controlled drugs – maintenance of public confidence in integrity of police force – importance of specific and general deterrence – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited: Abbas v R (2013) 231 A Crim R 413; [2013] NSWCCA 115
Baroudi v R [2007] NSWCCA 48
Borsa v R [2003] WASCA 254
Brennan v R [2018] NSWCCA 22
Button v R [2010] NSWCCA 264
CL v R [2014] NSWCCA 196
Delaney v R (2013) 230 A Crim R 581; [2013] NSWCCA 150
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Haines v R [2012] NSWCCA 238
Hiron v R [2018] NSWCCA 10
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Martinez v R [2015] NSWCCA 5
Milsom v R [2014] NSWCCA 142
Owen v R [2017] NSWCCA 54
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v Buckskin [2010] SASC 138
R v Casey [2015] NSWCCA 142
R v Duong (1999) 109 A Crim R 60; [1999] NSWCCA 353
R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152; [2000] NSWCCA 2
R v Newman (2004) 145 A Crim R 361; [2004] NSWCCA 102
R v Nguyen (2010) 205 A Crim R 106; [2010] NSWCCA 238
R v O’Mally [2005] NSWCCA 166
R v Pangallo (1991) 56 A Crim R 441
Shi v R [2017] NSWCCA 126
Usher v R [2016] NSWCCA 276
ZA v R [2017] NSWCCA 132
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nathan Rodgers (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms S Kluss (Applicant)
Ms B Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
SJT…

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 Rodgers v R

Details

AGLC: Rodgers v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 47
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 47
Decision Date: 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rodgers, was convicted of multiple drug supply and corruption offences, including the supply of a large commercial quantity of cocaine and offering to supply such quantity, as well as providing a corrupt benefit to a Commonwealth public official. The appellant appealed against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in the commencement date of the sentence for the Commonwealth offence and that there was an illegitimate disparity in the sentence for one offence compared to his co-offenders. Furthermore, the appellant claimed that there was an error and denial of procedural fairness concerning the consideration of "special circumstances" for the State offences, and that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in the sentencing process and whether the sentences imposed were excessive or disproportionate.

The court began by examining the appellant's claims concerning the commencement date of the sentence for the Commonwealth offence. It found that there was no error in the date set by the trial judge, and the claim of an illegitimate disparity in sentence with co-offenders was rejected as the trial judge had considered the relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also rejected the claim that there was an error or denial of procedural fairness in the consideration of "special circumstances" for the State offences, as the trial judge had adequately considered the appellant's circumstances and provided reasons for the sentence imposed. Finally, the court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the objective gravity of the drug supply offences, the objective gravity of the offence of giving a corrupt benefit to a police officer, the need to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the police force, and the importance of specific and general deterrence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's sentencing process and affirming that the sentences imposed were appropriate and proportionate to the crimes committed. The objective gravity of the drug supply and corruption offences, as well as the importance of maintaining public confidence in the police force and the need for specific and general deterrence, were all considered in the imposition of the sentences. Consequently, the appellant's appeal against his sentence was unsuccessful, and the original sentences imposed by the trial judge were upheld.

Orders