ZZ v R - [2019] NSWCCA 286

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: ZZ v R [2019] NSWCCA 286
Hearing dates: 27 November 2019
Decision date: 12 December 2019
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Button J at [41]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal.
2. Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 12 October 2018 and substitute a sentence of imprisonment for 4 years, 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 9 months dating from 15 April 2017. The applicant will become eligible for release on parole when the non-parole period expires on 14 January 2020.

Catchwords: CRIME – application for leave to appeal against sentence – drug importation offences – whether applicant provided assistance to authorities – offender provided information including name, description, and location of recruiter to authorities in post-arrest interview – finding at sentence that information was of no real assistance to authorities – post-sentence police interview with German authorities – initial information provided by offender confirmed to be true and correct – further information provided by offender of “great value” to German prosecution of recruiter – whether evidence of post-sentencing events is admissible – principle that post-sentence events can be taken into account where significance of facts not appreciated until after sentence – applicant entitled to reduction of sentence for co-operation with authorities pursuant to s 16A(2)(h) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(2)(h), 16F
Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.2(1)
Cases Cited: DL v The Queen [2018] HCA 32; (2018) 358 ALR 666
R v Green (1918) 13 Cr App R 200
Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118; (2011) 209 A Crim R 509
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: ZZ (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Quilter (Applicant)
Ms S Callan (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/114159
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

12 October 2018

Before:

Buscombe DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/114159

HEADNOTE

[This headnote isnotto be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant was sentenced in October 2018 following a plea of guilty to Commonwealth drug importation offences. The offending was detected at Sydney’s international arrivals terminal, where police discovered just under a kilogram of cocaine concealed in her suitcase. Following her arrest, the applicant provided information about the name, description, and potential location of the person in Germany who had recruited her to work as a drug courier.
The provision of that information was disregarded by the sentencing judge, who said that there was no suggestion that it had provided any real assistance to authorities in Germany. Following the imposition of sentence, the applicant participated in an interview with German authorities and provided further information about the recruitment process, the recruiter, and another person involved in the importation. Inquiries later confirmed the initial information provided…

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 ZZ v R

Details

AGLC: ZZ v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 286
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 286
Decision Date: 12 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ZZ v R involved an applicant seeking leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for drug importation offences. The applicant argued that they had provided significant assistance to authorities post-arrest, which should have resulted in a more lenient sentence. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the assistance provided by the applicant, particularly the information they gave about their recruiter, was of real value to the authorities. The sentencing judge had found that the information provided by the applicant was not of real assistance to the authorities. However, after the sentence was imposed, the police conducted an interview with German authorities, who confirmed that the initial information provided by the applicant was accurate and that additional information was of great value in prosecuting the recruiter in Germany.

The court considered the principle that post-sentence events can be taken into account if the significance of those events was not appreciated at the time of sentencing. The court found that the evidence of the value of the applicant’s information to the German prosecution was relevant and should have been considered by the sentencing judge. The court emphasised that the principle of taking post-sentence events into account applies where the significance of those events was not appreciated at the time of sentencing. Here, the significance of the applicant's information was not appreciated until after the sentence was imposed. The court held that the sentencing judge should have considered this new evidence in light of the statutory provision allowing for a sentence reduction for cooperation with authorities.

As a result, the court granted the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence. The court found that the sentencing judge erred in not considering the post-sentencing evidence and that the applicant was entitled to a reduction in sentence for their cooperation with the authorities. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the sentencing judge for reconsideration of the sentence in light of the new evidence.

Orders