REGINA v ARNOTT [2001] NSWCCA 497

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : REGINA v ARNOTT [2001] NSWCCA 497 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60006/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 November 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 November 2001

Regina

PARTIES : v

Diane Joan ARNOTT JUDGMENT OF : Barr J at 1; Adams J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/61/0095 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Andrew DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Mr J S Stratton for the Appellant Ms E A Wilkins for the Crown SOLICITORS : Mr D J Humphreys for the Appellant S E O'Connor for the Crown CATCHWORDS : Sentence - plea of guilty - utilitarian discount - need to take into account avoidance of necessity to call undercover police LEGISLATION CITED : Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 CASES CITED: Thomson & Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 115 A Crim R 104 DECISION : See paragraphs 20 and 21.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60006/01 BARR J ADAMS J MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2001 REGINA v DIANNE ARNOTT Judgment

1 BARR J: The Court is in a position to give judgment now. I will ask Justice Adams to give the first judgment. 2 ADAMS J : Diane Joan Arnott pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge under s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 in that between 14 April 2000 and 18 April 2000 she supplied hereon on four occasions for financial gain. Five additional charges of supplying heroin on 1 April, 31 May, 1 June and 7 June 2000 were taken into account in accordance with s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. 3 The applicant's arrest occurred as a result of a controlled operation targeting the supply of drugs in the Orange area in April and May 2000. It appeared that, on five occasions, undercover police operatives purchased a foil of heroin for $50. The total weight of drugs sold was 0.2 of a gram. 4 The matters taken into account comprised an agreement to supply one further foil of heroin on one of the occasions with which she was charged, the supply of a further $50 deal of heroin to a police undercover operative, sale of three $50 deals of heroin to another person and the supply of 1.1 grams of heroin, this being in her possession for the purpose of supply when she was arrested. 5 When police interviewed the applicant, she made full admissions. The applicant told the police that she purchased $300 of heroin a month from a dealer in Bathurst and that she divided this into twenty deals which she sold at $50 a piece. 6 The applicant said, and there is no reason to disbelieve her, that she had been selling for two months. The applicant was not a drug user. Although she had worked as a process worker, the applicant had substantial debts, partly for unpaid rent to the Housing Commission and partly to the Commonwealth Government for overpayment of a single parent's pension (as I understand it, fraudulently obtained). She also had a gambling problem. 7 The applicant said that she thought that selling drugs to people who came to her home was an easy way of getting out of debt as she had fallen behind on all her repayments and only had about $80 per week to keep herself and her sixteen year old son. In addition, her failure to pay rent meant that she was facing eviction from her home. As the learned sentencing Judge, observed, the applicant was involved in systematic but small-scale drug dealing. She was selling for profit, not to satisfy an addiction it is true, but she was in desperate financial straits with a child to support. 8 It is obvious from what I have said that the applicant admitted her guilt and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. The trial would have been a relatively short and simple one from the Crown's point of view, although his Honour, the learned sentencing Judge, thought it would have been "a not inconsiderable trial". 9 His Honour only gave a discount of twenty per cent to reflect the utilitarian element of the applicant's plea. In Thomson & Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 115 A Crim R 104, a five Judge bench of the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by the Chief Justice, delivered a judgment which concerned appropriate discounts for guilty pleas in this State. 10 The leading judgment, delivered by the Chief Justice, said - "The appropriate range for a discount is from ten to twenty-five percent"