Legal Research
Cases
Stokes v Regina

Stokes v Regina

Case [2008] NSWCCA 123 4 June 2008

Sentencing

Supply of Prohibited Drugs

Aggravated Factors

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 185 A Crim R 74

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Stokes v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 123

HEARING DATE(S): 28 May 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 June 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Barr J at 2; Hall J at 46

DECISION: Leave to appeal against the sentences is granted. Appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - supply of prohibited drugs - whether aggravated by organisation and planning - whether sentence excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s21A, s44(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s6(3)

CASES CITED: R v Tadrosse [2005] NSWCCA 145
R v Fahs [2007] NSWCCA 26
R v Elyard (2006) NSWCCA 43
R v Dougan [2006] NSWCCA 34
R v Hewitt (2007) NSWCCA 353
R v Smiroldo (2000) NSWCCA 120
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540

PARTIES: Tyson Stokes
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/4277

COUNSEL: Mr T Gartelmann (Appellant)
Mr P Miller (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission (Appellant)
Solicitor for Director Public Prosecutions(Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/31/0296

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Neild DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 13/04/07

2007/4277

GILES JA
BARR J
HALL J
4 JUNE 2008

TYSON STOKES V REGINA

Judgment

1 GILES JA: I agree with Barr J.

2 BARR J: Tyson Stokes seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court. For knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug on 6 January 2006 the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year six months with a non-parole period of one month and fourteen days. For the offence of supplying a prohibited drug on 13 January 2006 he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year and six months with a non-parole period of one year one month and fourteen days. For the offence of supplying a prohibited drug other than cannabis on three occasions during thirty consecutive days for financial or material reward committed between 30 December 2005 and 27 January 2006 the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of two years. The sentences for the first two counts were ordered to run concurrently. That for the third count was accumulated by one year upon the non-parole period for the first two. The resulting sentence was a non-parole period of three years and a balance of term of one year. The maximum penalty for each of the first two counts was 15 years and for the third 20 years.

3 In December 2005 and January 2006 police conducted a controlled operation in a nightclub in Gosford. Their operatives approached the applicant and negotiated the supply of prohibited drugs. On the first occasion, 30 December 2005, the applicant said that he could supply as many pills as the operatives required and provided his mobile telephone number for future transactions. On that occasion he supplied for $70 two pills which he said were ecstasy but which in fact contained the prohibited drug ketamine. The weight…

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 Stokes v Regina

Details

AGLC: Stokes v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 123
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 123
Decision Date: 4 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stokes v Regina, the appellant, Stokes, was convicted of supplying a large quantity of a prohibited drug. The appeal against his sentence was heard in the High Court of Australia. Stokes argued that the trial judge had erred in finding that the supply of the drugs was aggravated by the degree of organisation and planning involved, and that the sentence imposed was excessive.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge correctly identified the aggravating factors in the supply of the drugs, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court needed to determine whether the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors, including the degree of organisation and planning, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The Court found that the trial judge had correctly identified the aggravating factors in the case, including the degree of organisation and planning involved in the supply of the drugs. The Court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court noted that the supply of a large quantity of a prohibited drug is a serious offence, and that the degree of organisation and planning involved in the offence warranted a higher sentence. The Court also noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences typically imposed for similar offences.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss the appeal against sentence. The Court found that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were therefore upheld.

Orders