Legal Research
Cases
Watkins v The Queen

Watkins v The Queen

Case [2018] NSWCCA 24 2 March 2018

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Watkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 24
Hearing dates: 5 February 2018
Date of orders: 02 March 2018
Decision date: 02 March 2018
Before: Payne JA at [1]
Garling J at [2]
Hidden AJ at [88]
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against sentence – supply prohibited drug – ongoing supply prohibited drug – possession of unauthorised firearm – deal with proceeds of crime – whether sentencing judge failed to take into account the objective seriousness of the offending – where brief ex tempore remarks on sentence – leave to appeal refused
Legislation Cited: Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Firearms Act 1995
Cases Cited: Biles v R [2014] NSWCCA 170
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 349 ALR 37
Eldridge v R; Mackay v R [2015] NSWCCA 127
Grills v R [2016] NSWCCA 46
Huckstadt v R [2016] NSWCCA 22
Hurst v R [2017] NSWCCA 114
Luu v R [2008] NSWCCA 285
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Paxton v R (2011) 219 A Crim R 104
Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Blair (2005) 152 A Crim R 462
R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304
R v Dashti [2016] NSWCCA 251
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; 205 A Crim R
R v Peter Michael Clark (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 15 March 1990, unrep)
R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Marcus James Watkins (Applicant)
The Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
A Hughes (Applicant)
B Hatfield (Crown)
Solicitors:
Ramsland Laidler Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/24524; 2015/239581
Publication restriction: Not Applicable
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

11 March 2016

Before:

Ellis DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/24524; 2015/239581

Judgment

PAYNE JA: I agree with Garling J.
GARLING J: The applicant, Marcus James Watkins, seeks leave to appeal pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against an aggregate sentence imposed upon him by Ellis DCJ on 11 March 2016 in the District Court of New South Wales.
The sole ground relied upon by the applicant is that the sentencing Judge erred in failing to properly assess the objective seriousness of the offences.

Charges and Sentence

The applicant entered a plea of guilty to two sets of offences, which related to the supply of prohibited drugs, possession of an unauthorised pistol and knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime. These sets of…

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 Watkins v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Watkins v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 24
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 24
Decision Date: 02 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Watkins v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of supplying a prohibited drug, specifically cocaine, on an ongoing basis, possessing an unauthorised firearm, and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The respondent, the Crown, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant by the lower court. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider the objective seriousness of the offending, as evidenced by brief ex tempore remarks made during the sentencing process. This question required the Court to examine the sentencing principles and procedures set out in the common law and relevant statutes.

The Court examined the sentencing remarks made by the judge and considered whether they adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offending. The Court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the objective seriousness of the offending, despite the brevity of the remarks, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the offending, including the appellant's role in the supply of the prohibited drug, the possession of the firearm, and the dealing with the proceeds of crime. The Court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and did not represent a significant departure from the principles of sentencing in Australia.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The Court held that the sentencing judge had properly considered the objective seriousness of the offending and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the offending, including the appellant's role in the supply of the prohibited drug, the possession of the firearm, and the dealing with the proceeds of crime. The Court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and did not represent a significant departure from the principles of sentencing in Australia. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld.

Orders