Legal Research
Cases
Weber v R

Weber v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 103 27 May 2020

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: Weber v R [2020] NSWCCA 103
Hearing dates: 7 May 2020
Date of orders: 27 May 2020
Decision date: 27 May 2020
Before: Simpson AJA at [1]
Rothman J at [26]
Bellew J at [36]
Decision:
(1) The time in which to bring an application for leave to appeal against sentence is extended.

(2) Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

(3) The appeal against sentence is allowed.

(4) The sentence imposed on the applicant in the District Court of NSW is quashed.
(5) In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 7 years and 5 months to date from 13 June 2015 and to expire on 12 November 2022, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 2 months to date from 13 June 2015 and to expire on 12 August 2020.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Importing border controlled drug in excess of the marketable quantity – Where sentencing judge failed to take into account the utilitarian value of the applicant’s plea of guilty – Error established – Plea entered at the first available opportunity – Additional discount applied to reflect the applicant’s assistance to police – Applicant resentenced
CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and procedure – Taking into account co-operation when sentencing a federal offender – Where applicant provided information to police at the time of his arrest – No evidence of usefulness of the information which was provided – Whether absence of such evidence disentitled the applicant to a discount for co-operation
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Criminal Code Regulations 2019 (Cth)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Huang v The Queen 272 A Crim R 266; [2018] NSWCCA 70
Pfitzner v R [2010] NSWCCA 314
R v Barrientos [1999] NSWCCA 1
R v Benais [1999] NSWCCA 236
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
R v Riddell (2009) 194 A Crim R 524; [2009] NSWCCA 96
R v Shannon (1979) 21 SASR 442
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74
Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365; [2011] NSWCCA 215
Valsamakis v R [2016] NSWCCA 156
Winchester v R (1992) 58 A Crim R 345
Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4
Yenice v R (1994) 72 A Crim R 234
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Helmut Weber – Applicant
Regina – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
P Coady – Applicant
P McEniery – Respondent
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW –…

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 Weber v R

Details

AGLC: Weber v R [2020] NSWCCA 103
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 103
Decision Date: 27 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard in the High Court by Bell, Keane and Edelman JJ, with the applicant seeking a reduction in his sentence. The applicant was found guilty of attempting to import 15 kilograms of methylamphetamine into Australia. The sentencing judge did not consider the applicant's early guilty plea in calculating the sentence, and the applicant argued that this was an error which warranted a reduction in his sentence. The applicant also sought a reduction in his sentence due to his cooperation with police at the time of his arrest, but the prosecution argued that there was no evidence of the usefulness of the information provided by the applicant.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge's failure to take into account the applicant's early guilty plea was an error which warranted a reduction in sentence. The court found that the sentencing judge had erred in not considering the applicant's early guilty plea, and that this warranted a reduction in sentence. The court also considered whether the applicant was entitled to a discount for his cooperation with police. The court found that the applicant was entitled to a discount for his cooperation, even though there was no evidence of the usefulness of the information he provided.

The court resentenced the applicant, taking into account the error in not considering his early guilty plea and his cooperation with police. The court found that the applicant was entitled to a discount of 25% for his early guilty plea and a further discount of 25% for his cooperation with police. The court ordered that the applicant be resentenced to a total discount of 50%, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for 12 years and 3 months.

The court ordered that the applicant be resentenced to a total discount of 50%, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for 12 years and 3 months. The court also ordered that the applicant's sentence be backdated to the date of his original sentencing.

Orders