R v Teuma [2001] NSWCCA 369

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Teuma [2001] NSWCCA 369 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60184/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 20/9/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 September 2001

PARTIES : Regina Jason Raymond Teuma JUDGMENT OF : Giles JA at 1,37, 39; Howie J at 38; Carruthers AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/0261 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Nield DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : R A Hulme (Crown) P Kintominas (Applicant) SOLICITORS : S E O'Connor (Crown) Michael Croke & Co (Applicant) CATCHWORDS : Sentencing - appeal against severity - reliance upon JIRS statistics to argue sentence was manifestly excessive bearing in mind only a single episode supply of drugs - applicant said to be a go-between - appeal dismissed. LEGISLATION CITED : Customs Act, 1901 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 R v Bardo (Unreported, NSWCCA, 14 July 1992.) CASES CITED: R v Clark (Unreported, NSWCCA, 15 March 1990) R v Ozer (Unreported, NSWCCA 9 November 1993) The Queen v Olbrich (1999-2000) 199 CLR 270 DECISION : Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

- 8 -IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60184/01

GILES JA HOWIE J CARRUTHERS AJ Thursday 20 September 2001 Regina v Jason Raymond Teuma

JUDGMENT

1 GILES JA: I ask Carruthers AJ to deliver the first reasons for judgment. 2 CARRUTHERS AJ: Jason Raymond Teuma seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Nield at the Parramatta District Court on 21 March 2001. On that day the applicant was sentenced on one count of supply prohibited drug (deemed), the drug being cannabis leaf, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking Act) 1985, which provides a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years and/or 2000 penalty units. His Honour was asked to take into account two charges on a Form 1, being one count of possess prohibited drug (amphetamines) and one count of goods in custody, being cash in the sum of $3,250. 3 Taking into account the matters in the Form 1, his Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for three years to date from 21 March 2001 and to expire on 20 March 2004, and fixed a non-parole period of one year to expire on 20 March 2002. 4 His Honour initially determined that the appropriate head sentence (putting aside the discount for the guilty plea) was imprisonment for four years. His Honour then discounted that term by 25 percent to reach the ultimate head sentence of three years. 5 The special circumstances which his Honour found to justify variation of the nominal ratio, were the applicant's "hitherto unblemished character", (this might be thought to be a generous finding bearing in mind a previous conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol) together with the likelihood that he would not re-offend. 6 The applicant was born on 24 April 1974, and at the date of the offence was in full-time employment as a boilermaker. 7 On 25 March 2000, police from North Shore Detectives with the assistance of police from the Hills CIRT Team conducted an operation in relation to information received from a registered informant, in relation to the supply of cannabis. 8 At 5.25 pm that day, the police arrested the applicant in a vehicle driven by him, shortly after he parked the vehicle in the car park at the Bull and Bush Hotel, Windsor Road, Baulkham Hills. The applicant was accompanied by two persons. One named Sam Haddad, and the other Wayne Hammond. In the boot of the vehicle police located three black plastic garbage bags containing a total of 22 heat sealed vacuum packed plastic bags containing cannabis heads. The total weight of the bags and contents was approximately 10 kilograms with a street value of $300,000. 9 The applicant was taken to Castle Hill Police Station where a search of his wallet located two small clip lock bags containing approximately 2 grams of amphetamines. The applicant was later interviewed by ERISP when he made full admissions, stating that he would have received $400 for each bag for his role in the distribution of the cannabis. 10 The applicant also told police that he had taken possession of a total of 25 bags of cannabis the previous day, and that he had dropped off the other three bags earlier on the day of the arrest, although, at this stage he had not received any money. 11 The applicant declined to reveal to police the identification of any other persons involved in the distribution of the cannabis. 12 At the time of the arrest, the applicant was in possession of $3,250 in Australian currency, which the applicant alleged at that stage was money he had earned through legitimate business. 13 The quantity of cannabis leaf is, of course, more than the indictable quantity of 1000 grams but less than the commercial quantity of 25 kilograms. 14 His Honour accepted (correctly in my view) that the Crown was justified in electing to have the matter dealt with on indictment rather than in the Local Court. 15 The applicant gave evidence before his Honour, but maintained his refusal to identify the person or persons from whom he obtained the cannabis leaf, and the place from which it was obtained. 16 Further, he would not identify the person to whom he handed over, or passed on the three bags, to which reference has already been made. 17 The applicant stated in his record of interview that he was obtaining the cannabis for $3,100 a bag and selling it for $3,500 , thereby making a profit of $400 per bag. His involvement, he asserted, was restricted to picking it up, and delivering it. 18 He claimed that he had not outlaid any money to acquire the drugs (an assertion which his Honour specifically rejected) and expected to make a profit of $10,000 in relation to the entire shipment. 19 He said that he got involved in the distribution of the drugs to make or receive a bit of easy money. 20 The applicant implicated Haddad in the events but contended that he merely asked Hammond to accompany him as a back up in case he got into trouble.