R v Phelps; R v Zalapa [2018] NSWCCA 191

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Phelps; R v Zalapa [2018] NSWCCA 191 Hearing dates: 8 August 2018 Date of orders: 31 August 2018 Decision date: 31 August 2018 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [2]; Fagan J at [111] Decision: (1) In the matter of Phelps, the Crown appeal is dismissed. (2) In the matter of Zalapa, the Crown appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence in respect of two offenders – R v Phelps – attempting to possess a commercial quantity of cocaine (12kgs pure) – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – whether discount for assistance excessive – limited role of offender – strong subjective case – principles applicable to Crown appeals – importance of Agreed Statement of Facts – amount of discount for assistance excessive – residual discretion should not be exercised in favour of Crown – Crown appeal dismissed – R v Zalapa – offences of importing a commercial quantity of cocaine and dealing with money intending it to be an instrument of crime – whether sentence was manifestly inadequate – Crown bound by manner in which sentence proceedings run – strong subjective case – use of comparable cases limited because of difference in facts – Crown appeal dismissed. Legislation Cited: Criminal Code (Cth) – ss 11.1(1), 307.1(1), 307.5(1), 400.6(1), 400.9(1A) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – ss 3LA(5), 16BA Cases Cited: Alavy v R [2014] VSCA 25 Bugmy v The Queen [1990] HCA 18; 169 CLR 525 Chan, Lo and Nguyen v R [2010] NSWCCA 153 CMB v Attorney General for NSW [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346 Dang v R [2014] NSWCCA 47 Dao v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 183 Deakin v The Queen [1984] HCA 31; 58 ALJR 367 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Blackman; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Jomaa [2014] NSWCCA 90 DPP (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA 237;262 A Crim R 198 El-Ghourani v R [2009] NSWCCA 140; 195 A Crim R 208 Eriyo v R [2015] NSWCCA 16 Harris v R [2015] NSWCCA 81 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Isaac v R [2012] NSWCCA 195 Manyathela v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 13 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Ojielumhen v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 28 Omorogbe v R [2013] NSWCCA 201; 234 A Crim R 556 Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; 131 CLR 623 R v Aaron Tran; Peter Tran; Hoang Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 136; 233 A Crim R 167 R v Barker [2016] NSWCCA 193 R v Boimah [2017] QCA 50 R v Cahill [2015] NSWCCA 53 R v CTG [2017] NSWCCA 163 R v Karan [2013] NSWCCA 53 R v Kijurina [2017] NSWCCA 117 R v MacDonnell [2002] NSWCCA 34; 128 A Crim R 44 R v Merillo [2017] NSWCCA 173 R v Nakash [2017] NSWCCA 196 R v Nolan [2017] NSWCCA 91 R v Onyebuchi; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2016] QCA 143; R v Ostrowski; Ex parte Attorney General (Cth) [2018] QCA 62 R v Schwartz [2018] NSWDC 118 R v Todoroski [2010] NSWCCA 75; 267 ALR 593 R v UE [2016] QCA 58 Stemler v R [2017] NSWCCA 320 Tsai v R [2016] NSWCCA 73 Vandeventer v R [2013] NSWCCA 33 Webber v R [2014] NSWCCA 111 Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584 Zhang v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 105 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions – Applicant Craig Phelps – Respondent Roberto Zalapa – Respondent Representation: Counsel: LK Crowley – Applicant G James QC/P Lange – Respondent Phelps M Smith/L Nurpuri – Respondent Zalapa