Legal Research
Cases
Chamon v R

Chamon v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 112 3 June 2020

Appeal

Sentencing

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: Chamon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112
Hearing dates: 15 April 2020
Decision date: 03 June 2020
Before: R A Hulme J at [1];
Hamill J at [56];
Wilson J at [77]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – parity – same sentencing judge for co-offenders – co-offenders charged with different offences – sentencing judge explicitly addressed differences between offenders – modest sentence in the circumstances – no justifiable sense of grievance – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93T(1), 193B(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 53A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(1)
Cases Cited: Anthony v R [2016] VSCA 22
Dunn v R [2018] NSWCCA 108
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hilder v R [2011] VSCA 192
Jimmy v The Queen (2010) 77 NSWLR 540
Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46
McCloskey-Sharp v R [2015] VSCA 87
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 at 301-302; [1997] HCA 26
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 at 279; [1999] HCA 54
Roujnikov v R [2015] VSCA 97
Ryan v R [2016] VSCA 255
Stocco, Gino v R; Stocco, Mark v R [2018] NSWCCA 77
Tatana v R [2006] NSWCCA 398
Williamson v R [2019] VSCA 138
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Florian Chamon (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr I McLachlan (Applicant)
Mr P Leask (Crown)
Solicitors:
Matouk Joyner Lawyers
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2018/108370
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

19 July 2019

Before:

Norrish QC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/108370

Judgment

R A HULME J: Mr Florian Chamon (the applicant) seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court at Sydney on 19 July 2019 by his Honour Judge Norrish QC.
The applicant had pleaded guilty to the following offences:

Seq 3 – knowingly deal with proceeds of crime ($163,235.90). [1]
Seq 5 – participate in criminal group and contribute to criminal activity (namely supply of prohibited drugs and knowingly deal with proceeds of crime). [2]
Seq 6 – supply prohibited drug (28.3g of MDMA). [3]
1. This is an offence contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for which there is a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years.
2. This is an offence contrary to s 93T(1) of the Crimes Act for which there is a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years.
3. This is an offence contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) for which there is a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years and/or a fine of 2000 penalty units.

The applicant asked that his guilt in respect of two further offences be taken into account in sentencing for the…

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 Chamon v R

Details

AGLC: Chamon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 112
Decision Date: 03 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Chamon v R, the respondent appealed against his sentence for drug trafficking, arguing that the sentence was excessive compared to that of his co-offender. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentencing judge's decision was just and appropriate, considering the differences between the respondents and his co-offender, and whether the disparity in sentences warranted an appeal. The court needed to examine whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the principles of parity and the unique circumstances of each offender, particularly when the co-offender was charged with a different offence.

The court considered the sentencing principles, focusing on the sentencing judge's explicit acknowledgment of the differences between the respondents and his co-offender. The court found that the sentencing judge had adequately addressed these differences and had imposed a modest sentence, taking into account all relevant factors. The High Court emphasised that the principle of parity does not require identical sentences for co-offenders but rather that the sentences be just and appropriate in light of the individual circumstances of each offender. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had exercised proper discretion and that there was no justifiable sense of grievance on the part of the respondent.

In light of the above, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the principles of parity with the need to impose a just and appropriate sentence for the respondent's specific circumstances. The court further emphasised that the sentence was modest in the given circumstances, and there was no basis for the appeal to succeed. The High Court's decision underscores the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need for courts to consider the unique aspects of each case when determining an appropriate penalty.

Orders