Citation: Regina v Coates & Murphy [2002] NSWCCA 481
Court: New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 9 December 2002
Judge(s): Beazley JA, Sperling J, Carruthers AJ
Background
Two appellants, a woman and a man who had been in a relationship, were convicted in the District Court at Parramatta on a charge of conspiracy to manufacture methylamphetamine in an amount not less than the commercial quantity (250g), contrary to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Police had apprehended them leaving a residential property at Luddenham, which a forensic chemist concluded had been used as a clandestine drug laboratory. Chemicals, scientific glassware, and quantities of methylamphetamine and its precursor pseudoephedrine were found at the premises.
The pair were tried alongside two co-accused. Notably, at the close of the Crown case, one of those co-accused changed his plea to guilty, prompting the remaining accused to seek a discharge of the jury. That application was refused. Each appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment with an 18-month non-parole period.
On appeal, the female appellant was represented by counsel; the male appellant appeared unrepresented and did not wish to make submissions on his conviction appeal.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial judge gave adequate directions on the elements of the offence of conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug
- Whether irreparable prejudice was caused to the remaining accused when a co-conspirator pleaded guilty at the conclusion of the Crown case, necessitating discharge of the jury
- Whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory
- Whether the sentences imposed were within the available discretionary range
Decision
The Court dismissed the conviction appeals of both appellants and also dismissed their sentence appeals after granting leave.
On the question of jury directions, the Court examined whether the trial judge had adequately explained the elements of criminal conspiracy in the context of this case. The Court found no error in the directions given, concluding they were adequate for the jury to properly determine guilt.
On the mid-trial guilty plea by the co-accused Williams, the Court rejected the argument that his change of plea at the close of the Crown case caused irreparable prejudice to the remaining accused. The trial judge had refused to discharge the jury and the appellants challenged that refusal, but the Court of Criminal Appeal found no error in that ruling.
The Court also rejected the contention that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. On sentence, the Court noted that the offence was serious, carrying a maximum of 20 years imprisonment, and that the trial judge had balanced the objective gravity of the offence against the relevant subjective features of each appellant. The non-parole period, set at 50% of the head sentence, was considered particularly favourable to both appellants. The sentences were found to fall within the available discretionary range.
Orders Made
- Conviction appeal dismissed for both appellants
- Leave to appeal against sentence granted for both appellants
- Sentence appeal dismissed for both appellants
Key Takeaways
- A mid-trial change of plea by a co-accused does not automatically entitle remaining accused to a discharge of the jury; the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that the refusal to discharge was not erroneous on the facts here.
- Where a co-conspirator pleads guilty during trial, the indictment may be amended to name that person as a co-conspirator with the remaining accused, and the trial may proceed without prejudice to those accused.
- Adequate directions on the elements of conspiracy are required, but the Court found no deficiency in the directions given in this trial.
- In sentencing for commercial-quantity drug manufacturing conspiracies, the objective gravity of the offence can outweigh favourable subjective circumstances, including emotional vulnerability and limited prior criminal history.
- No error was established in either conviction or sentence, reinforcing that appellate courts will not intervene where a sentence falls within the range open to the sentencing judge.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 24(1) and 26
Cases:
- Chamberlain v The Queen (1985) 153 CLR 521
- Nirta v The Queen (1938) 79 FLR 190
- Tripodi v The Queen (1960-1961) 104 CLR 1
- Weeder v The Queen [1979] Qd R 278