R v Collins [2004] NSWCCA 30

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Collins [2004] NSWCCA 30 HEARING DATE(S) : 24/02/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 1 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Levine J at 1; Simpson J at 2; Barr J at 3 DECISION : Appeal dismissed.

CASES CITED : R v Lansdell, Court of Criminal Appeal 23 May 1996 unreported R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561 PARTIES : Regina Tania Lee Collins FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60373/03 COUNSEL : Crown: D U Arnott Respondent: B P Hancock SOLICITORS : Crown: S E O'Connor Respondent: P A Wiggins

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 03/21/3103 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Maguire QC, DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60373/03

LEVINE J SIMPSON J BARR J

Monday, 1 March 2004 REGINA v Tania Lee COLLINS Judgment 1 LEVINE J: I agree with Barr J. 2 SIMPSON J: I agree with Barr J.

3 BARR J: This is an appeal by the Crown against what is said to be the inadequacy of a sentence imposed upon the respondent in the District Court. Having previously pleaded guilty to the ongoing supply of a prohibited drug, namely cocaine, the respondent came before Judge Maguire of Queen's Counsel for sentence. His Honour sentenced her to imprisonment for three years to be served by way of periodic detention and fixed a non-parole period of two years three months. 4 At the time of the events giving rise to the charge the respondent was living with a man called Anthony Mucenski. Both were involved in the supplies which constituted the offence and both pleaded guilty to identical charges. Mucenski pleaded guilty to another charge as well. Supplies were made to an undercover police officer. That officer arranged for another person to telephone Mucenski to inform him that the officer wished to buy drugs. On each occasion there would be the telephone call followed by the attendance of the respondent and Mucenski at the agreed place, supply and payment. Altogether there were four discrete supplies and the total amount of cocaine so supplied was slightly less than one gram. When the respondent and Mucenski were arrested there were found concealed in the respondent's underclothing a number of bags containing 2.6 grams of cocaine. The total weight involved was therefore about three and one half grams. 5 The respondent was nineteen years old at the time of the offence. She gave evidence before his Honour. She said that during the period of their relationship Mucenski began to argue with her about money. He wanted money for gambling and the respondent would be forced to ask her grandmother for money to supply him. He gradually became, as she said, very agro. He never hit or kicked her but threatened to hit her if she did not comply with his wishes. He was using drugs and increased his drug use at about that time. He lost his driving licence and the respondent had to drive him. She became involved in the supply of the drugs. She knew that she was doing wrong and had a choice not to become involved. She did so for two reasons, namely that she feared his anger if she should not do his will and that she was afraid of being alone. She had become emotionally and socially dependent upon him and was afraid to leave him. 6 His Honour accepted this evidence. His Honour accepted as factual this extract from the Probation and Parole Report- Miss Collins was born in Sydney. She stated that her natural father abandoned the family when she was three years old and she has only had contact with him once since then. The offender's mother has a history of appearances before the Courts for drug and driving offences. Miss Collins stated that she has three half siblings. She stated that her upbringing was characterised by frequent moves by her mother and her mother's partners. Miss Collins stated that now she has no time for her mother. The offender stated at the age of fifteen in an attempt to gain some stability in her life she moved in with her maternal grandparents whom she grew to regard as her parents. She stated that she was devastated when her grandfather died in 1999. Miss Collins formed a relationship with Mr Mucenski which lasted two years and during that time she lived with this person and his parents, although she still regarded herself as living with her grandmother. The offender ceased the relationship with Mr Mucenski several months ago. Her grandmother stated that since that time Miss Collins has become 'a new person' and that she now stays at home and concentrates on her job. Miss Collins left school in year 10 without gaining her school certificate however she attended TAFE and gained the equivalent the Certificate II in general education. She also attended a TAFE hairdressing course however it does not hold trade qualifications. The offender was employed in the hairdressing industry for a short time and has also held positions as a telemarketer in the food preparation industry and in the fast food industry. She is currently employed by a fast food chain and hopes to eventually become a manager. Miss Collins stated that she became involved in the offence by driving Mr Mucenski to locations where he sold drugs. She stated that she did so because Mr Mucenski did not have a licence. Miss Collins stated that although she knew she was breaking the law she continued to do so due to verbal threats made against her by Mr Mucenski. The offender stated that Mr Mucenski was not physically violent towards her but feared that he could be. Miss Collins stated that what she did was a very big mistake and that it was 'not something I'm proud of'. She denied having any alcohol and other drug problems, a denial made by her grandmother. 7 The respondent saw a psychologist, Ms Bartlett, so that she could write a report for the Court. She told Ms Bartlett much the same as she told his Honour. Ms Bartlett expressed this opinion- In my opinion Ms Collins stayed with Mr Mucenski not only because she was afraid of his force but because he brought her into his family. Ms Collins' family life had been unsatisfactory to say the least and Mr Mucenski's family accepted her and appeared to be quite fond of her. 8 His Honour accepted the evidence that since her arrest the respondent had severed her relations with Mucenski and his family. He accepted her various expressions of contrition. He concluded that she was not herself in need of further deterrence. He was satisfied that the respondent had been dominated by Mucenski.