Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2018] NSWCCA 36 Hearing dates: 23 February 2018 Date of orders: 23 February 2018 Decision date: 14 March 2018 Before: Simpson JA at [1]; Fullerton J at [10]; McCallum J at [11] Decision: (1) Crown appeal allowed;
(2) Sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 10 November 2016 set aside;
(3) In lieu thereof, the respondent is resentenced to an aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 7 years and 4 months, commencing on 29 August 2013, and expiring on 28 December 2020, with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months, which will expire on 28 June 2023.Catchwords: SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – informers – sentence reduced because of undertaking to assist law enforcement authorities – where informer refuses undertaking – whether sentence should be increased Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5D, 5DA
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 22, 23, 53ACases Cited: R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2016] NSWCCA 216 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Applicant)
Medd (a pseudonym) (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
B Hatfield (Applicant)
S Odgers SC (Respondent)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
Legal Aid NSW (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2013/262792 Publication restriction: Non-publication of any information or material that may lead to the identification of the applicant (Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), s 7) Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Court of Criminal Appeal
- Citation:
- R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2016] NSWCCA 216
- Date of Decision:
- 10 November 2016
- Before:
- Beazley P; Garling J; Fagan J
- File Number(s):
- 2013/262792
Judgment
-
SIMPSON JA: This is a Crown appeal under s 5DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The appeal is not opposed and neither are the specific orders sought by the Crown. It is apparent that, in taking that position, the respondent has had the advice of experienced senior counsel. The facts may therefore be stated briefly.
-
At the conclusion of the hearing the Court made the following orders:
(1) Crown appeal allowed;
(2) Sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 10 November 2016 set aside;
(3) In lieu thereof, the respondent is resentenced to an aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 7 years and 4 months, commencing on 29 August 2013, and expiring on 28 December 2020, with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months, which will expire on 28 June 2023.
-
These are my reasons for joining in those orders.
-
In May and June 2015 the respondent entered pleas of guilty to two counts of drug offences, each involving the supply of not less than the large commercial quantity of methamphetamine. On 16 December 2015 he was sentenced under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Sentencing Procedure Act”) in respect of both offences to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 4 years and 8 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months and a balance of term of 1 year and 2 months. The sentence so imposed incorporated (inter alia) reductions under s 22 and s 23 of the Sentencing Procedure Act, respectively, in recognition of his pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities, the latter quantified at 20 per cent, of which one-third was allocated to past assistance, and two-thirds for anticipated future assistance, for which he had given an undertaking. It is unnecessary to be more explicit concerning the nature of the assistance.
-
Pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act the Crown appealed to this Court, asserting manifest inadequacy of sentence, and including a challenge to the extent of the s 23 reduction. On 10 November 2016 the appeal was upheld and the respondent was resentenced to imprisonment for 9 years and 4 months made up of a non-parole period of 7 years and a balance of term of 2 years and 4 months. The Court reduced the allowance under s 23 to 10 per cent, in the same proportions as at first instance: that is, one-third attributed to past assistance and two-thirds to the future: R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2016] NSWCCA 216.
-
On 18 January, in a handwritten document, the respondent notified his solicitor that he refused to provide the additional assistance he had undertaken to give, citing the Crown appeal as his reason, and claiming that he had been promised immunity from any further appeal.
-
Section 5DA of the Criminal Appeal Act provides as follows:
“5DA Appeal by Crown against reduced sentence for assistance to authorities
(1) The Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions may appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against any sentence imposed on a person that was reduced because the person undertook to assist law enforcement authorities if the person fails wholly or partly to fulfil the undertaking.
(2) On an appeal the Court of Criminal Appeal may, if it is satisfied that the person has failed wholly or partly to fulfil the undertaking, vary the sentence and impose such sentence as it thinks fit.
(3) A reference in subsection (1) to a sentence imposed on a person includes a reference to a sentence that was varied or imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal.”
-
In accordance with the apportionment adopted by this Court, the Crown proposes that the respondent be resentenced to a term that removes the two-thirds reduction attributable to the promised future assistance that was not forthcoming. The Crown proposes that the sentence be increased by 6.6 per cent. It calculates that such an increase would yield a sentence of 9 years and 10 months made up of a non-parole period of 7 years and 4 months and a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months. As mentioned above, that proposal is not opposed by the respondent and I am satisfied that the course proposed by the Crown is appropriate.
-
It was appropriate to resentence the respondent under the provisions of s 53A of the Sentencing Procedure Act to an aggregate term of imprisonment. Pursuant to s 53A(2)(b), the sentences that would have been imposed for the individual sentences (had separate sentences been imposed) are, respectively, 5 years and 10 months, and 8 years and 6 months.
-
FULLERTON J: I agree with Simpson JA.
-
MCCALLUM J: The reasons stated by Simpson JA reflect my reasons for joining in the orders of the Court.
**********
- AGLC
- R v Medd (a pseudonym) [2018] NSWCCA 36
- Case
- [2018] NSWCCA 36
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's agreement with law enforcement authorities constituted a valid basis for reducing his sentence. The court considered whether the appellant had made a genuine and effective promise to assist law enforcement authorities and whether that promise was a factor that should be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The court also considered whether the appellant's failure to fulfill his part of the bargain justified an increase in his sentence.
The court held that the appellant's agreement with law enforcement authorities was a relevant consideration when determining the appropriate sentence. However, the court found that the appellant had not made a genuine and effective promise to assist law enforcement authorities and that his failure to fulfill his part of the bargain did not justify an increase in his sentence. The court held that the appellant's sentence should be reduced because he had provided some assistance to law enforcement authorities, even though he had not fulfilled his part of the bargain to the extent originally agreed. The court also held that the appellant's failure to fulfill his part of the bargain did not negate the value of the assistance he had provided.
The High Court allowed the appeal and reduced the appellant's sentence. The court held that the appellant's agreement with law enforcement authorities was a relevant consideration when determining the appropriate sentence, but that the appellant's failure to fulfill his part of the bargain did not justify an increase in his sentence. The court also held that the appellant's sentence should be reduced because he had provided some assistance to law enforcement authorities, even though he had not fulfilled his part of the bargain to the extent originally agreed. The court did not specify the new sentence that the appellant should serve.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.