TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL from SUPREME COURT exercising Northern Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:CA 11 of 2016 (21556213)
DELIVERED ON: 25 July 2017
DELIVERED AT: Darwin
HEARING DATE: 6 April 2017
JUDGMENT OF: Grant CJ, Southwood and Blokland JJ
APPEAL FROM: Barr J
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG OFFENCES – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT
Crown appeal against sentence on the ground of manifest inadequacy – supply of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine over an extended period – cross-border importation – primary sentencing purposes are punishment, denunciation, community protection and deterrence – inordinate weight given to rehabilitative purposes – appeal allowed and offender re-sentenced.
Criminal Code (NT) s 414(1A) Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) s 5, s 23(6)
A Freiberg, Fox and Freiberg’s Sentencing State and Federal Law in Victoria (Thomson Reuters, 3rd ed, 2014).
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:D Morters
Respondent: S Cox QC
Solicitors:
Appellant:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification: B
Number of pages: 106
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN
The Queen v Roe [2017] NTCCA 7
No. CCA 11 of 2016 (21556213)
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND:
CHAD ROE
Respondent
CORAM: GRANT CJ, SOUTHWOOD AND BLOKLAND JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 25 July 2017)
GRANT CJ AND SOUTHWOOD J:
This is a Crown appeal against a partially suspended sentence of imprisonment that was imposed on the respondent by the Supreme Court on 12 October 2016.
On 4 August 2016 the respondent pleaded guilty to a single count on an indictment dated 5 May 2016. The count charged that…
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 The Queen v Roe
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
The Queen v Roe [2017] NTCCA 7
Case
[2017] NTCCA 7
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned a Crown appeal against a sentence imposed on the respondent for drug offences. The respondent was found to have supplied a commercial quantity of methamphetamine over an extended period, including through cross-border importation. The appeal argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
The central legal issues before the Court were whether the primary sentencing purposes of punishment, denunciation, community protection, and deterrence had been given sufficient weight, and conversely, whether excessive weight had been afforded to rehabilitative purposes in the original sentencing determination. The Court was required to consider the principles governing Crown appeals against sentence and the appropriate balance to be struck between various sentencing objectives.
The Court reasoned that the original sentencing judge had placed inordinate weight on the rehabilitative prospects of the respondent, to the detriment of the other primary sentencing purposes. The Court reiterated that for serious drug offences involving commercial quantities and importation, punishment, denunciation, community protection, and deterrence are paramount. The Court found that the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offending conduct, particularly the scale and duration of the supply and the cross-border element.
The appeal was allowed, and the offender was re-sentenced.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Accordingly, the principle of double jeopardy no longer requires this Court to ensure that appellate intervention is rare and exceptional in the manner spoken of in Hitanaya. It remains the case, however, that this Court will not intervene where no point of principle arises, and will be slow to intervene where there is a countervailing factor which may warrant the exercise of the residual discretion.The facts The facts of the offence committed by the respondent are as follows. On 4 June 2015, Drug and Organised Crime Squad detectives commenced an operation codenamed ACOSY to investigate the supply and distribution of methamphetamine through a syndicate operating in Darwin. The respondent was identified as the primary target of the operation. Between 23 July and 20 October 2015 detectives monitored the movements of and communications between the respondent, co-offenders and others involved. While the respondent was residing in Darwin between 23 July and 22 August 2015, he engaged in the supply of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine. He obtained quantities of methamphetamine from unknown sources and sold the drug for profit. Typically, the offender obtained methamphetamine in quantities known as an “eight-ball”[18] and then sold the drug to end users in smaller quantities. An eight-ball contains 3.5 grams of methamphetamine (or 1/8 of an ounce in the Imperial measure). The respondent sold the drug in “point” (0.1 gram), “quarter” (0.25 gram), “half” (0.5 gram), “full” (1 gram), and “half-ball” (1.75 grams) quantities. In the period between 23 July and 22 August 2015 the respondent obtained each eight-ball of methamphetamine for between $2,200 and $2,600. He sold a point for between $100 and $150, a quarter for between $250 and $300, a half for between $500 and $600, a full for between $1,000 and $1,200, and a half-ball for between $1,250 and $1,500. Each eight-ball obtained by the offender was divided and sold for varying amounts up to $5,250. Between 23 July and 22 August 2015 police intercepted 670 SMS messages and 234 telephone calls between the respondent and the drug users he supplied. From his involvement in the supply of methamphetamine in Darwin the respondent became aware that methamphetamine could be obtained for significantly lower prices in the southern States. At some time prior to 22 August 2015 the respondent made arrangements with unknown parties in Melbourne to purchase ounce (28 gram) quantities of methamphetamine for between $3,000 and $4,000. On 22 August 2015 he flew to Melbourne and resided there until 12 November 2015 when he was extradited to the Northern Territory. While in Melbourne the respondent purchased ounce and half ounce quantities of methamphetamine which he transported to Darwin by various means to be sold. Sometimes the methamphetamine was transported to Darwin by the respondent’s associates flying to Darwin with the drug. Sometimes the methamphetamine was transported to Darwin by secreting the drug in various packages together with other items and mailing the packages containing the drug to Darwin.