Teagle v The King - [2023] SASCA 108

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
TEAGLE v THE KING
[2023] SASCA 108
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable President Livesey, the Honourable Justice Lovell and the Honourable Justice Bleby)
5 October 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS - TOTALITY
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS - NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER - DEPRIVED BACKGROUND
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - SENTENCE - TRAFFICKING, TRADING, SELLING, SUPPLYING OR DISTRIBUTING - OTHER SUBSTANCES AND OFFENCES INVOLVING MULTIPLE SUBSTANCES OR OFFENCES
Appeal against sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and possession offences contrary to the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). The relevant offending fell within two tranches committed in April 2021 and August 2021 respectively.
The most significant of the applicant’s offending was one count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug (1,4-Butanediol, also known as fantasy). This formed the subject of Count 2 in the August offending.
The primary judge’s sentencing remarks had regard to the applicant’s drug addiction, deprived childhood, and that August offending had occurred while he was on home detention bail for the April offending. The judge also considered the applicant’s criminal history, most relevantly a conviction in 2018 for trafficking a controlled drug for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
In sentencing, the judge indicated that he proposed to sentence the applicant on the basis he had a significant profit motive. He adopted a notional starting point of 11 years in respect of Count 2 in the August offending. He reduced the sentence in accordance with the applicable discount to eight years, three months. He made the other sentences within that tranche of offending wholly concurrent with that sentence.
The judge made the sentences in the April tranche wholly concurrent with the highest sentence in that group. He then applied partial concurrency as between the two groups of sentences. Once allowances were made for time spent in custody and on home detention bail, the resultant combined head sentence was 10 years, nine months and 23 days.
The sole ground of appeal was that the sentences were manifestly excessive.
Held (by the Court), granting permission to appeal but dismissing the appeal:
1.The notional starting point of 11 years adopted by the primary judge for Count 2 in the August offending was manifestly excessive. However, that did not render the overall sentence manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge’s provision for concurrency between the individual sentences in each tranche of offending, as well as for partial concurrency between the two groups of sentences, ameliorated the effect of that excessive starting point.
2.The starting point of 11 years for Count 2 in the August offending was an outcome error in respect of a constituent part of the final head sentence. It follows that it is the duty of the Court…

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 Teagle v The King

Details

AGLC: Teagle v The King [2023] SASCA 108
Case: [2023] SASCA 108
Decision Date: 5 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Teagle, appealed against his sentence to the Court of Appeal of South Australia. The dispute concerned the severity of the sentence imposed following convictions for drug trafficking offences.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offender, including his deprived upbringing and addiction, and the totality of the offending.

The Court acknowledged the applicant's deprived upbringing and addiction as relevant factors in sentencing. However, it characterised the offending as serious, involving repeated instances of drug trafficking. Specifically, the April offending involved a commercial quantity of 1-4, Butanediol, and the August offending involved a large commercial quantity of the same drug, with each group also including counts of trafficking methylamphetamine. The Court viewed each group of offending as a separate incursion, particularly given the applicant's arrest and release on home detention bail after the April offences. Despite an error identified in relation to one count in the August offending, the Court concluded that the sentencing judge's ultimate sentence was appropriate.

Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

We have had regard to all the matters relevant to sentence discussed above, including the applicant’s deprived upbringing and circumstances and his addiction. The offending was on any view serious. It represented repeated instances of drug trafficking in amounts that extended, in the case of the April offending, to a commercial quantity of 1-4, Butanediol and in the case of the August offending, to a large commercial quantity of that drug. Each group of offending included a further two counts of trafficking in methylamphetamine. Each group is properly characterised as a separate incursion, particularly having regard to the applicant’s arrest and release on home detention bail following the April offending. Notwithstanding the error in respect of Count 2 in the August offending, we would not impose a different sentence from that which the judge ultimately imposed.Conclusion We grant permission to appeal but dismiss the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.