Legal Research
Cases
Bridge v The Queen

Bridge v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 233 14 September 2020

Sentence Appeal

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Parity Principle

Commercial Quantity Supply

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Bridge v R [2020] NSWCCA 233
Hearing dates: 15 July 2020
Date of orders: 14 September 2020
Decision date: 14 September 2020
Before: Johnson J at [1];
Price J at [2];
Wright J at [61]
Decision:
(1)   Extend the time for leave to appeal.
(2)   Grant leave to appeal.
(3)   Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – aggregate sentence – offenders charged with different crimes – whether parity principle applies to indicative sentences for large commercial quantity supply offence – understandable sense of grievance – whether
co-offender’s indicative sentence manifestly inadequate – whether applicant had a legitimate sense of grievance

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), Pt 7 Div 3
Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth), ss 6(1), 11(2)(b), 14(1)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 53A(2)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(2), 61, 93T(1A), 93T(4A), 193B(2)-(3)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 10(1), 25(1)-(2), 25A(1)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 7(1), 65(3)

Cases Cited:
AMZ v R [2017] NSWCCA 184
Application by AMZ pursuant to Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act (NSW) [2017] NSWSC 432
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49; 86 ALJR 36; 283 ALR 1; 214 A Crim R 152
Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540; [2010] NSWCCA 60; 269 ALR 115; 240 FLR 27
Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26; 71 ALJR 875; 145 ALR 408; 94 A Crim R 397
R v Ilbay [2000] NSWCCA 251
R v Kollas and Mitchell [2002] NSWCCA 491
Saraya v R [2015] NSWCCA 63

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael David Bridge (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G A Newton (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Other:
Applicant (self-represented)

File Number(s): 2016/155191; 2016/213493; 2016/249922
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2018] NSWDC 96

Date of Decision:

22 March 2018

Before:

Bright DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/155191; 2016/213493; 2016/249922

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with Price J.
PRICE J: On 22 March 2018, Michael David Bridge (“the applicant”) was sentenced by Bright DCJ (“the sentencing judge”) to a total effective sentence of imprisonment for 10 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 4 months.
The applicant who was self-represented, seeks leave to appeal his sentence on the single ground of “[t]he parity sentence with my co-offender Abdul [Hassian]”.
Abdul Hassian was sentenced by English DCJ (“the judge”) on 20 June 2019 to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 10 years and 6 months with an aggregate non-parole period of 6 years.
The applicant requires an extension of time to pursue this appeal. He filed a Notice of Appeal on 17…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bridge v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bridge v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 233
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 233
Decision Date: 14 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bridge v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted and sentenced for a large commercial quantity supply offence. The appellant appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate in comparison to the sentence of his co-offender. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal and was required to determine whether the parity principle applies to indicative sentences for large commercial quantity supply offences and whether the appellant had a legitimate sense of grievance.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the parity principle applies to indicative sentences for large commercial quantity supply offences, where the offenders are charged with different crimes. The court needed to decide if the appellant's understandable sense of grievance was sufficient to warrant a reconsideration of his sentence, given that his co-offender's indicative sentence appeared manifestly inadequate. The court also had to examine if the appellant's sense of grievance was legitimate, considering the differences in the charges and the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the parity principle does not apply to indicative sentences for large commercial quantity supply offences. The court held that the differences in the charges and circumstances between the appellant and his co-offender justified the disparity in their sentences. The court concluded that the appellant did not have a legitimate sense of grievance, as the disparity in their sentences was justified by the differences in their respective crimes and roles. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and the original sentence of the appellant be upheld. The decision affirmed the importance of considering the differences in charges and circumstances when determining sentences for co-offenders charged with different crimes.

Orders