Regina v Jamieson Vincent [2006] NSWCCA 276

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Jamieson Vincent [2006] NSWCCA 276

HEARING DATE(S): 28 August 2006 JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1, 43; Whealy J at 41; Howie J at 42

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 08/28/2006

DECISION: Sentence quashed and a new sentence imposed.

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING - Crown appeal for manifest inadequacy - Supply of commercial quantity of prohibited drugs - SENTENCING - Circumstances in which moral culpability of offender involved in actual offence is greater than accessory.

CASES CITED: R v Vincent [2006] NSWCCA 78

PARTIES: Regina (Appellant) Jamieson Vincent (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1241

COUNSEL: J. Girdham (Appellant) P. Boulten SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh – New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) M. Ricci – The Law Practice (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/1161

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nicholson DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 12 May 2006

- 12 - IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2006/1241

SPIGELMAN CJ WHEALY J HOWIE J

Monday 28 August 2006 REGINA v Jamieson VINCENT Judgment 1 SPIGELMAN CJ: This is a Crown appeal against the alleged inadequacy of a sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Nicholson SC in respect of two counts of supplying a commercial quantity of MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy. 2 In an undercover operation two policemen visited the Lady Jane Korean Restaurant which was conducted by the respondent and other members of his family. On two occasions the respondent supplied drugs to the undercover police operatives. On one such occasion the respondent's brother, Shamus Vincent, was present. 3 His Honour also sentenced Tony Vincent, another brother of the respondent, with respect to two other supply charges and also a charge involving the sale of an unregistered firearm and ammunition. One of the supply charges was being knowingly concerned in count 2 on the indictment presently before the Court. 4 The respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced in relation to two counts of supplying a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs. Count 1 alleged that on 28 November 2002 the respondent supplied a commercial quantity of MDMA. Count 2 alleged that on 10 June 2003 the respondent supplied a commercial quantity of MDMA. On each occasion the transaction was for 1000 tablets of variable quality. On the first occasion the tablets contained 247.8 grams of MDMA. On the second they contained 326.3 grams. The cost was $16,500 on each occasion. 5 When passing sentence on count 2, his Honour took into account on a Form 1 containing four charges: (i) supply of 275 grams of MDMA on 8 February 2003;