Simpson v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 117

CITATION: Simpson v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 117

HEARING DATE(S): 20/03/2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Sully J at 2; Hislop J at 3

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted; 2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Guilty plea - Deemed supply of drugs - Custodial sentence - Alleged exceptional circumstances - Deterrence - Sentence not manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 - s 25

CASES CITED: Markarian v R [2005] 215 ALR 213
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
Regina v Ha [2004] NSWCCA 386
Regina v Yerkovic [2000] NSWCCA 281

PARTIES: Applicant - Julian Mark Simpson
Respondent - Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/469

COUNSEL: Applicant - Mr R. Bonnici
Respondent - Mr P. Barrett

SOLICITORS: Applicant - Justin Lewis & Co
Respondent - Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/51/0036

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Black DCJ

- 1 -

2006/469

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SULLY J
HISLOP J

13 April 2006

Julian Mark SIMPSON v REGINA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hislop J.

2 SULLY J: I agree with Hislop J.

HISLOP J

Introduction

3 The applicant pleaded guilty to 3 counts that he did on 28 June 2004 supply a prohibited drug contrary to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (‘the Act’) s 25.

4 The counts related to cannabis (count 1), methylamphetamine (count 2) and methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (count 3). The drugs were discovered in a unit rented by the applicant during the execution of a warrant by police on 28 June 2004.

5 The maximum penalty is ten years imprisonment or a fine of 2000 penalty units or both (count 1) and 15 years imprisonment or a fine of 2000 penalty units or both (counts 2 and 3 - s 32(1) of the Act).

6 On 11 August 2005 Judge Black QC sentenced the applicant in the District Court in respect of the three counts to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 15 months commencing on 11 August 2005 with the balance of the sentence of 15 months to date from 10 November 2006 and expire on 10 February 2008.

7 The applicant has sought leave to appeal against the sentence. Two grounds were argued on the appeal. Firstly that the circumstances of the case were so exceptional that his Honour must necessarily have erred in imposing a full time custodial sentence or, alternatively, if it had been open to his Honour to impose a custodial sentence, the custodial sentence imposed by his Honour was manifestly excessive.

Discussion

8 The applicant had a strong subjective case. In particular he had, for a lengthy period, engaged in voluntary work in his local community. This had been largely as a facilitator of youth events relating to surfing and skateboarding. He had been instrumental in lobbying the local council for a skateboard park. He…

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 Simpson v Regina

Details

AGLC: Simpson v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 117
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 117
Decision Date: 13 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Simpson v Regina case involved the appellant, Simpson, who was charged with supplying a prohibited drug under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Simpson pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to imprisonment by the District Court. Simpson appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive due to exceptional circumstances. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed on Simpson for supplying a prohibited drug was manifestly excessive, considering the alleged exceptional circumstances. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate and whether there were any exceptional factors that warranted a reduction in the penalty. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentence adequately served the purpose of deterrence in line with the Criminal Code.

The court found that Simpson's actions constituted a serious breach of the law and warranted a custodial sentence. The appeal was dismissed as the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The primary consideration in sentencing was the deterrence of similar criminal conduct, which the court believed was appropriately addressed by the imposed sentence. The court found no exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the standard sentencing principles.

No specific final orders were made in the judgment, but the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of deterrence in drug-related offences and the need to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system in sentencing individuals who supply prohibited drugs.

Orders