Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: A v R [2018] NSWCCA 289 Hearing dates: 12 October 2018 Decision date: 14 December 2018 Before: White JA at [1];
Walton J at [61];
Wilson J at [62]Decision: (1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the sentence imposed in the District Court on 8 March 2018.
(2) Order that the appeal be allowed and that the sentence passed in the District Court on 8 March 2018 be quashed.
(3) In lieu thereof, order that the applicant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine years with a non-parole period of five years and eight months, and a balance term of three years and four months. The non-parole period will date from 27 October 2016 and expire on 26 June 2022, and the balance term will expire on 26 October 2025. The applicant will be first eligible for parole on 27 June 2022.Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Robbery in company – Supply of not less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Where applicant had provided assistance to law enforcement authorities – Where primary judge stated that assistance to authorities had been exhausted in separate Local Court proceedings – Where transcript of Local Court proceedings indicated that they had not been exhausted – Where transcript was not provided to primary judge – Whether legitimate sense of grievance arising from sentence imposed upon co-offender – Application for leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), s 7
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 23
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97, 192E
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25, 33Cases Cited: Burrows v R [2017] NSWCCA 45
Franklin v R [2018] NSWCCA 245
R v JW (2010) 77 NSWLR 7; [2010] NSWCCA 49
R v XX [2017] NSWCCA 90; (2017) 266 A Crim R 132
Sheen v R [2014] NSWCCA 42
SZ v R [2007] NSWCCA 19; (2007) 168 A Crim R 249Category: Principal judgment Parties: A (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G D Wendler (Applicant)
F A Veltro (Crown)
R Grady (NSW Commissioner of Police)
Van Houten Law (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s): 2015/2538052016/321587 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Date of Decision:
- 8 March 2018
- Before:
- Colefax SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2015/253805
2016/321587
Judgment
-
WHITE JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. At the commencement of the hearing, on the application of the NSW Commissioner of Police, the Court made an order pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) that the true identity of the applicant be suppressed until further order of the Court together with any evidence, submission, discussion, document or information that might facilitate identification of the true identity of the applicant. The…
Continue reading A v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- A v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 289
- Case
- [2018] NSWCCA 289
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed the procedural fairness of the primary judge's consideration of the applicant's cooperation with authorities and the impact of that cooperation on the sentence imposed. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the applicant had a legitimate grievance concerning the sentence imposed on a co-offender, which might have influenced the sentence handed down to the applicant. The court's task was to evaluate the merits of the application for leave to appeal, considering the procedural and substantive fairness of the primary judge's decision-making process.
In examining the application, the court noted that the primary judge had been provided with incomplete information regarding the extent of the applicant's cooperation with authorities. Specifically, the primary judge had been informed that the applicant's assistance to authorities had been exhausted in separate Local Court proceedings, despite the transcript of those proceedings indicating otherwise. This omission was significant, as it could have affected the sentence imposed. The court held that the applicant had demonstrated a legitimate grievance concerning the sentence, which warranted the grant of leave to appeal. However, upon further review, the court found that the appeal itself did not succeed, and the original sentence was upheld.
Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The High Court did not alter the sentence imposed by the primary judge, thereby affirming the original decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.