Regina v Riddell [2009] NSWCCA 96

Regina v Riddell [2009] NSWCCA 96

Although the sentencing judge did not err in describing the respondent as a storeman or front, the total sentences were manifestly inadequate. The respondent's role in receiving and storing repeated cocaine consignments was essential to a serious ongoing importation scheme. Acting under duress and receiving no financial reward were relevant mitigating factors, but they did not negate the need for general deterrence. The judge erred by imposing the same sentence for the attempted possession of 3.877 kg of pure cocaine as for possession of 8.080 kg of pure cocaine and by making the sentences wholly concurrent, because the sentence for one offence did not comprehend the total criminality of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Guilty Pleas and Sentencing in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences set aside and respondent resentenced.
Legal Topics
['commonwealth Drug Offences' 'attempting to Possess a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'possessing a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'duress in Sentencing' 'concurrency and Totality' 'quantity of Drugs in Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['commonwealth Drug Offences' 'attempting to Possess a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'possessing a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'duress in Sentencing' 'concurrency and Totality' 'quantity of Drugs in 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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Guilty Pleas and Sentencing in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the respondent's criminality by characterising his role as a storeman or front." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by ordering the sentences to be served concurrently.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to general deterrence where the respondent acted under duress.' 'Whether the sentencing judge placed undue weight on matters personal to the respondent.' 'Whether different quantities of cocaine in related offences required different sentences and some accumulation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge did not err in describing the respondent as a storeman or front, the total sentences were manifestly inadequate. The respondent's role in receiving and storing repeated cocaine consignments was essential to a serious ongoing importation scheme. Acting under duress and receiving no financial reward were relevant mitigating factors, but they did not negate the need for general deterrence. The judge erred by imposing the same sentence for the attempted possession of 3.877 kg of pure cocaine as for possession of 8.080 kg of pure cocaine and by making the sentences wholly concurrent, because the sentence for one offence did not comprehend the total criminality of...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences set aside and respondent resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the orders made by Finnane DCJ on 26 September 2009 and impose the following sentences: Count 1: A sentence of 9 years commencing on 16 June 2007 and expiring on 15 June 2016; Count 2: A sentence of 10 years 6 months commencing on 16 December 2007 and expiring on 15 June 2018.' 'Specify...