Sant v The Queen - [2014] NSWCCA 261

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sant v R [2014] NSWCCA 261
Hearing dates: 21 October 2014
Decision date: 10 November 2014
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Adamson J at [66]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - supply not less than commercial quantity of methylamphetamine - sentencing judge did not erroneously take into account pre-charge supply activity - no legitimate basis for grievance regarding sentences imposed upon co-offenders - sentencing judge did not give inadequate weight to ill health and hardship in custody
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hanania v R [2012] NSWCCA 220
Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; 154 CLR 606
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; 189 CLR 295
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Sant (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr T Game SC (Applicant)
Mr P Ingram SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Gregory J Goold Solicitors
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2010/143902
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2011-12-09 00:00:00

Before:

Blanch CJ DCJ

File Number(s):

2010/143902

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with R A Hulme J.

R A HULME J: John Sant (the applicant) was sentenced by the Honourable Justice Blanch, Chief Judge of the District Court, on 9 December 2011 in respect of an offence of supplying not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. His Honour imposed a sentence of 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years with effect from 8 June 2010.

The offence is one that is contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years and/or a fine of $385,000. Under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) there is also prescribed a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on three grounds: assertions of error in sentencing on an erroneous factual basis relating to the period of the offending, in the application of the principles of parity, and in giving inadequate weight to the applicant's ill health and hardship in custody.

Facts

According to a statement of agreed facts, in October 2009 police began investigating the activities of Manuel Delia and his associates, including Kyle Thompson, in relation to the supply of "ice" (methylamphetamine) in the Dubbo and Wellington areas of the State. The investigation revealed a large operation involving the distribution of the drug on a daily basis directly to users and indirectly by the use of "runners". It was also discovered that Delia was obtaining the drugs from someone in Sydney.

Nine specific transactions between Delia and the applicant were…

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 Sant v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sant v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 261
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 261
Decision Date: 10 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sant v The Queen, the appellant, Sant, sought to appeal his sentence for supplying a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had made errors in considering factors relevant to the imposition of the sentence. Specifically, the appellant argued that the sentencing judge had erroneously taken into account his pre-charge supply activity, failed to give adequate weight to his ill health and hardship in custody, and imposed an excessively harsh sentence compared to his co-offenders.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not made any erroneous considerations in relation to the appellant's pre-charge supply activity. The judge had properly taken into account the appellant's criminal history, including his involvement in similar offences, to determine the appropriate sentence. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's arguments regarding the sentences imposed upon his co-offenders did not provide a legitimate basis for grievance. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing different sentences on the co-offenders based on their individual circumstances. Finally, the court found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the appellant's ill health and hardship in custody, and had not given inadequate weight to these factors.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence imposed on the appellant. The court held that the sentencing judge had properly exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence, and that there were no errors or oversights that warranted a reduction in the appellant's sentence. The court further held that the appellant's arguments regarding the sentences imposed on his co-offenders did not provide a legitimate basis for grievance, and that the appellant's ill health and hardship in custody had been adequately considered by the sentencing judge.

Orders