R v PARKER [2002] NSWCCA 330

R v PARKER [2002] NSWCCA 330

The applicant’s removal of Sudafed tablets and acquisition of precursor chemicals, in context and with requisite knowledge, were sufficient in law as steps in the process of manufacture. The applicant’s pleas of guilty, made with legal advice and on the admitted facts, amounted to admissions of all legal ingredients of the offences. There was no miscarriage of justice warranting leave to change those pleas. However, the original sentence for count 1 was excessive as it failed to properly apply the principles of totality and concurrency/cumulation as required by Pearce v The Queen, and must be reduced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application to Change Plea and Severity Appeal
Outcome
Application to change pleas refused; sentence for count 1 quashed and appellant resentenced
Legal Topics
['drug Offences' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'application to Change Plea' 'drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985' 'manufacture and Supply of Prohibited Drugs' "construction of 'step in the Process of Manufacture'" 'sentencing Principles' 'cumulative and Concurrent Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['drug Offences' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'application to Change Plea' 'drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985' 'manufacture and Supply of Prohibited Drugs' "construction of 'step in the Process of Manufacture'" 'sentencing Principles' 'cumulative and Concurrent Sentencing']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application to Change Plea and Severity Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be permitted to change his pleas of guilty to not guilty on specified counts' "The correct interpretation of 'step in the process of manufacture' under s6 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985" 'Whether the sentence imposed on count 1 was manifestly excessive by reason of misapplication of sentencing principles']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant’s removal of Sudafed tablets and acquisition of precursor chemicals, in context and with requisite knowledge, were sufficient in law as steps in the process of manufacture. The applicant’s pleas of guilty, made with legal advice and on the admitted facts, amounted to admissions of all legal ingredients of the offences. There was no miscarriage of justice warranting leave to change those pleas. However, the original sentence for count 1 was excessive as it failed to properly apply the principles of totality and concurrency/cumulation as required by Pearce v The Queen, and must be reduced.

Court Disposition

Application to change pleas refused; sentence for count 1 quashed and appellant resentenced

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to the appellant to change his pleas to counts 2, 4 and 5' 'Quash the sentence imposed on count 1; sentence the appellant on count 1 to a term of 9 years imprisonment to commence on 10 November 2002 and to expire on 9 November 2011 with a non-parole period of 6 years to commence on 10 November 2002...