Wayne William Reid v The Queen - [2009] NSWCCA 37

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Wayne William Reid v R [2009] NSWCCA 37

HEARING DATE(S): 19 February 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 February 2009

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; James J at 2; Buddin J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - offences of supplying drugs - discount for assistance -special circumstances - totality - parity

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Elmir v R [2009] NSWCCA 22
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v El-Arja [2009] NSWCCA 8
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17

PARTIES: Wayne William Reid (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/13112

COUNSEL: Ms S Kluss (Applicant)
Ms V Lydiard (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Homeless Persons Legal Service (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/21/0195

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Marien DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16/05/2008

2007/13112

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
JAMES J
BUDDIN J
WEDNESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2009

WAYNE WILLIAM REID v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Buddin J.

2 JAMES J: I agree with Buddin J.

3 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court. The applicant originally pleaded guilty in the Local Court to four separate charges of supplying drugs and adhered to those pleas when he appeared for sentence.

4 Charge 1 involved the deemed supply of MDMA in the form of twenty ecstasy tablets which had a total weight of 4.99 grams. Charge 2 involved the deemed supply of methylamphetamine with a total weight of 3.31 grams. Charge 3 involved the supply of 0.1 – 0.2 grams of crystal methylamphetamine or “ice” and Charge 4 involved the applicant knowingly taking part in the supply of 0.08 grams of methylamphetamine or “base”. Each of those offences attracts a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 2,000 penalty units.

5 The sentencing judge took into account when sentencing the applicant four offences of possessing a prohibited drug and one offence of goods in custody which related to a sum of $396.35 in cash which was found in the applicant’s possession.

6 In respect of Charge 4, the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of 6 months imprisonment to date from 16 May 2008 which was the date he went into custody. In respect of Charge 3, he was sentenced to a fixed term of 6 months imprisonment to date from 16 August 2008. In respect of Charge 2, he was sentenced to a fixed term of 6 months imprisonment to date from 16 November 2008. In respect of Charge 1 and taking into account the Form 1 matters, a non-parole period of 7 months to date from 16 February 2009 and ending on 15…

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 Wayne William Reid v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wayne William Reid v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 37
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 37
Decision Date: 25 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wayne William Reid has appealed against his sentence for drug supply offences, which included a substantial discount for his assistance to law enforcement. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The key issue before the court was whether the discount for Reid's assistance to the authorities could be applied against the totality of the sentence imposed or if it should only apply to individual sentences for each offence. The court had to determine if the trial judge had correctly exercised discretion in imposing the sentence, and whether the principle of parity required that the discount be applied across the entire sentence.

The High Court held that the trial judge had not erred in law. The court emphasised that the discount for assistance should be considered in the context of the entire sentence, not just individual offences. This approach was consistent with the principle of totality, which ensures that a defendant's cooperation with authorities is appropriately rewarded. The court also confirmed that the discount could be applied in a manner that achieves a just outcome, taking into account all relevant circumstances. The principle of parity was addressed, and the court found that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the need for deterrence with the recognition of Reid's assistance.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The High Court's decision reinforces the importance of considering the totality of a sentence when applying discounts for assistance, ensuring that justice is served by recognising the defendant's cooperation while also maintaining the deterrent effect of sentencing. The ruling provides clarity for future cases involving similar issues, guiding trial judges in the application of discounts for assistance in criminal sentencing.

Orders