White v The Queen - [2006] NSWCCA 340

CITATION: White v R [2006] NSWCCA 340

HEARING DATE(S): 20 October 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 October 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1, 41, 43; Bell J at 42; Johnson J at 2

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 10/20/2006

DECISION: 1. Time for filing an application for leave to appeal against sentence extended to 27 February 2006; 2. Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING - application for extension of time - appeal against severity of sentence - importation of trafficable quantity of MDMA - prior conviction for importation of commercial quantity of cannabis resin - no error demonstrated

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: R v Vachalec (1981) 1 NSWLR 351
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kardoulias v The Queen (2005) 159 A Crim R 252
R v Abbott (1984) 17 A Crim R 355
R v McKenna (Court of Criminal Appeal, 16 October 1992, unreported, BC9201545)

PARTIES: Leslie White (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/650

COUNSEL: Applicant (in Person)
Ms W Abraham QC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/1006

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 23 April 2004

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: ---

- 1 -

2006/650

HIDDEN J
BELL J
JOHNSON J

20 October 2006

LESLIE WHITE v REGINA

Judgment

1 HIDDEN J: I invite Johnson J to deliver the first judgment.

2 JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Leslie White, seeks an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Nield in the Sydney District Court on 23 April 2004. Following a plea of guilty, the Applicant was sentenced for an offence under s.233B(1)(b) Customs Act 1901 (Cth) of importing a trafficable quantity of narcotic goods, namely MDMA, also known as ecstasy. The sentence imposed was comprised of imprisonment for 10 years with a non-parole period of six years, with both terms to date from 3 July 2003.

3 The present application was filed on 27 February 2006. The Applicant has appeared for herself on the present application. In circumstances where the Applicant is unrepresented and is presently in full-time custody, the Crown does not oppose the grant of an extension of time to bring the present application.

The Offence

4 On 17 June 2003, the Applicant departed Sydney by air on a journey to Japan, then Amsterdam and Bangkok before returning to Sydney on 2 July 2003. On 3 July 2003, she attended at the Australian Customs Building at Mascot to collect a pair of snow skis which she had sent by air freight from Bangkok to Sydney. Examination of the skis revealed that each of them contained a hollowed section and that each hollowed section contained a quantity of tablets. There were approximately 1,300 tablets in all. The tablets weighed 463.4 grams. Analysis of the tablets revealed that they contained MDMA. The quantity of pure…

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 White v The Queen

Details

AGLC: White v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 340
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 340
Decision Date: 20/10/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of White v The Queen involved the defendant, who was convicted of importing a trafficable quantity of MDMA. The defendant had a prior conviction for importing a commercial quantity of cannabis resin. The defendant sought to appeal against the severity of his sentence and applied for an extension of time to do so. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a sentence that the defendant considered to be excessively severe. The court also needed to determine whether the defendant had demonstrated a sufficient ground for the extension of time to appeal.

The court found that the trial judge had not made any error in sentencing. The court emphasised that sentencing is a matter for the trial judge's discretion, and the appellate court would only intervene if there was a demonstrable error. The court noted that the defendant's prior conviction for a serious drug offence was a relevant factor in determining the severity of the sentence. The court found that the sentence was within the range of reasonable outcomes and that the defendant had not demonstrated any error by the trial judge. As a result, the application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the original sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders