Legal Research
Cases
Teehan v R

Teehan v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 401 12 December 2006

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Viera v Regina; Teehan v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 401

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/1728
2006/1963

HEARING DATE(S): 12/12/06

DECISION DATE: 12/12/2006
EX TEMPORE DATE: 12/12/2006

PARTIES:
Luis Fernando Viera (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Preston John Teehan (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ Simpson J Bell J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/1225
04/11/0788

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield DCJ

COUNSEL:
C. Craigie SC (Applicant, Viera)
C. Smith (Applicant, Teehan)
W.J Abraham QC (Crown)

SOLICITORS:
The Law Practice (Applicant, Viera)
S O'Connor (Applicant, Teehan)
Commonwealth DPP (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

DECISION:
Grant leave to appeal against the severity of sentences
Dismiss the appeals.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/1728
2006/1963
SPIGELMAN CJ
SIMPSON J
BELL J
Tuesday 12 December 2006

LUIS FERNANDO VIERA v REGINA (COMMONWEALTH)
PRESTON JOHN TEEHAN v REGINA (COMMONWEALTH)

Judgment

SPIGELMAN CJ: I will ask Justice Bell to deliver the first judgment in this matter.
BELL J: Luis Fernando Viera and Preston John Teehan each seek leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed in the District Court on 18 January 2006 following conviction for the offence of conspiring to import into Australia prohibited imports, namely a quantity of cocaine being not less than the trafficable quantity applicable to cocaine. The offence was provided by s 233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and s 11.5(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
The facts upon which each applicant was sentenced were contained in an agreed statement of facts (Viera AB 179 and Teehan AB 269). It is convenient to set out the “factual overview” from the Crown Prosecutor’s written submissions (WS [19 – [31]):
[19] On 16 June 2003, the Australian Customs Service intercepted a number of mail items that had arrived in Australia from Chile. The packages were detected by drug detection dogs at the Customs Sydney Mail Centre. Eleven packages were found to contain between 10 and 12 grams of white powder. The substance was later analysed and confirmed to be cocaine.
[20] On six further occasions, namely 9 August 2003, 16 September 2003, 13 October 2003, 12 November 2003, 14 November 2003 and 7 December 2003 the authorities intercepted and seized further mail containing cocaine.
[21] In total 131 envelopes/postcards containing cocaine were intercepted. The total amount of powder was 1,613.7 grams containing 601.6 grams of pure cocaine.
[22] On each occasion the cocaine was inside envelopes with postcards. All letters displayed identical handwriting. All letters were addressed to Post Office (“PO”) Boxes located in the Northern Beaches area of Sydney including Mona Vale, Narrabeen, Dee Why, Collaroy, Warriewood, Warringah Mall, Balgowlah and Spit Junction. All were addressed to fictitious names at these PO boxes. All letters were of a similar shape and size and contained a similar quantity of cocaine. All were posted from Santiago, Chile.

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 Teehan v R

Details

AGLC: Teehan v R [2006] NSWCCA 401
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 401
Decision Date: 12/12/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Teehan v R involved the appellant, Teehan, who appealed against the severity of sentences imposed upon his conviction for conspiring to import into Australia a prohibited substance, specifically cocaine. The trial court had found that Teehan was involved in a conspiracy to import a quantity of cocaine, and subsequently sentenced him. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal, examining the quantum of sentences imposed by the trial court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in applying the trafficable quantity applicable to cocaine in determining the appropriate penalty for Teehan's offence. The court needed to consider the correct approach to assessing the quantity of the drug for sentencing purposes and whether the trial judge's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions was correct. The court was also required to examine whether the sentences imposed were excessive or manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case.

The High Court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine the correct approach to assessing the trafficable quantity of cocaine for sentencing. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in assessing the quantity of cocaine involved in the offence. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered the total quantity of cocaine that was the subject of the conspiracy and had not erred in applying the statutory provisions. The court further found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly inadequate and were within the range of penalties that could be considered appropriate for the offence. Consequently, the appeal against the severity of sentences was dismissed.

The High Court upheld the sentences imposed by the trial court and confirmed that the trial judge had correctly applied the legal principles in assessing the quantity of cocaine for sentencing purposes. The court's decision provides guidance to trial courts in determining the appropriate penalty for offences involving the importation of prohibited substances, such as cocaine, and the correct approach to assessing the trafficable quantity of the drug.

Orders